1932-10-28

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move:
That when this house adjourns on Monday, October 31, 1932. it stands adjourned until Wednesday, November 2, 1932, and that on the said Wednesday, and subsequent Wednesdays until the end of the session, the sittings shall in every respect be under the same rules as provided for other days.
He said: The motion had better be amended by substituting the word "adjournment" for the words "end of the session."


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I was just going to ask my right hon. friend if that was not his intention.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, and I m'ove accordingly.
Motion as amended agreed to.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. REED:: 1.	What amount of customs duties were collected on fcesh fish during the months of January to the end of September, 1932, by the customs ports of New Westminster and Boundary Bay?
2.	What were the respective amounts and number of each variety of fresh fish entering the ports of New Westminster and Boundary Bay during the periods above-mentioned?


Mr. RYCKMAN:: 1 and 2. It is contrary to the established practice to give information that would disclose the business of any private concern.
In view of the limited quantity of fish imported at New Westminster and Boundary Bay and the limited number of importers private business might be disclosed if the information asked for were given.


COST OF WELLAND CANAL
Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: 1.	What was the original estimate for the construction of the Welland canal, province of Ontario?
2.	What is the actual cost to date, of said
canal ?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	No accurate detailed estimate of the cost of the Welland ship canal was ever

Questions

made. A very rough preliminary estimate made in 1912 totalled $50,000,000.
2.	The actual capital net cost of the Welland Ship Canal to September 30, 1932, amounts to $127,308,155.64.
king's counsellors


Mr. POULIOT:: What are the names of the lawyers who received the title of King's Counsel within the last ten years, and what date did each receive said title?


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: The following is a list of persons who have been appointed King's Counsel by the Dominion government during the last ten years:	Wilfrid Leroy
Phelps, 21st September, 1922; W. Stuart Edwards, 7th January, 1927; The Honourable P. J. A. Cardin, 16th January, 1928; The Honourable Wm. J. Major, 16th January, 1928; Ethraine Herbert Coleman, 3rd September, 1929; The Honourable Maurice Dupre, 12th March, 1931; The Honourable George Black, 17th December, 1931.


FORMULA K-9-NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Since what date has Formula K-9 of the National Revenue department been used?
2.	On whose request, by whom and why was it drawn up?


Mr. RYCKMAN:: 1.	Form corresponding to present Form K. 9 but altered from time to time, has been used since year 1881, when law was enacted requiring the collector or other proper officer to make a report of seizures to the Commissioner of Customs.
2.	Report required by section 171 Customs Act. Form thereof prepared departmentally.


PENSIONS AND NATIONAL HEALTH-EXPENDITURE
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	What was the total amount voted to the Department of Pensions and National Health, during each of the past three years?
2.	What was the total amount expended?
3.	What was the amount that entered in each year direct to pensioners?
4.	What was the amount that entered to the medical profession?
5.	What was the amount of the cost of administration?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The third question which reads, "What was the amount that entered in each year direct to pensioners?" is not, shall I say, intelligible as it stands. I presume that what is wanted is the payments made in each year.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Question stands.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE-NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	How many officers and men constitute the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police of Nova Scotia?	4	,
2.	What is the estimated cost of their maintenance?
3.	Who are the medical officers attached to
the corps?	_	,
4.	W'hat salary is paid to each of said officers ?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: There is some uncertainty as to the meaning of the fourth question, "What salary is paid to each of the said officers?" Does that refer to each of the medical officers?


Mr. DUFF:: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: I will have the answer
prepared.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Question stands.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-APPOINTMENTS
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Up to what age and after how many years of service can an employee be appointed permanent in the locomotive and car department of the Canadian National Railways?
2.	Can a temporary employee replace such a permanent employee in said department?
3.	What is the schedule in force as regards the appointment of permanent and temporary employees and the right to seniority of each in said department?


Mr. MANION:: This question refers entirely to the internal management of the railway. The government has no information whatsoever in regard to the matter and I would suggest that if the hon. member would address his question to the railway company, they would probably be glad to give him any information he desires.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Dropped.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-COUNSEL
Mr. BLAIR:: 1.	How long has Peter White, K.C., acted for the Canadian National Railways Company or its subsidiary companies?
2.	What fees have been paid Peter White, K.C., during the years 1917 to 1932, inclusive?
3.	W'hat have his living allowances or
expenses been during this period:	(a) by
years; (b) by months; (e) and what months?
4.	What officers taxed the bills of Peter White, K.C., during these periods?
5.	Did the minister in charge during these periods pass upon the bills of costs of Peter White, K.C., in each instance?


Robert James Manion: This is practically the same type of question as the previous one to which I have just spoken. It is a question for the internal management, and in regard to the

Motions for Papers
fifth question, "Did the minister in charge during these periods pass upon the bills of costs of Peter White, K.C., in each instance?" I would point out that no Minister of Railways ever passes upon the costs of any counsel engaged by the Canadian National Railway Company.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
1LE-AUX-COUDRES-LES EBOTJLEMENTS FERRY SERVICE
On the motion of Mr. Jacobs (for Mr. Casgrain):
For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, petitions and other documents, in connection with the ferry boat service between Ile-aux-Coudres and Les Eboulements, in the county of Charlevoix, since the 1st of January, 1932, together with the evidence taken in writing of all the witnesses heard at the hearing held by Mr. F. E. Bawden, of the Trade and Commerce Department, at Baie St. Paul, in the month of May, 1932, and his report upon such matter to the minister, and a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, petitions and other documents in possession of the Department of Trade and Commerce since the 16th of May, 1932, to date, with reference to said steamboat service.
Mr. STEVEN'S:	I would draw attention
to an inaccuracy in the wording. The motion refers to evidence taken in writing of all the witnesses heard at a hearing. There was no hearing and no evidence taken. I merely mention that so that the hon. member will not later on call attention to the fact that there is nothing of that character on the file when it is brought down.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Motherwell:
For a copy of all the correspondence, memoranda and other documents, exchanged between any members of the government and the various branch officials of the Department of Agriculture, comprising the committee or sub-committee of that department, appointed to prepare data for the information of the government and the Ottawa conference.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I would ask the hon.
gentleman to withdraw this motion. It is quite obvious that documents that pass between officials and the government in preparation for a conference should not be submitted to the house. Many of them, as a matter of fact, have been destroyed. I think upon mature consideration and after conference w'ith his leader, the hon. gentleman will see that this is not information that should be brought down.
53719-41 i


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I quite understand
that events that happened at the conference should not be made public, but I am asking for correspondence which took place before the conference, and which is a matter of common knowledge.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did try to supply my
non. friend with statistics so far as we could. A very large number of matters were discussed and much correspondence exchanged between the ministers and the officials charged with responsibility, and I am sure it would be difficult to make any story that would be in intelligible sequence because notes and memoranda were passing all the time in preparation for the conference.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is it the pleasure of the
house that the hon. member shall have leave to withdraw his motion.
Motion withdrawn.



SMOOTH HOCK, 0NT., MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. PERRAS (for Mr. Bradette):: For a copy of all correspondence, including letters, telegrams and other documents in possession of the Post Office Department, having regard to the mail carrying contract from the Canadian National Railways station at Smooth Rock, to Smooth Rock Falls, which contract was given by tenders that were closed on the 20th of May, 1932; also the name of person or persons to whom the said contract was given.



COLE HARBOUR-GRAND MANAN-LOBSTER SEASON

William Duff: For a copy of all correspondence, including letters, telegrams and other documents, passing between any person or persons in the province of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and the acting Minister of Fisheries, or any of his officials, regarding the lobster season from Cole Harbour to Grand Manan, changing said season from the 1st of March to the 31st of May, to the 1st of December to the end of May; also copy of order in council making said change and specifying the size limit of lobsters.



CABLE SHIP HENRY HOLMES

William Duff: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents, passing between the Minister of Public Works and any of his officials, and any person or persons in Nova Scotia, from 1926 to 1930, inclusive, relative to the purchasing of the cable ship Henry Holmes.



ST. LAWRENCE RIVER DEMARCATION

Mr. SEGUIN (for Mr. Pouliot):: For a copy of all orders in council in connection with the line of demarcation of the internal and external waters of the St. Lawrence river, within the last ten years.

Transportation Commission



FORMULA K-9-NATIONAL REVENUE

Paul-Arthur Séguin: For a copy of the Formula K-9 of the National Revenue Department.



INDIAN AGENTS-NOVA SCOTIA

Mr. HEPBURN (for Mr. ILsley):: For a copy of all the correspondence, including letters, telegrams and other documents, and all orders in council, since January 1, 1932, relating to the abolition of the positions of Indian agents in the province of Nova Scotia, and to the restoration of such positions, and to the abolition of the positions of inspectors of Indian agencies in the province of Nova Scotia, including a copy of all letters to Indian agents or inspectors in reference to their dismissal or the abolition of their positions and their appointment or reappointment.



ST. ARSENE POSTMASTER

Paul-Arthur Séguin: For a copy of all correspondence, petitions, telegrams, reports and other documents, relative to the appointment of the postmaster of St. Arsene, Temiscouata county, since the 2nd of March, 1932.



BRUNETTE RIVER, B.C.

Mr. REID:: For a copy of all telegrams, letters, reports and correspondence between the Minister of Public Works or any officials of his department, and the District Engineer of the Department of Public. Works in the city of New Westminster, or any other person in the province of British Columbia, regarding all matters relating, in any way to the Brunette river.



TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the orders of the day are
proceeded with I have pleasure in advising the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) that two complete sets of the recorded proceedings of the royal commission on railways and transportation in five volumes, are being made available for reference purposes by being lodged with the parliamentary librarian, as agreed upon the other day; as well as two copies of the Parker report, Mr. Parker being an expert employed by the commission to analyse the figures submitted by the railway corporations. He was assisted by Mr. Franklin of the Department of Railways and Canals and by officers representing the accounting and finance departments of the two railways. He has prepared a report two copies of which are also being lodged with the five volumes in question.
IMr. S4guin.]



PROCEDURE RESPECTING CANADIAN NATIONAL-CAN AD IAN PACIFIC BILL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Prime Minister or the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion). In view of the fact that the railway bill has been introduced into the Senate, and the further fact that an item appears in the press this morning stating that it is the pleasure of the government to conclude the present sittings by, I think, November 10, would the government be prepared to give any information as to whether it is their intention to press the bill through this house before the conclusion of this sitting, that is before the New Year?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Answering the several questions:
First, there has been no intimation from the government that the house will rise on the tenth of November; second, there is no intention on the part of the government, as far as at present advised, to proceed with the bill unless it is the view of the house that it should be done before the adjournment. After it has been dealt with in the Senate it will come here in due course, and if it is the view of the house that it should not be proceeded with until after adjournment, it will not be as I explained on the very first day the matter was mentioned.


William Daum Euler: When the hon. gentleman
says " If it is the view of the house," does that mean the government has not necessarily any definite intention in regard to the matter, or that it must be unanimous on the part of the members?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I made it as clear as I
possibly could by the use of words that the temper of the house itself would determine whether or not the members thought there was ample opportunity to study the provisions of the measure; and if it was the general opinion of the house, expressed in the usual way through the right hon. leader of the opposition, and those who sit to his left, we would not proceed with the measure. In other words, the usual course in matters of this kind will be followed, and whatever time is thought necessary to enable the house to be fully seized of the provisions of the measure will be accorded.



BRITISH DUTIES ON COPPER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,

British Duties on Copper
may I ask the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) a question based upon a representation that appears in a press cable dispatch as to certain proceedings in the British House of Commons yesterday. The paragraph to which I wish to direct my right hon. friend's attention is as follows:
Aid for Canadian and other empire copper producers was seen in announcement by Walter Runciman, President of the Board of Trade, that the government will seek to impose an import duty of approximately four cents a pound on foreign raw copper, on the ground the empire is capable of producing enough of the metal for British needs.
The purpose of the duty, an almost prohibitive one, Mr. Runciman said, would be to build up an empire supply of copper. He reminded the house, however, that the United Kingdom s delegation to the Ottawa conference had agreed to a duty on the red metal only on the stipulation consumers and producers reach a common understanding on demand and supply.
I should like to ask my right hon. friend if he is in agreement with the President of the Board of Trade in Great Britain as to there having been a stipulation that the duty on the red metal should apply only on the condition that consumers and producers reach a common understanding on demand and supply. Also whether there are any other stipulations or understandings with respect to any of the matters which appear in the agreement of which this house is not already fully aware.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the house is fully aware of the conditions referred to by the right hon. President of the Board of Trade yesterday. The agreement provides, with respect to copper and zinc and wheat, that on the first sale the price should be the world price. I have no reason to believe that the Right Hon. Walter Runciman is doing other than referring to that matter in the language used in the press dispatch. Reference has frequently been made in this house to that provision as contained in one of the paragraphs of the agreement. There are no stipulations of any kind that are at variance with the terms and conditions of the agreements themselves, as far as I know. And I probably would know if there were.
As far as the question of copper itself is concerned, it is only necessary to point out, what the press reports indicate, namely the necessity of making provision for empire copper being used in Great Britain, the third . largest consumer in the world. I think what I said when I presented the agreement to the house fully explains the situation; there has been no departure from it as far as I know. But while the conference was in session there
were conferences also between producers and representatives of the consumers in Great Britain for the purpose of ascertaining the extent to which the producers of the empire were in a position to supply the wants of the empire.
I believe they satisfied themselves fully upon that point. I take it from what I saw of the report in the press that the President of the Board of Trade was but directing attention to that fact and to the arrangements that have been made as contained in the agreement.



PORTSMOUTH PENITENTIARY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. SAMUEL FACTOR (Toronto West Centre):: May I ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) if the government intends to hold a public inquiry into the recent riots at Portsmouth penitentiary?


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, the government has no intention of holding a public inquiry. There is an inquiry going on now, conducted by the superintendent of penitentiaries. As soon as that is concluded, if any action is necessary it will be taken. But up to the present time I have not got the superintendent's first report.
COAL SUBSIDY On the orders of the day:


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton) :: I would like to inquire of the Prime Minister if it is the intention to continue for another year the present subsidies on the movement of coal both east and west.
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, that is in the department of the Minister of Mines (Mr. Gordon) who is not in his place just now, but my memory is that it is covered by an order in council that carries it up to the end of the fiscal year in any event. That is my-memory at the moment.



HUDSON BAY RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) but as he is not in his seat I would like to direct it to the Prime Minister. The question deals with the sinking of the steamship Bright Fan in Hudson strait. In view of
646	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
the fact that a British freighter while proceeding from Churchill with a cargo of wheat to the British Isles was sunk in Hudson strait, and in view of the further fact that the government instituted an investigation into the causes of the disaster, adducing, I think, important evidence for Canada, and especially for western Canada, may I ask the Prime Minister if he intends to have the information and conclusions arrived at in that investigation printed in blue book form and distributed to the members?
.'Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister): It has not been considered, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. McINTOSH:: Well, I think it ought to be considered, because it is important information.



IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, October 27, consideration of the motion of Right Hon. R. B. Bennett (Prime Minister) for approval of the trade agreement entered into at Ottawa the 20th day of August, 1932 between representatives of His Majesty's government in Canada and His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom, subject to the legislation required in order to give effect to the fiscal changes consequent thereon.
Mr. ONESIME GAGNON (Dorchester):: "Why don't you make a bargain with Great Britain, with the mother country? Why do not you ask them to give us a preference?" Well, they did ask us to give a preference, and at the last conference the Canadian minister said: "You have got a corn tax of only Is. a quarter, which cannot be appreciated in coin of the realm." Not a farthing, but less^than one-eighth of a penny per quartern loaf-sup-
650	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
posing it were all paid by the consumer. They said: "It is of no real consequence, but as a matter of sentiment it will show your feeling towards us as we have shown our feeling towards you. Give us a drawback. That will not hurt your people."
The same distinguished gentleman speaking in Gainsborough on February 1, 1905, said:
You see what it is I am urging upon you. It falls upon you, the living generation, to maintain the empire. Let us go a step further. The minds, not only of British statesmen, but of colonial statesmen, were directed by the late war to consider the circumstances of our mutual relations. They considered these circumstances, and they did not find them satisfactory. You have to take that into your serious consideration. All these statesmen, speaking from different parts of the globe, under different conditions, governing great communities, very varied in their character, they all turned their minds in the same direction.
And again:
When Sir Wilfrid Laurier says to you, as he has said, that "we offer to meet you, and to make a treaty with you by which you shall treat us and we will treat you a little better that we both treat the foreigner," I do not know any name in the English language that I can give to that statement except to call it an offer. And the offer which Sir Wilfrid Laurier made has been repeated again and again in different words, in different forms, always to the same effect, not only by the statesmen of Canada, whichever side of politics they are on, but also by the statesmen of the other self-governing colonies.
And later at the same meeting he said:
That is what they ask. And in order to give it to them, we should have to put a small tax upon these articles. They do not want a big tax. All they ask is for the turn of the scale. In trade, as no one knows better than the great industrial and manufacturing concerns, the majority of which are entirely in favour of this policy, "the turn of the scale" is a consideration. In our modern trade, transactions are so large that a farthing will make the difference where in the time of our ancestors they would have required larger consideration.
If I may use the words of Mr. Chamberlain, a small preference of six, seven or eight cents may seem small when considered only as figures, but when the total trade is considered it means a lot for Canadian commerce.
During the war both parties were concerned chiefly with the efforts of our armies on the battlefield and I contend that after the wrar it was incumbent upon the Liberal administration not to forget the gospel preached in England by Mr. Chamberlain and brought to Canada in 1902 by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Instead of following the policy of Laurier and demanding a preference on empire markets for Canadian goods, the Liberal administration between 1921 and 1930 in-

creased British preferences in some cases to fifty per cent without asking anything in return. Our Prime Minister has proved to be the first leader in twenty years who has had the clear vision and necessary strength to put forward, starting in 1930 and ending in 1932 at the imperial conference, a proper Canadian policy for the promoting of trade relations between Canada and the other dominions.
The Prime Minister has symbolized in the words Canada first not only the traditions and doctrines of the Conservative party but the aspirations of all Canadians who are jealous not only of safe-guarding the autonomy of Canada but of promoting the success of Canadian commerce throughout the world. Canada first means that in matters of foreign relations Canada will be guided solely by its own interests; in matters of economic and commercial relations, the Canada first policy means that Canada's attitude will be guided solely by a desire to protect Canadian farmers, Canadian manufacturers and Canadian consumers on the markets of the world. The policy of Canada first does not imply in any sense the idea of disloyalty to the British crown. It is the expression of the soundest nationalism, the consciousness of a legitimate national pride, of a spirit of loyal and sincere cooperation with the sister dominions to achieve the greatness and security of the whole British commonwealth with the understanding that each dominion remains free and untrammelled in the pursuit of its own destiny. For all these reasons, the policy of Canada first has found a very cheerful response in the hearts of all true Canadians. We Conservatives are proud of that policy, which was the policy of Macdonald and Cartier. We shall heartily and cheerfully defend it and we shall promote it to the fullest extent possible.
Mr. Speaker, would you like to know what the Liberal party of Quebec, through the hon. member for Quebec East, thinks of that policy of Canada first? Speaking in Ottawa on April 21, 1932, at the Chateau Laurier at a meeting organized by the Ottawa Liberal Women's Club-


Mr. CHEVRIER:: Hear, hear.	.


Onésime Gagnon: -in the presence of the former Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott), the former Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan), the former Minister of Immigration (Mr. Stewart), the former Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) and all the big stalwarts of the Liberal party, the ex-Minister of Justice uttered these *words which he has repeated in Maisonneuve and South Huron: "The policy of Canada first is real madness." What a suavity of ex-

United Kingdom
pression! What a sentiment of national pride coming from a distinguished gentleman who pretends to personify the aspirations of his fellow-countrymen! In the course of the debate last week the hon. member for Quebec East said that he belonged to another school of thought. No doubt, when we recall what he said about Canada first, which he qualified as being a policy of real madness, you will realize, sir, that he belongs to a different school of thought from that to which those who sit on your right belong. It is no surprise that since the opening of the session Liberal members seem to attach such great importance to the declarations made in the house by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). It is no surprise that the latter so highly praises the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) for his conversion to the radical ideas of those of the extreme left who contend that Canada ought to adopt the policy of control of national credit. If that is the school to which the hon. member for Quebec East claims to belong, let him have the courage to say so immediately or else let him restrain his leaders from switching so rapidly to the extreme left. When the party which in Quebec has for such a long time succeeded through false pretences in making the people believe it is the only party which has propounded the doctrine of a sound nationalism, and when such a party permits one of its leaders to utter such a narrow appreciation of the doctrine of Canada first, it is not a. surprise *that the same leaders of that party have no hesitation in forgetting Laurier's attitude in matters of preferential trade and in denouncing the Prime Minister who has been promoting a policy of mutual preferences between Canada and the United Kingdom in order to assure an advantageous preference to Canadian farmers and manufacturers. The Canadian people will judge and decide which party better represents the aspirations of Canada of today and of tomorrow. The Conservative party is proud of the Anglo-Canadian agreements. In securing them the Conservative party has written one of the most glorious passages of modern Canadian history. Canadian men and women will long keep in their hearts the name of the distinguished statesman who has been the first to proclaim, to defend and to make glorious the policy of Canada first.
I regret that historians will have to pity our opponents. They have indeed reason to be sullen and to manifest their bad humour. We cannot see any smile on the charming features of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger) or others of that party.
They are bitterly disappointed. They have lost the opportunity of doing a great service to Canada. Indeed, they have not been lucky during the last fifty years. Their main policy has always been to oppose all great actions of our party. The Liberal party in Quebec opposed confederation; it opposed the building of the Canadian Pacific; it opposed the construction of the Welland canal and all the other beautiful canals. It will oppose the St. Lawrence waterway; it is going to oppose the first wonderful treaty which has been signed between Canada and the United Kingdom and all the sister dominions, a treaty which recognizes and serves well the cause of autonomy of our country in matters of economic relations with all the world. Because the Anglo-Canadian agreements constitute one of the best and most effective ways of helping Canada in this hour of need, and because they satisfy my legitimate pride as a true Canadian believing in the policy of Canada first, I shall vote for the agreement.


William Daum Euler: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) who has just taken his seat, will, I am sure, not take it amiss if I do not follow him directly with regard to the arguments which he has advanced in regard to the treaty between Great Britain and Canada. For my hon. friend I have a high regard which has not been lessened by the speech which he has made today. His speech was eloquent; it was about as moderate as I expected it to be; there were a few lapses especially towards the end, but I congratulate him upon the moderation of his address and say also that I think it is the spirit in which all public questions should be discussed. I trust that in that respect what I shall have to say will not be an exception to it.
It may be that I shall not have the indulgence of the house in speaking on this question at this late stage of the debate, and yet if the agreement is as important as it is held to be by some-and I do not differ from that opinion-surely one need make no apology for desiring to bring out as far as possible the implications of the agreement and to express an opinion regarding the principles upon which it is based. I admit at once that it is quite impossible to appraise accurately, so far as the items are concerned, the benefits or otherwise that may flow from the treaty. The only great test, the test of experience alone can put us right with regard to the merits or demerits of the treaty.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not try it?
652	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


William Daum Euler: I think it is going to be tried. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has spoken-and I shall give him credit for sincerity-of the marvelous results which all parts of the empire, and especially Canada, will secure from the various treaties which were consummated last summer. Indeed- and I do not blame him for this, because perhaps it is perfectly natural-he was somewhat complimentary to himself and his colleagues when he said modestly that they had done very well. Members on this side of the house, on the other hand, do not quite see eye to eye with him and hon. gentlemen opposite with regard to the merits of the treaty. Despite what my hon. friend said a moment ago, members on this side of the house are also quite sincere in what they ha\e said. Further, it has seemed to me, listening to the various speeches that have been made, that they were on a high level of public responsibility.
Members on this side of the house do not see the great and beneficial results from this treaty that hon. gentlemen opposite see. Perhaps if I might be so bold as to say so, at the risk of offending some of my friends on this side, the truth lies somewhere in between. It is probably true that we shall not see benefits nearly as great as the Prime Minister and his supporters expect, but on the other hand the results may be just a little better than some of us on this side of the house anticipate.
It was unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that before the conference and during and after it such extravagant statements of expectations from it were made. Many people were led to believe, whether deliberately or not I do not say, that the results from the conference would be a panacea for the depression from which we are now suffering.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: No.


William Daum Euler: I am not saying that my
hon. friend who is so anxious to intervene in debate, and for which I do not always commend him, did any such thing, and I am not blaming the government, but rightly or wrongly the impression was given, perhaps by the press and others, to people throughout this country who were very anxious to see Canada come out of this slough of depression that the conference would be a remedy for present conditions. I say that that was unfortunate because, after all, the causes of the present depression go much deeper than can be reached by anything which can be accomplished by a treaty such as this, important as it may be. The people

of Canada were intensely interested in the conference and what might be secured from it. My hon. friend (Mr. Gagnon) has made reference to the fact that prayers for the success of the conference were offered in the churches and were participated in by my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). My hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) also made some reference -to that the other day, and I might perhaps say just a word for my friend the ex-Minister of Justice, if he requires any defence at all, which he does not, and that is that from his point of view he was perhaps justified in not having quite that perfect faith which is so essential in prayer; and so while the ex-Minister of Justice made the prayer, perhaps the Solicitor General supplied the faith, and it may be that both will be rewarded according to their expectations.
The country will welcome any good which may flow from this treaty, but I believe that they will not welcome anything which will cause retaliation by other countries; nor will they welcome anything, particularly in this time of change, with regard to tariffs and other matters, that will handicap Canada in its dealings with other countries in the future. That to my mind may possibly constitute the most serious criticism which can be brought against the treaty.
And now, although I may be misunderstood, I wish to refer to a subject which was mentioned by the last speaker, and that is the question of an extreme and narrow nationalism. I want to condemn in words as strong as I can possibly use the spirit of extreme nationalism that has taken possession of the world. I yield place to none so far as my own country is concerned, and I say, even though some on this side may not approve of this, that despite anything I have said I still place Canada first. But I do not think it is in the interests of our own country or in the interests of the other nations of the world that we should have that narrow nationalism that leads to war. Surely we have learned this lesson from the last great war, supposedly a war to end war, that the nations should draw together, as they did apparently in the formation of the league of nations, which unfortunately has not been quite so successful as it might have been. We have now the spectacle, as all will admit, of practically every country in the world erecting about its borders a high tariff wall which virtually excludes the products of the other nations of the world.
It may perhaps be a fanciful picture but I can see in prospect the formation of three

United Kingdom
or four great economic combinations. One might conceivably be, although I hope not, the British Empire, with a high tariff wall all around it. We have already the great United States, an empire in itself, with forty-eight states, countries in themselves, trading with each other on a free trade basis, and with a high tariff wall about the whole country. Then we may have-this may seem farfetched but it is not so because it was contemplated at the League of Nations three years ago-an economic United States of Europe, with low tariffs between themselves and a high tariff wall against the rest of the world. Then there is that great potential danger, of Russia and the great nations of the east. It would be most unfortunate if we should have a development such as that, as it would probably lead finally to plunging the world again into the insanity of war, a policy which could only result in world suicide.
It is known to-day to almost all leaders in every country in the world that the great obstacles to trade are high tariffs. Some of my hon. friends here may think it is strange that I should say that because, and I shall refer to this a little later on, I am and have been, and perhaps will continue to be, a moderate protectionist, or one in favour of moderate tariffs. High tariffs are obstacles to trade and are at least a factor, though not by any means the greatest factor, in the present depression. I believe that a reasonable internationalism, some sort of a realization of the brotherhood of man, is better than a narrow nationalism. I would also say that a principle that will be admitted just as readily as that is that cooperation is better than competition.
Coming to the agreement itself, I should like to say first to my hon. friends opposite that if the observations I am about to make are more or less critical in their nature, they are not made merely for the purpose of criticizing. They are for the purpose of trying to draw out as far as possible for the Canadian people the implications of the treaty, and the weaknesses and the fruits which may be expected to flow from it. This brings us down to the traditional issue between the two parties-the question of tariffs. We have had statements from friends on the other side of the house that the Liberal party in the olden days talked low tariffs- perhaps some of them talked free trade and practised moderate protection. There is a certain amount of truth in that, but if I cared to indulge in recriminations, it is
equally true that the Conservative party talked high protection and practised a moderate tariff. I will say this for the present leader of the government, that he has certainly lived up to the old professions of high tariff. Since he came into office we have in effect what I might designate a tariff high as Haman's gallows.
Now I said a moment ago, in describing my own position,-if it is of interest to the house, that I have always been in favour of a moderate tariff. If things in the world were as they ought to be from the point of view of the human race, and we had not all these political boundary lines between countries and between races, free trade would undoubtedly be the ideal thing, let business and manufacturing go where they are most fitted by reason of location of raw material, power, centres of population, conditions of transportation and labour and so on. But that is not the condition of the world today, and we have to take it as we find it. I have always felt, and still feel, perhaps in a sense more than ever when all the other nations of the world, or practically all, have erected impenetrable barriers against our products, that it is only fair that we should have such a tariff as will enable our own producers to have a fair chance in their own market.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Daum Euler: That statement apparently
gives some comfort to my friends opposite. And I have no apologies to make for it. In fact I was going to say in regard to that that the leader of the government and myself in my modest way were in substantial agreement. But I think he has departed from that principle, and I have not. I will read from a statement that the Prime Minister made in the election of 1930, and which he has made repeatedly in this house and which he made again in delivering his speech proposing the resolution which is now under discussion. He said:
I believe that this principle of fair competition will always find favour with the Canadian people. It has never been the intention of this government so to adjust permanently its tariff as to give the Canadian manufacturer an improper advantage in competition with the importer. To do so would have worked an unforgivable hardship upon the consumer, whose welfare is, after all, the surest criterion of our prosperity.
I agree with the Prime Minister in that. But I differ from him in this; he has propounded the theory but has not carried it out in practice. He ennneiates the principle and the propriety of competition. The word competition must connote and indicate that there
654	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
is at least the possibility of some foreign goods entering the Canadian market. Prohibition of imports-and some of the tariffs we have now constitute prohibition-will not provide for competition. Taking the tariff of the special session of 1930, the tariff again of 1931, the general session, and the tariff which we are going to enact under this agreement, all of them raise the tariff to heights such as we never had before. I am perfectly frank in saying, and I think a good many producers of this country, including manufacturers, will agree with me when I say that the tariff as we have it now on many commodities is higher than it ought to be in the interests of the consumer and higher than is necessary for the fair and proper protection of industry. We increased the ad valorem tariff, we added what we had not before, a specific tariff which in some instances worked out higher than the ad valorem, and then we added another thing, with which I have always disagreed, that is the special dumping act put through in opposition to the wishes of those on this side of the house. I was in favour of a dumping duty, a reasonable duty, for we always had that ourselves, but when we place in the hands of the government and in the hands of one minister of the crown through the government the power to say exactly how high the tariff shall be, without any limit, I say that is giving too great power to him. And that is what we have. Today for tariff purposes, the Minister of National Revenue can say that the value of a certain commodity cr shipment can be five or ten times the actual price at which the goods were bought for importation into this country. He may not abuse that; I think in some instances it has been abused, to the great distress of the importing public of this country and of the consumer. I would say also to those manufacturers who are in favour of an impenetrable tariff wall that they are standing in their own light. We have had examples of that. Once the tariff becomes so high that they have a monopoly of the business in their particular line it is apt to attract strong competitors from the United States, and in the end they will be worse off than they were before. I think I could cite some instances of that.
'My difference with the Prime Minister is this; I am ready to go with him to the extent of giving reasonable competition to people in our own market, but I am not in favour of such a tariff as is prohibitive, because we have by this time all learned that we cannot hope to sell to the rest of the world if we are not going to buy anything from them. In this connection my right hon. friend the Prime Minister has somewhat

changed his creed. In the sessions of 1930 and 1931 he gave as a reason for the increase of the tariff that he desired to protect Canadian industry and ensure that goods that could be produced in Canada were made in this country. That, again, violates the principle of competition. But last session he changed his ground somewhat-I think I am doing him no injustice in saying that-when he said that the reason for the imposition of the extremely high tariffs was frankly to exclude goods from other countries in order to restore to Canada a favourable balance of trade. I think we talk a great deal of nonsense in regard to the balance of trade. I have never been able to understand, and I do not believe anyone else has-of course I do not pose as an expert in these matters- why a country must necessarily become bankrupt because it buys a little more from other countries than it sells to them. I do not believe that is the fact. I would advance this theory, although I think it is an exact matter; if it be true that some countries have, as they will have, favourable balances of trade, and therefore are solvent, it must necessarily follow, as the Prime Minister said, that those countries which have unfavourable balances of trade are insolvent, and it must be the constant condition, because all sales must be equal to all purchases. That is self-evident, where one sells another buys, the aggregate of sales must always be equal to the aggregate of purchases. So if favourable balances of trade mean solvent nations, then we must, under our present dispensation, if this theory is correct, have perhaps half the nations of the world in an insolvent condition. I do not believe that is a fact.
It was not my intention to go into the details of the agreement, because as I said it is impossible to make a correct appraisal of the value of the various clauses. But perhaps one might consider the basic principles, of some of the clauses; with regard to what we get and what we give. If bargaining is the basis now of our negotiations with other parts of the empire-and here perhaps I am going to commit a heresy when I say I have no particular objection to the principle of bargaining provided that it is carried on in a reasonable manner-then it is fair for us to face the situation with regard to what we get and what we give under the treaty. We get, of course, free entry to the British market. And if we do not accept the treaty with regard to certain commodities the ten per cent duty which is now in the British tariff will become

United Kingdom
operative against us on November 15 of this year. Well, I would say as to that, we always had free entry.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: So had others.


William Daum Euler: So had others, says my friend, but as far as manufactured products are concerned, at least if we had free entry to the British market probably we have already made, as far as manufactured products are concerned, about as much progress in that market as are apt to make for some time to come. The British manufacturer is pretty efficient, and it is not likely that we will gain very much on him when we are competing under exactly the same conditions that prevailed before.
My hon. friends in the corner gave as a reason for supporting the agreement their fear that this ten per cent tariff would operate against us if the treaty were not adopted. Of course their fears are groundless, because the treaty will be adopted, but I would say to them and to the government which they are supporting that there is a remedy in the hands of this government, which believes in bargaining. If the British government placed the ten per cent tariff against Canadian goods, the Canadian government could very readily say-since they believe in preference for preference-that the preference now extended to the British exporter would be wiped out.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Retaliation.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: Would you agree to that?


William Daum Euler: I would say this to my hon. friend:	I never have been of the opinion
that it was not fair for us to expect a preference where we give a preference, but I would say this also to my hon. friends, and I think they will agree that it is a fair argument: When nations are going to make a treaty they usually provide themselves with certain arguments and weapons which they can use in the course of the negotiations. The Prime Minister of this country, in the special session of 1930, raised the tariff on a great many commodities imported from Great Britain prior to going to the conference; he followed that up in 1931 with a further increase in the tariff. The British representatives who, after all, are pretty shrewd business men, realized that when they came to Ottawa in 1932 they would have to do with men who had already raised the tariff against them. Surely it was only natural for them to provide themselves with a weapon, so they clapped on the 10 per cent clause which would come into effect
if they were not able to make a suitable agreement when they came here.
I should like to refer to article 1, and to an important question which was brought up by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston). The hon. member stated that while certain articles were placed on the free list with regard to entry into the British market, there was no undertaking on the part of Great Britain that other nations could not be given that same advantage with regard to the same commodities, which would destroy the preference. That question has been raised repeatedly from this side of the house, but I have not heard a single member opposite give any answer to it. I say the matter is of great importance. I have here a clipping dated October 7 which refers to an article which appeared in the London Spectator. It reads as follows:
The Spectator, independent weekly review, today urged further exploration of the question how far agreements concluded at the Ottawa Imperial economic conference preclude the United Kingdom's lowering tariffs without consent of the dominions.
The paper held the fact irrelevant that the agreements will extend beyond the life of the present parliament as many treaties frequently run longer. It suggests, however, that for the United Kingdom to pledge itself not to lower tariffs on goods of any of 50-odd countries appears something new and highly undesirable.
"As for the astonishing Canadian contention that we are bound to maintain tariffs against foreign countries, not merely on specific articles in which Canada is promised preference, but on the whole range of commodities on which we have imposed any duties at all," it continued, "it is too untenable to call for serious comment."
I wonder whether there is a difference of opinion between the government of Canada and the government of Great Britain. If it be true that the government of Canada understood that Great Britain was to maintain the preference under that schedule by not reducing the tariff against foreign countries, I think we ought to know it. If there is any doubt about it at all; if that is merely in the spirit of the agreement-which was commented upon yesterday by Lord Reading- then I think the sooner it is established as to just what the understanding is on the part of both governments, the better for all concerned.
We get tariff preferences in two classes, on natural products and on manufactured commodities, with which I have already dealt. I do not want to appe:ar too critical, but just in passing I might say that I come in contact with a good many manufacturers, and I have not heard any of them say they anticipate any greatly increased business so far as exports
656	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
to the British market are concerned. Natural products are perhaps on a different basis, and in all sincerity I say that I hope some good may come from the preferences which have been granted. I do not anticipate for a moment, however, that the Canadian manufacturer of clocks, of boots and shoes, of rubber goods, of leather clothing, of twine, of chemicals or of alcoholic spirits is going to sell very much of his product in that market.
Just here I might make a reference to other natural products, such as bacon, ham, paper products, lumber, wheat, copper and zinc. The only qualification there, as everyone knows-and I think it is a modifying clause of some disadvantage to us-is that we must sell most of these commodities, especially wheat, copper, apples and so on, at world prices. It may give us a sheltered market, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) said. I do not know exactly what that may mean, but to my mind the disquieting thing with regard to these commodities is that those who are supposed to benefit most from them, the farmers and those who represent labour, do not seem to see any value in it. Perhaps the best I can say for it is that if it does not do any good at least it will not do any harm.
Now, what do we give? We are arranging our tariff in such a manner that some of our imports from the United States will be transferred to Great Britain. With that I have no fault to find. We do not owe the American manufacturers, or the United States as a nation, a very great deal as far as tariffs are concerned, though I was rather surprised at the attitude taken by my clerical friend from Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) who, though he was prepared to turn both cheeks, also was then ready to turn in and give the American a good thrashing. We have placed many items on the free list. Some of these may be of value; it is impossible to say, and I am quite willing that a fair trial be given. Many other preferences, I think, are quite valueless, in the first place because the commodities affected will be imported in such small quantities as to be practically negligible, while in other cases they will not be imported at all. We have the matter of automobiles. I am not much concerned with that item, and I fancy the manufacturers of automobiles in Canada are not much concerned about importations from Great Britain. I see the hon. member for East Essex (Mr. Morand) is in agreement with me, although he shakes his head. Then there is the item of motor trucks, which are manufactured in

my own city of Kitchener, though not in very large quantities. The makers of motor trucks, however, now are discriminated against under this agreement. Previously they had a tariff of 12i per cent against British trucks, which are now placed on the free list. They are discriminated against by reason of the fact that of necessity they must import some of their parts from the United States, upon which they must pay duty, whereas British trucks will enter Canada entirely free of duty. That is a discrimination, and for the information of the government I may say that for the moment it is blocking the investment of more capital in that concern.
We have placed rubber footwear on the free list, and that affects my constituency also. I do not desire to speak from a purely local point of view, but I am informed by people in my own city that rubber footwear from Great Britain will give us strong competition. Probably that will please some of my hon. friends on this side of the house, but I might say this: If it is fair to protect boots and shoes-and I believe in a reasonable protection-it ought to be just as fair to protect the rubber footwear that covers those boots and shoes.
I am glad the government have seen the error of their way and taken off the duty on the hides which were supposed to come from New Zealand. I might refer to the matter of kid leather, which is manufactured in this country in practically only two tanneries. Kid leather is used by the shoe manufacturers of this country, who employ a great many people in the city of Quebec, from which the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) comes, in the city from which I come and in many other cities throughout the country. The changes that have been made are as follows: Where there formerly was a tariff of 15 per cent against United States kid leather, which country makes the best kid leather in the world, it was raised to 25 per cent under the provisions of a former budget.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: The Dunning budget.


William Daum Euler: No; my hon. friend will have to look that up. Pie will find that he is wrong. It was raised to 25 per cent by this government, and, strange to say, was raised another 2i per cent by this agreement. The only result that flows from that is that it prejudices and injures the manufacturer of shoes in Canada, who is obliged to buy some of his kid leather from the United States. In any case he has to pay a higher tariff and that just

United Kingdom
makes the cost of his shoes higher to the Canadian consumer, without doing anybody any good, in order to protect two industries who agreed that if they were given 25 per cent- and there were a good many objections from the shoe manufacturers-they would supply the Canadian shoe manufacturer at the right price and in the right quantity and quality. They wished to try it out, making that promise to supply the shoe manufacturer on those terms. At the end of the year they were not doing so. They got another six months and still they are not doing it. And that, for the benefit of two concerns, one in Montreal and one in West Toronto. For their benefit we have that handicap placed on the shoe manufacturers. I commend that to the consideration of the government.
With regard to coal, we are placing another ten cents on this commodity. Last year I objected to the placing of a tariff of forty cents a ton on anthracite coal, on this score, that it was simply adding to the burden, which is now heavy enough, of the man who has to heat his house with anthracite coal. I speak particularly of Ontario. Instead of doing this it would be much wiser for the government to investigate what is called the toll gate in the city of Montreal, whereby one or two or three gentlemen exact tribute on every ton of Welsh coal imported into this country.
With regard to the reductions on textiles, they are negligible. An hon. gentleman on the other side asked me the other day whether I would support a reduction in the duty on textiles. I think I woul(j. When duties go as high as 50, 60 , 70, 80, yes, and 100 per cent, they are entirely too high, higher than necessary. I might speak of the British preference -and it is astonishing how sometimes a manufacturer will be quite in favour of the lowering of a tariff when it affects his raw material, and rightly so. I am speaking now with regard to textiles. I was debating with a manufacturer one day the propriety of the British preference, especially with respect to textiles. "Yes," he said, "I want that preference; it is the only protection I have against the rapacity of the Canadian textile manufacturer." So he was in favour of the preference. I was going to make a reference to the tariff board, that it might be used as a means of the reduction of tariffs, upon representations from the British manufacturers, but I have no time for that.
I want to say a word with reference to the dumping clause and exchange, because it has become nothing less than a nightmare to importers in Canada. See what they have to go through. First they pay ad valorem duty on the basis of the pound as it was 53719-42
formerly-I am speaking of British importations. They pay the ad valorem duty on the old basis of $4.86j, even if they actually pay a dollar less than that for the goods. Then they pay a specific duty, then an excise duty of 3 per cent, which is not an excise duty at all but an addition to the tariff. And then they are up against a further valuation of the pound on its present basis of $4.40, which is placed there merely for the purpose of exacting the dump, another form of tariff. Then they take the value of the importations during two weeks-that is, the value of the pound-and average that. If it is fixed at $3.80, they take the basis of $4.40 and the dump is the difference between the two, a matter of another 60 cents. After all, the importer is not a criminal; he has a right to live and do business. If he has not that right, put him out of business entirely by an embargo; but if he has that right, and if he is to be allowed to carry on his business at all, then I say he should be allowed to do his business in a reasonable way. But today he does not know, when he orders his goods, what they will cost him. There have been many examples, I know, where men have imported goods and have paid the tariff as exacted at the time and later on-I am not blaming the officials of the Customs department in this matter because this is the policy of the government-they have been asked to pay a further imposition, three months afterwards, when the goods have gone into consumption. Thus they sustain a loss. I am surprised that the British delegates did not make more of that point and did not insist that some sort of justice and fairness should be observed with respect to their imports into this country. I say this not particularly on their behalf but in the interests of the Canadian importer.
Certain objections have been made from this side. I have spoken of bargaining; I have spoken of dumping, and I have spoken of the exchange. I have said that in many instances tariffs are too high, and I believe that. I might also speak of the five year tie-up which we are encountering in connection with this treaty. It may be all very well to say that you must have some sort of continuity and stability about an agreement of this kind, but I will put this to the members of this house-perhaps they may feel antagonistic to this proposal. I have no particular love for our American friends so far as business is concerned, but I would not cut off my nose to spite my face. It may be that after the next election-and it looks that way-the United States government may change its attitude, and you may find Presi-

058	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
dent Roosevelt, if he is elected, making certain proposals, possibly as to allowing our lumber to go into that country, or our fish or something else.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: He says not,


William Daum Euler: He has not said no. I do
not like to contradict my hon. friend so bluntly, but perhaps I might read from The New York Times a statement which he has made:
Governor Roosevelt believes that tariff is a foreign policy. He proposes to call at once an international conference to discuss export and import duties. "The entire question is now reduced to such absurdity," he says, "that all nations are ready for a new deal. They all know, even while they keep on adding new spikes to the wall, that there can be no world recovery without a flow of world trade."


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Did my hon.
friend notice a recent announcement in which he assured the farmers of the United States that there would be no reduction in their protection?


William Daum Euler: I know perfectly well the
statement to which my hon. friend refers, but I am not speaking only of farm products. I mentioned fish and lumber. I did not even mention farm products, but for the hon. gentleman's benefit I may add that Governor Roosevelt makes this statement:
The main remedy, however, is simply the extension of the benefits of the tariff to the growers of the great export crops-wheat, cotton, etc.-"temporarily," he aualifies.
" Temporarily " would indicate that the time may not be very long. Now, five years is rather long. The Solicitor General the other day said that he would begin with the family and enlarge to the rest of the world. Well, the world will have to wait five years, and nations move pretty rapidly in these times. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker-
Mr. Speaker:	The hon. member's time is
up.
Some lion. MEMBERS:	Go on.


William Daum Euler: My time is up.


Paul-Arthur Séguin: Mr. Speaker, owing to
the importance of the question under consideration, I have closely examined the trade agreements of the last Imperial economic conference.
In studying these agreements, I have endeavoured to set aside all party spirit and prejudice so as to judge of their merits strictly from a viewpoint of the results which may be expected from them, in the interests of the whole country, but more particularly in the

interests of the county of l'Assomption-Mont-calm, which I have the honour of representing in the house.
In perusing, I said, the agreements entered into by the Imperial government and the dominions, but especially between, Canada and the mother country, it is evident, and I am not so imbued with party spirit as not to admit it, that there is reason to believe that a number of them may be beneficial to Canada; however, I regret to state that, as a whole, the results will be of little benefit and will in no way relieve the financial unrest prevailing at present, it will be quite the contrary.
As a proof of good faith, I have no hesitation in stating, in the house, that I would willingly have approved certain items, however, the interests of the country, but especially those of my county, force me to reject the greater part of these agreements concluded between Canada and the other nations of the British Commonwealth.
I regret that parliamentary rules, and by the way, I wish to draw the attention of the house to the haste displayed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), in opposing the amendment moved by my hon. friend from Shelbume-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), I regret, I stated, that parliamentary rules prescribed this amendment being appended to the resolution under consideration; the Speaker having declared it out of order, there is no other alternative than to vote against the main motion.
I have earnestly endeavoured to follow this debate, I should have liked to see the speakers on the government side bring out absolutely convincing arguments to establish their contentions; they have not so far done so.
The hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre), whose natural gifts are well known, in his very eloquent speech, on Wednesday and Thursday last, instead of endeavouring to establish the advantages which he contends will result from the new trade agreements, preferred to be witty and even display his natural aptitude for the stage, with bugle sounding, he first informed us, on Wednesday, that his party was so convinced of the merits of its case that it was ready to appeal, immediately, to the people and that an election would afford an opportunity to Canadians to approve or disapprove the attitude of the government. However, the following day, when the house met, he thought it best to state that his remarks the previous evening, in this respect, were inconsiderate and that they should not be interpreted exactly as they were made. And, in that same speech, on Thursday, notwithstanding our good will, it is impossible to discover any plea in favour of the agreements

United Kingdom
of the Imperial conference; he preferred to devote most of his allotted time, to bring to life again, as he thought best, one whom he no more fears, now that he silently rests in his coffin, so as to prove to us that Laurier would disapprove, were he allowed to give his views from beyond the grave, the present policy of his party and its leaders. It is most probable, however, that after reading over his speech, had he spoken in the house, the following day, he would have requested us not to consider the previous day's speech too seriously as it was only intended to produce a momentary effect on his partisans.	[DOT]
The lion. Solicitor General throughout his speech, only found as a background to his arguments, article 23 of the pact between the various nations of the commonwealth which, according to his interpretation, would be a safeguard in case unforeseen complications rose as regards these trade agreements This article reads as follows:
In the event of circumstances arising which, in the judgment of His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom or of His Majesty's government in Canada, as the ease may be, necessitate a variation in the terms of the agreement, the proposal to vary these terms shall form the subject of consultation between the two governments.
I regret, sir, to differ from the lion. Solicitor General on this point. In my opinion, this article 23 is rather an acknowledgment that Canada has forsaken her freedom of action as regards these trade agreements, and this new stipulation places her purely and simply on the level of slaves, since, during five years, she cannot act without consulting the United Kingdom, and this is what the Solicitor General calls a safety valve.
The hon. Postmaster General also thought it proper to take part in this debate. After assuring himself that he did not need to be reminded by the opposition in order to discover that a crisis prevailed in this country, he stated that his government, for the last two years, was conscientiously facing the new situation. The following is what he stated, according to Wednesday's Hansard, October 19, 1932:
For two years, the crisis has raged with such fury throughout the world that no economist, no statesman could forsee the consequences. The causes of this depression are numerous and, often, a remedy which is efficient, when applied in a healthy centre, is of no use during an epidemic or its action weakened in an infected centre.
The views of my hon. friend the Postmaster General are quite different from those he held during the election of 1930. He then contended that a crisis existed in Canada and that the Liberal administration was respons-53719-42J
ible for such a situation; he therefore requested the people to place the right hon. Mr. Bennett and his party in power, and that this would prove a panacea to all our ills. Now, after being in power for two years, the hon. Postmaster General informs us that his government endeavoured to fulfil as much as possible its pledges, but that, the causes of the crisis being so numerous, the remedy that his leader applied had no effect or its action was weakened by the infected centre.
My hon. friend goes a step further, without ever showing what benefit we might derive from these trade agreements, he asks us to wait two more years in order to find out the results of these agreements; in Hansard, October 19, 1932, he states:
However, sir, when our opponents, in their amendment-on which they are undecided how to vote-request us to refer the matter to the people before giving approval to the trade agreements, etc. . . . The Liberal party find it advantageous to request an appeal to the people at present instead of waiting two years hence, namely the time when the Canadian people will better be able to judge the results of these trade agreements.
How times have changed, sir! Who has forgotten the eloquent display of my hon. friend who, taking his cue from his leader, stated in 1930: put us in power and in three months, unemployment will have ceased. There will be a better market for butter, and no further mention of a crisis.
My hon. friend, in his speech, expressed the hope he felt that the trade agreements entered into by his leader, would produce profitable results on various items of farm products.
I shall especially refer to one of these items which greatly interests a number of my constituents, namely tobacco.
The hon. Postmaster General stated, in his speech, that the United Kingdom had imported over 230,000,000 pounds of tobacco, in 1930, and that Canada had shipped nearly 4,000,000 pounds.
But I wonder, sir, on what my hon. friend bases his statement that the new trade agreements with the commonwealth will be advantageous to tobacco growers in this country. May I state, sir, that I can but greatly regret the attitude taken by the right hon. Prime Minister who, previous to the Imperial conference, refused to listen to the representations which the farmers might have made, and especially the tobacco growers.
Having had the great privilege of being chosen as one of the four or five thousand farmers who met at the Coliseum, in July last, together with my good friends, the hon. members for North Huron, North Grey, North
660	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
Wellington and Norfolk-Elgin, and as a delegate sent to invite the right hon. Prime Minister to meet this imposing gathering, I am certainly in a position to inform hon. gentlemen, bow the Prime Minister acted on this occasion; and I challenge the hon. members on the government side who accompanied me to deny the fact.
After listening to the spokesman of the delegation, Mr. Lindsay, official delegate of the United-Farmers, the Prime Minister simply stated that it was quite impossible for him to accept the invitation. He was then assured that little of his time would be taken up, that it would be only a matter of welcoming this very large gathering and receive a memorandum prepared with a view to the Imperial economic conference. He persisted in saying that he had not a minute to spare and as it was represented to him that these good people would gladly wait until it would be most convenient to him, he emphatically stated that his time was entirely taken up until midnight.
He was then requested to have the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) or another member of his cabinet, represent him.
To this, he emphatically replied that he was busy and that his ministers were also too busy to go and meet that large gathering of farmers; therefore, it was a definite refusal on his part to listen to the claims of this group of people, certainly the most important in this country.
The tobacco growers of the county of 1'Assomption-Montcalm, having also thought fit to present their suggestions in order to improve their situation and obtain the greatest advantages possible for the sale of their products, more fortunate, however than their brother farmers, who had to put up with a scornful refusal on the part of the Prime Minister, and thanks to the well known courtesy of the hon. Minister of Agriculture, were welcomed by the latter in the most charming way possible, and I must take this opportunity to thank him again for his kind welcome and the good intentions he manifested.


Mr. DUPRE (Translation):: Hear, hear!


Paul-Arthur Séguin: However, by orders of his leader, he was obliged to state to the few hundred tobacco growers of l'Assomption-Montcalm, that he was sorry to see that they had gone to the expense of coming to Ottawa, under the circumstances, because the government had all its memorandums prepared, and that all agricultural

questions, including tobacco, had been seriously considered and would be presented at the conference in the best possible light to favour the producers of this country. But, sir, what happened? In examining the trade agreements, no change can be found which might lead us to hope that our tobacco exports to the United Kingdom would increase, unless it proved to be in the ordinary course of business transactions and without any effort on the part of the government or without any tariff change to accelerate this movement.
I noted, while listening to the statement of the Prime Minister, that after informing us of the considerable amount of tobacco imported by the United Kingdom and the relatively small amount exported by Canada to that country he concluded that the markets of the United Kingdom would be very advantageous for our tobacco exports. If I refer to the part of his speech dealing with this subject, I find in Hansard, Wednesday, October 12, 1932, the following:
I shall next deal with tobacco again beginning with Canadian production and export figures:	United Kingdom imports, 1930,
236,934,505 pounds unmanufactured; Canada's exports to United Kingdom, 1930, 3,976,017 pounds unmanufactured.
And after quoting some other figures, the right hon. Prime Minister so as to emphasize the advantages which would accrue to Canada from the exportation of tobacco, quotes article 7 of the agreements which is as follows:
His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom will invite parliament to pass legislation which will secure for a period of ten years from the date hereof to tobacco, consigned from any part of the British Empire and grown, produced or manufactured in Canada, the existing margin of preference over foreign tobacco, so long, however, as the duty on foreign unmanufactured tobacco does not fall below 2/OJd. per pound, in which event the margin of preference shall be equal to the full duty.
Somewhat amazed at the statement of the right hon. Prime Minister and not trusting my ears, I deemed it best to put the following question to the government on October 24, 1932:
1.	What were the existing duties on Canadian tobacco entering the English market previous to the agreements entered into at the last Imperial conference?
2.	What are the duties in force as a consequence of the agreements of the last Imperial conference?
3.	For what period will the duties fixed by the Imperial conference be in force?
To this the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) replied by first producing the tariff schedule existing on Canadian

United, Kingdom
tobacco previous to the Imperial conference, that is, which had been in existence for a number of years.
To my second question, he replied that Article 7 of the agreements between the United Kingdom and Canada, signed on August 20, 1932, has made no change, but secures for a period of ten years to Canadian tobacco the margin of preference above indicated for our exports to the United Kingdom.
I have just read Article 7 which refers to an extension of time for a period of ten years of this margin of preference, existing long before. Hence, no change was made to promote our tobacco exports to the United Kingdom, and what is more, according to Article 7, it is agreed that the same rates existing previous to the Imperial conference will now be in force for a period of ten years.
I wonder, sir, what benefit will our good friends the tobacco growers derive from this? And I cannot do otherwise than express my astonishment in hearing last night my hon. friend, the member for South Essex (Mr. Gott) state that he was satisfied and found it possible to congratulate his government, not for having obtained a greater preference on Canadian tobacco, but for having promised to enact the necessary legislation so as to secure for a period of ten years, from the date of the present agreements, to tobacco consigned from any part of the British Empire and grown, produced or manufactured in Canada, the existing margin of preference over foreign tobacco; in other words for having maintained the preference already for a number of years with the results which are known, for another period of ten years. As well state, for having made no change. I can hardly believe that the South Essex tobacco growers will be satisfied with the privileges which are granted to them in the new trade agreements; for my part, I intend to very strongly protest against these business methods of the right hon. Prime Minister and his government, and also for not having heard previously the claims of farmers and tobacco growers, so as to give consideration to their requirements, but especially so as to listen to the important suggestions they wished to make in order to foster the sale of their products.
It seems evident, sir, notwithstanding what the hon. member for South Essex or the hon. Postmaster General may think, that even in two years, the results of the Imperial conference, so far as the tobacco growers are concerned, will hardly be perceptible, and should we put any faith in the stipulations of Article VII of the agreement in connection
with tobacco, we will have to wait ten years to obtain any appreciable results.
I would have liked to refer to some statements that the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) made in his speech of October 20 last, but as I do not wish to delay the house,
I shall simply point out to him that since he was given a mandate, as a member, by filling the people with butter since he, like many others, succeeded in entering this house by resorting to the butter question, he has learned how to make comparisons and today he endeavours to exculpate the government for having so shamefully deceived the people, by not giving them the increased prices promised on butter; he establishes by means of statistics that if butter is cheap in Canada, neither is it very dear in England and the United States. He then quotes the following figures, as regards butter prices:
Canada United States England April, 1932. . .	20.06	20.04	19.38May, 1932. . . .	16.81	18.83	17.81August, 1932. .	19.21	20.31	17.81
He proves by these figures that, in August last, butter in Canada sold at l&Vioo cents per pound. I am amazed that he is not shocked, he who hid his face in 1930 because butter sold ait 30 and 32 cents per pound.
I feel certain that the people in Compton will, at the first opportunity, ask the hon. member to render an account of the fallacious pledges which he did not carry out and that his government admits not being able to fulfil even after two years in power.
I shall not add anything further, but before closing my remarks, to make a clean slate with reference to the new trade agreements, which are the results of the Imperial conference, I must state that from my viewpoint these agreements as a whole are of a nature to create numerous obstacles to our trade. They will certainly deprive us of advantages which might crop up to carry on an extensive business with the United States which is our most natural market.
Furthermore, as a result of these agreements, I consider that. Canada has taken a step backward. After the Liberal party won for us the right of negotiating our own trade treaties with other nations, these new treaties tie us down for at least five years and prevent us from negotiating any trade treaty without the goodwill of England.
Again, sir, although being entirely favourable to the provisions of the last agreements where it is proposed to reduce existing duties, like all those which have a tendency, whatsoever, to increase the sale of our Canadian
062	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
products, I am absolutely opposed to that part of the agreements which provides for an increase in customs duties already too high on certain products, and I openly state that I am absolutely opposed to the provisions which deprive Canada of her right, so necessary to her prosperity, to negotiate trade agreements for the disposal of her products abroad.
I am very much in favour of the principle of British preference which forms part of the Liberal party's program since 1897. I am convinced that had the provisions of the budget of May 1, 1930, been carried out, Canadian products would have enjoyed on the English market far greater advantage than those expected from the present agreements.
After having weighed the pro and con, I think it is an urgent duty that I should register my vote against the Prime Minister's proposal to implement the last trade agreements between Canada and the United Kingdom.


Mr. J. THAUVETTE (Vaudreuil-Sou-langes) (Translation):: 
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver South):: 
Angus MacInnis: When the house rose
at six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was quoting some extracts with regard to the need for increasing purchasing power.	Now I wish
to quote from an editorial which appeared in the Mail and Empire of Toronto under date of September 6, 1931. This editorial was taken in part from the London Morning Post, which the Mail and Empire terms the most Conservative newspaper in the world. The editorial reads:
Real wealth seems unreal to most people. . . . Economics, to put it vulgarly, is in a pretty rotten state. No one dare deny the nature of real wealth; yet no country dare accept it as a gift under the name of reparations. Real wealth in the form of primary products has to be destroyed or wasted in vast quantities. Cheapness is regarded as a tragedy, and yet millions of people are in want or actually starving.
There seems no little need to reconsider creed and philosophy, and the omniscience of financiers and economists is beginning to look more than doubtful.
The point I was making in connection with the treaty under discussion, Mr. Speaker, was that it has done nothing to increase purchasing power. There is very little mention in it of increasing purchasing power as far as that can be done by monetary changes, and there was no mention at all of increasing purchasing power as far as that can be done by increasing wages. I wish to refer to an
668	.	- COMMONS
Impeiial Conference-Trade Agreements
editorial which appeared recently in the Vancouver Province, which is a Conservative newspaper if it has any politics at all.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The quoting
of editorials and of authors is against the rules. I am sorry, but we must follow the rules. Members are here to express their own opinions; otherwise any number of authors or editorials could be quoted. I must insist upon the rule being followed. Editorials, and the opinions of authors, should not be quoted in the house.


Angus MacInnis: That is rather a surprise
to me. I am not an old member of this house, but I have listened to hundreds of quotations since I have been here, and have heard many quotations made by speakers who have taken part in the discussion on this treaty. I cannot see why any discrimination should be made at this time.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I do not want to be discourteous to the hon. member, but when I am in the chair I always insist on that rule being followed. The rule is clear; it is set forth in paragraph 306 of Beauchesne.


Angus MacInnis: I wish to conform to the rules of the house, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot see the justice of refusing to allow me to do what has been done in this house by many other hon. members. We should have the same rules without regard to who is occupying the chair.


Mr. STEVENS:: May I address your
honour for a moment in connection with this ruling? I realize that there is a very distinct rule which says that a member shall not quote from a newspaper or editorial which reflects upon a member of the house or upon the conduct of the house, but I submit to your honour that even if that rule could be interpreted to apply to ordinary quotations from editorials, we are continually quoting observations from newspapers. I confess that during this debate I was guilty- if doing so is to be guilty-of precisely the same tiling. So if I may I would suggest to your honour that the ruling be reserved for consideration and that the hon. member be allowed to proceed. It strikes me that it would be inequitable to allow members of the government to indulge in this practice during this debate and then rule out of order another member who attempts to do the same thing. I would appeal to your honour to reserve your ruling for the time being, since the question is not one that will immediately affect the conduct of the house, and allow the hon. member to proceed.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I do not want to be unfair to the hon. member, but the rule is very clear. It does not only cover articles commenting upon the conduct of the house; otherwise Hansard would be full of editorials or the opinions of authors. Members are here to express their own opinions. So far as I am concerned, personally I am quite indifferent; if by general consent the house allows the hon. member to proceed certainly I have no objection, but I must insist that the rule is there and should be complied with. Certainly if the house consents I have no objection to the hon. member proceedings^


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


William Duff: I entirely agree with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens);
I am afraid your honour reads this rule too literally. Rule 306 states:
It is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons outside the house and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the house.
The hon. member who is speaking has not reflected on any other hon. member of the house, nor has he reflected on any proceedings within the house. He is just quoting editorials, and I submit that he is quite in order.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member is giving an opinion expressed in an editorial. So far as I am concerned I would prefer to hear the hon. member's own opinion, but if the house consents he may quote all the editorials he wishes.	.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Angus MacInnis: 
Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member has spoken for forty minutes.
Mr. A. F. TOTZIvE (Humboldt):	Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to follow the remarks of the hon. member who has preceded me (Mr. Maclnnis) except in so far as they may be incidental to what I have to say. I am afraid, however, that very few of the remarks of the hon. member will come under that heading, because he wandered far from the subject under discussion.
Whether or not I have any new thoughts to add to this debate, I consider it my duty to my constituents to express the views I hold in connection with these agreements, which views I feel to be in line with those of my constituents. There is no need to review the conditions which exist in Saskatchewan and throughout western Canada ; they have been so often and so thoroughly discussed that I think the people of Canada from one end to the other, and especially lion, members of this house, are fully aware of the conditions which exist. These difficulties commenced back in 1929, and by the time the general election was called in 1930 they had become so acute that the people of Canada were ready to grasp at any straw. Thus hon. gentlemen opposite who today form the administration were able to secure, through the promises they had made, the support of enough people in western Canada to enable them to get into power. I am pleased to say that the people of my constituency were not misled in that way. The present Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) having been returned with a sufficiently large maj ority to enable him to put his policies into effect, he is not now in a position to say that he is unable to carry out his promised policies and that therefore the people of Canada should not judge him too harshly.
After the election, after the people had seen the return of the Conservative party to power with this large majority, they waited for the fulfilment of the promises. There was, however, no immediate increase in the price of wheat as had been promised, perhaps not by the Prime Minister himself but by at least a goodly number of orators working on Ibehalf of the Conservative party throughout western Canada. Indeed, in my constituency the statement was made by these orators that if the present Prime Minister and the Conservative party were returned to power, the price of wheat would immediately go up five cents per bushel. I ask my friends from western Canada; I can ask any hon. member: What has happened? Wheat has dropped in price until just this week it has reached the lowest price it had ever reached before in the history of Canada. But our people out there are good-natured, good-hearted, and not too prone to criticize rashly. They said: Although this promise with regard to the price of wheat has not been immediately fulfilled, let us give the Prime Minister a chance to put his policies into effect; Rome was not built in a day.
The same thing has happened -with regard to unemployment. It has been stated in the house that no less a member of it than the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) had made the promise that if the Conservative party were returned to power, unemployment would be done away with inside of a week. I am not going to insist upon that statement, because the Minister of Justice has more or less denied it, but there is no question that the statement was made and the people of Canada w-ere led to believe that the unemployment situation would be relieved in a very short time if hon. gentlemen who now occupy the treasury benches were returned to power. Again I need not say that that promise has not been fulfilled.
Then later on, these promises not having been fulfilled, the announcement was made that an Imperial economic conference was going to be held in London and that at it steps would be taken which would give the government an opportunity of fulfilling its promises. I recall very well the attitude of
672	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
supporters of hon. gentlemen opposite in my constituency. After the present government had been returned to power, those gentlemen walked the streets of my own little town with their chests sticking out, telling the people: "Now just wait until Mr. Bennett has a chance, until the Conservatives have a chance, and you will see conditions change; at last Canada will come into its own." But you should see those very same gentlemen today. They are most pitiable; they are almost afraid to show their faces among their neighbours; they are in hiding because they feel so much ashamed of the way in which the great Conservative party and their almost superman of a leader have left unfulfilled the promises which they were so generous in making during the general election of 1930. As I said, then came the announcement that an Imperial economic conference was to be held and that it would take care of the difficulties through which we were passing. The conference was held in 1930 and, to put the matter very mildly, it was a fiasco. Nothing whatever was done; in fact worse than nothing was done.
After that fiasco the people almost lost faith in the Prime Minister and the great Conservative party, but again came the promise that another imperial conference would be held and that this one, which would be held in the city of Ottawa, would, according to the Prime Minister, produce advantageous results for the people of Canada. Not only did the Prime Minister promise that, but the press of Canada heralded it from one end of the country to the other. Once again, our people, who are more or less credulous, said:	Well now, at last we are going to
get something from this great man and this great Conservative party. But what did we get? This is what I want to discuss to-night. Let me say at this point. I sometimes feel that my right hon. leader, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), should be censured to some extent because he did not go from one end of Canada to the other making speeches prior to and during the conference, laying down policies that should be followed by the delegates of the various nations to the conference. It was too bad that he did not do that because, if he had done it, the Prime Minister would have had some excuse for the lamentable failure that he made of this conference. I have heard other hon. members say that they did not discuss the agreements. I want to say that I did discuss the agreements both before and during the conference. Of course the Prime Minister did not hear of this, and it had no

effect whatever upon the conference; but I found that wherever I went my constituents asked me:	What about the Imperial conference? I said this to them:	I hope and
pray that some good may come out of it, but unless the Prime Minister changes his views with regard to his fiscal policy and his Canada first policy, I cannot for the life of me see how any good can come out of it.
Again, after the conference, the usual propaganda for which hon. gentlemen opposite are so noted was put forth throughout the country, and the people thought:	Well,
maybe we have got something out of it. But how they have been disillusioned! As the agreement is studied, as the advantages are weighed against the disadvantages, there is no question that the farmer of Canada has got nothing out of it, and the farmer after all is the backbone of this country. This is and always will be an agricultural country, and unless the farmer is prosperous, no other part of the community can become prosperous.
I read with interest the speech of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley). The hon. member is a personal friend of mine; he comes from my own province and I was interested in what he had to say. I wish to quote a few sentences from his speech as reported at page 550 of Hansard. He said:
I feel it my duty, having the honour to represent in this house a rural constituency in Saskatchewan, to say that before coming to Ottawa I made a pretty thorough canvass of my riding, and I did not find a single businessman or producer who was not anxious that as soon as possible after parliament met, we should pass these agreements and see if we could get increased markets for our products.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Mr. TOTZKE:: An hon. gentleman says, "hear, hear." I think the wish is father to the thought; they hoped these agreements would be passed as soon as possible in order that the people of Canada might not have the opportunity of analyzing them and finding out what was in them. Perhaps I should not have said that, because I did hope in my own heart when I left my constituency that there might be something in these agreements and I came down here with the idea of supporting them if there was anything in them to help us out of the distressful conditions now confronting us. But I wonder what sort of reports the hon. member for Qu'Appelle would get if he went back to his constituency now that the people have some idea of what these agreements really mean, provided he did not go simply to his own hard-boiled Tory friends for an opinion. The hon. member

United Kingdom
for Qu'Appelle in his address the other night quoted from the remarks of the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. McPhee). He said, at page 653 of Hansard:
At page 544 of Hansard the hon. member (Mr. McPhee) is reported as follows:
"In 1930 we exported 207,000,000 bushels, and of this quantity we sent 77,000,000 bushels to Great Britain, and 129,000,000 bushels to foreign countries."
Concerning this year 1931 the hon. member (Mr. McPhee) said:
"We find that in that year we exported
194,000,000 bushels, of which 63,000,000 bushels went to the United Kingdom and 131,000,000 bushels to foreign countries." _	_
Had the hon. member been fair in his argument he would have said there was a possibility under this agreement of supplying Great Britain with the 131,000,000 bushels we had shipped to foreign countries. This agreement seeks to make possible the sale of that great amount of wheat in a sheltered market under the protection afforded by this agreement.
In effect the hon. member for Qu'Appelle says that had these agreements been in effect we could have sold in the British market all the wheat that we shipped to other countries of the world. Does he really believe that Canada has a chance to capture the entire British market for wheat? What about Australia and India? They are members of the British commonwealth of nations and have the same opportunities as we have of entering the British market under these agreements. Yes; and what about the other wheat producing countries of the world, the Argentine, Russia and other countries? They also will get a portion of that market. Let me give the average British imports of wheat for the last several years. In round figures Great Britain imports 200,000,000 bushels per annum. Canada exports all the way from 250,000,000 to 400.000,000 bushels of wheat. So the British market in itself is not big enough to take all our Canadian wheat, even though we had that entire market, and other markets are absolutely necessary.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) told us the other evening of the markets we had lost. He told us of the tariffs that had been put up against us, and sought to blame the previous Liberal government for losing those markets; he thought the Liberal government should have saved them for Canada. Perhaps he is a little too complimentary to the late government, for, good as it was, it was not able to control the tariffs of other countries. What does the hon. gentleman do now? He supports these agreements which, instead of making it easier for Canada to get into the markets of these other countries, will create so much dissatisfaction that it is going to be more and more difficult for us to enter those markets.
I should like to say a few words concerning some of the articles in this agreement. I want to deal briefly only with those affecting agriculture. We are interested, of course, in the other items, but the people of my province are interested more particularly in the items affecting agriculture. Article 1 reads:
His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom undertake that orders shall be made in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Import Duties Act, 1932, which will ensure the continuous after the 15th November, 1932, of entry free of duty into the United Kingdom of goods consigned from any part of the British empire and grown, produced or manufactured in Canada which by virtue of that act are now free of duty subject, however, to the reservations set forth in schedule A appended hereto.
I will not read schedule A, as it has been read several times already. All I wish to say in connection with that article is that I hope it will mean something. We must not forget, however, that New Zealand and Australia are accorded the same terms as we are under this agreement. New Zealand has always been our great competitor in butter, cheese and dairy products of all kinds, and if we were not able to compete with New Zealand prior to the passing of this agreement I am afraid it is going to be very difficult for us to compete with her from now on. But there are other countries that do not come under this agreement: Denmark, for instance, which has been supplying the British market to some extent with these products. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you will agree with me that the people of Denmark are not going to let that market slip from them without putting up a fight. They have certain advantages over us. They are closer to that market, which means cheaper transportation, and besides, the currency situation gives them a further advantage.
Moreover, there is no guarantee under this article that we are going to have a preference in the British market. It is true it guarantees that our goods will enter the British market free, but I cannot believe that the British people will allow the cost of their food to be put up sufficiently to give us any substantial advantage.
Article 2 reads:
His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom will invite parliament to pass the legislation necessary to impose on the foreign goods specified in schedule B appended hereto, the duties of customs shown in that schedule in place of the duties (if any) now leviable.
And schedule B refers to wheat in grain, butter, cheese, apples, and so on. But what I am more particularly interested in is wheat.

674	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
We are told that under this agreement we will have a six cents per bushel preference for our wheat in the British market. In the first place, that six cents a bushel is not a preference : it is a tariff against foreign wheat entering the British market. It does not mean that we are going to get a better price for our wheat in the British market; for the agreement distinctly states that we must sell at world prices. The six cents per bushel which other countries exporting wheat to the British market have to pay, for example, the Argentine, or Russia if she were again in a position to export wheat, will not to my mind keep their wheat out of the British market. We will, as I said before, have perhaps one hundred and fifty or two hundred millions of bushels of wheat which cannot be sold on the British market and which we must sell in other markets of the world. In those other markets we will meet the competition of Argentine and Russian and other wheat that may be kept out of the British market. What will that mean? It will mean that eventually the world price of wheat will be set not at Liverpool as it has been for many years, but at some foreign port, possibly Amsterdam, where we will meet the keen competition of these other countries that have been more or less kept out of the British market. As a result the tendency will be to force down the price, so that instead of this agreement helping the wheat producer of western Canada it will hurt him. Is it any wonder that the growers of wheat in western Canada are not very enthusiastic about this agreement? Do hon. gentlemen opposite think that this six cent tariff against foreign wheat will keep those countries out of the British market? Do they think it will tend to limit the acreage which they plant to wheat? If they think that, let hon. gentlemen look at the farmers of western Canada. If you had told those farmers three or four years ago that they would be selling wheat at 25 or 30 cents a bushel they would have laughed at you and said it was impossible, that rather than sell it at such prices they would burn it or throw it away. But what are they doing today? They are selling that wheat at 25 cents a bushel and they are going to continue to plant seed. They can do nothing else. And that is just what will happen in the other grain-growing countries that are competing with us in the world markets. They must continue to raise grain. The Danish people must continue to supply the British market with bacon, and if they have to absorb whatever tariff may be put 
against bacon they will of necessity absorb it and carry on as best they can.
We have always had a certain preference in the British market for wheat, for the reason that Canadian wheat is the best wheat produced in the world. As I see it, all that this article in the agreement does is to antagonize other nations against us. They will not blame Great Britain for putting this tariff on; they will iblame Canada for forcing Great Britain to put it on against their wheat, and Canada will suffer the consequences.
Then article 5 deals with live cattle. I do not wish to say much about that. If hon. gentlemen opposite have had something to do with lifting the embargo on live cattle going into the British market, every credit is due them for it. We have been trying for years; my hon. friend from Melville (Mr. Motherwell) has worked a good many years trying to get that embargo lifted. Whatever credit may be coming to hon. gentlemen opposite in this connection I do not begrudge them. But I am afraid that with prices as they are at present this will not mean much to the producers of Canada.
Then there is the pig industry, which is something on a par with cattle. We are to get the same treatment in the British market as the British producer gets. What that will be we do not know; we can only live in hope that it may mean something, as we are doing with the rest of this agreement. There again the Danish producer will come into competition with us and will nullify any advantage we may have got.
Now I want to turn for a moment from this agreement and read a statement made the other day by the hon. member for East Essex (Mr. Morand). Referring to the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) he said:
The hon. gentleman has divided his world into two very definite parts; on the one side he has a wheat field with a toll gate and then on the other he has the rest of the world.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not know just what the hon. member for East Essex meant when he said that, but if he meant that the hon. member for Weyburn thinks everyone takes toll from the farmer, I am more or less in agreement with him. The farmer is in the position of the man at the foot of the line; the manufacturer, the wholesaler, the retailer all take toll and pass it on to the farmer who is the producer of the primary product; he has to pay it-he cannot pass it on. Hon. gentlemen opposite-including the hon. member for East Essex, apparently, from his speech the other day-see Canada as a preserve for the manufacturers, with high

United Kingdom
walls around it practically keeping everything out and a toll gate placed so that the manufacturer is enabled to take toll from everyone inside. We of western. Canada have been accused of being free traders. My hon. friend from Weyburn has that reputation. I have before, in this house, stated my attitude on the matter. We in western Canada, producers of commodities which must be sold in the markets of the world, and purchasing in highly protected markets the goods we need for production and for our own livelihood, are naturally at heart free traders. I have always said that we do not expect to get free trade, that we do not wish to injure any industry that has been built up in eastern Canada, which is fairly capitalized and is efficiently operated. We of course always insist on that efficient management. We have always said this, unless we can show that the industry is getting too much tariff protection, in which case we wish to have it brought down. That has been our attitude; at least it has been my personal attitude. But now, Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure whether that is the proper way to look at it. I am getting more and more to the position-perhaps because I sit opposite the hon. gentlemen who occupy the treasury benches-where I think that perhaps we should go all the way. As with the surgeon treating cancer, instead of taking a little nibble here and there, let us cut the whole thing out-


Mr. MacMILLAN:: Hear, hear.


Albert Frederick Totzke: My hon. friend from Saskatoon (Mr. MacMillan) says, "hear, hear." I am very glad to have his approbation. That suggestion may be a little drastic, but hon. gentlemen opposite through their policy of high protection and almost prohibitory tariffs are forcing the people to think along those lines. Hon. gentlemen think that the way to make Canada prosperous is to make the manufacturer prosperous. They have put the cart before the horse. If they make the primary producers prosperous, the farmer, the fisherman, the lumberman and the miner, they need not worry about the manufacturers- they will look after themselves.
I was interested in the remark of the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael), that retaliation against the United States might bring them to offer us better terms. Today he was referred to as the clerical gentleman who offered first one cheek and then the other, and then waded in and gave his assailant a good thrashing. He says that these agreements may force the United States to give us greater markets. That may be so;
53719-43^
there may be a change of government in the republic to the south, and we know the traditional attitude of the Democratic party with regard to tariffs. We know there is the possibility that certain reciprocal trade arange-ments may be suggested, but the hon. member for Kindersley did not say whether we would be in a position to accept such offers. Are we going to be in a position to make a trade agreement with any country in the world once these agreements come into effect? In these agreements we say that we will preserve the British preferential tariff and in many cases, in the schedules to these agreements, we have made the British preferential free and the intermediate and general tariffs equal. So there is no opportunity for Canada to conclude an agreement with any foreign country; we must preserve that British preferential. England can trade with other countries. Already approaches have been made by various foreign countries looking to trade agreements. Great Britain has been approached by Argentina, and I want to say that the Argentine trade is no small item in the British export business. No doubt Great Britain will conclude an agreement with the Argentine. Sweden and Uruguay have also suggested agreements, and even Russia has made approaches. We have heard hon. gentlemen opposite refer to Russia; we heard the right hon. Prime Minister, with tears in his eyes and with bated breath, tell us about this terrible Russian trade, but Great Britain is going to trade with that country. We were told that Great Britain was going to abrogate her trade agreement with Russia and that we would get some benefit from that act, but here we have Great Britain ready to make another trade agreement with that country, as she will do with any country when she considers it to be to her advantage to do so.
I notice, Mr. Speaker, that these schedules protect the manufacturer, and as a result increase the cost to the general consumer. Not only have the government given no thought to the farmers in drawing up these tariff schedules; they have put in the schedules an increase in the tariff on fertilizer, making it [DOT]till more difficult for the farmer to produce his crops. What will this higher cost of production mean? Will it increase our trade with Great Britain? If you look up the trade returns you will find that a number of these articles, especially in the chemical section, where we find the fertilizers which are so necessary to the farmers in some parts of Canada and which before lcng may become necessary to the farmers in western Canada, despite the high fertility of the soil, are not exported by Great Britain. We must get most of these
676	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
things from the United States, so what does it mean when we increase the tariff in this way? To my mind it simply means that someone will start manufacturing these articles in Canada, and they will have the benefit of that protection. The other night we had a frank statement from the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. White), who said that this was a protectionist government and that these agreements were protective measures. That shows the Tory mind, the Tory attitude and the Tory approach to all agreements which they make. They look at things from the viewpoint of the manufacturer rather than from the viewpoint of the producer.
That is the trouble with these agreements; they make it almost imposi'ble to extend our trade with the other countries of the world. We do not say the British market is not important; I am not saying anything against it. But we always had free entry into that market and I am sure that free entry would have been continued. That market, however cannot absorb all our products, we must have other markets as well. But apparently hon. gentlemen opposite are not satisfied with building a high tariff wall around Canada in order to put into effect their policy of Canada first and keep out goods that may be manufactured in other countries. Now they wish to extend that wall to include the whole British Empire.
My time is almost up, Mr. Speaker, and in conclusion I should like to refer to the statement of the Prime Minister-"We have done well." So far as the farmers of western Canada are concerned I think the Prime Minister should have said, to use the vernacular, "We have done you well."


Mr. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Hull) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, may I, at the outset of my remarks, express the wish that the reiterated warnings of the Liberal party, against the danger attending the adoption of this resolution, may have the good effect of changing the mind of the leader of the government and his followers as regards their tariff policy. 1 fear, however, that my wish will not materialize and that the government will turn a deaf ear to the protests of the opposition. If the government will not follow the suggestions of the opposition in this respect, at least, we shall have the satisfaction of having laid bare to the people of Canada the whole motive of our opposition to the agreements between the United Kingdom and the Dominions, last August.
Recently, in a by-election, the agreements of the Imperial Economic Conference were explained to the people of a rural constituency of Ontario with the result that, after hearing

four or five cabinet ministers discussing at length this question, the people of that constituency came to the conclusion that their arguments were not very sound and rejected their policy. The government endeavoured to convince these people that Canada would greatly benefit by the agreements concluded at Ottawa, but it was all in vain. May I, by the way, take the opportunity of congratulating the member of that constituency (Mr. Golding) on his splendid success. His personal qualities, his zeal for the Liberal cause, his loyalty to the policy of the Liberal party together with the principles advocated by his leaders convinced his constituents, and were responsible for this great victory. The success is to the credit of the Liberal party and seems to be a disapproval of the policy followed, in the last two years, by the government.
In 1930, the Conservative party assumed power by pledging itself to raise the tariff so as to put an end to the economic crisis and decrease unemployment .
The tariff would no further aim at concluding agreements with foreign nations or friendly trade relations. It would neither help in obtaining sufficient revenues to administer public affairs, but would lead to an economic war with foreign nations. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) repeated it from one end of the country to the other: "We shall use the tariff to blast our way to all the markets of the world." He contended that we might close our domestic market; that all we could produce to be consumed, would be produced here; that the Canadian market would be closed to foreign markets and by following this policy the unemployed would have work, prosperity would return to Canada, the purchasing power would increase and normal conditions would return to the level they were previous to 1930. I have briefly stated a few of the pledges made, in the course of the election, by the right hon. Prime Minister as well as by his followers. I do not think that I have exaggerated in any way, because, for the last two years, the conservatives have upheld the same pretensions.
I closely followed, this afternoon, the speech of the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon). I wish to congratulate him on his eloquence and literary achievement, however, I do not think he did himself justice when he stated: If the province of Quebec has placed its trust in the policy of the Liberal party, it is because, for a number of years, it was deceived by public men, the leaders of the Liberal party. I think the hon. member for Dorchester does not appreciate to its full ex-

United, Kingdom
tent the intelligence and attainments of the people of Quebec. One is liable to be fooled occasionally, or even repeatedly, but it is impossible to deceive the people as a whole for thirty or forty years in succession. I think it is an insult aimed at Quebec to state that the people of that pi'ovince gave their allegiance to a political party which induced them in error, because they were unable to discern between truth and error. Moreover, if there is a party which has deceived, in the last election, the people of my province, it is certainly the Conservative party. The leaders of that party had recourse to all possible means, from the loftiest to the meanest in order to win the election. Now, when an election takes place, the Conservative party does not further contend that its policy will make for prosperity, but it admits that the crisis, from which we are suffering in Canada, extends to all nations; that the causes of this depression are not local, but independent of the legislation of one country or another and therefore world wide, the effects of which are felt in all countries whether they are protectionists or free-traders.
In 1930, the late government was blamed for 90 per cent of the distress prevailing then. Today, it is conceded by all members on the opposite side that the government is not responsible, that the measures they enacted would have given the best results in normal times, but that the present situation is abnormal, and for that reason, the measures enacted had not the results expected.
Following the election of 1930, an Imperial economic conference was held in London. Means wrere to be found at that conference to develop closer trade relations between all the component parts of the British Commonwealth, but especially with Great Britain. Previous to this conference, the Prime Minister summoned a special session of parliament and taking advantage of the fact that we had to come to the rescue of the unemployed and relieve distress, he made changes on a great number of items in the tariff. All these changes increased the tariff; they were adopted in a hurry, without due consideration or without consulting the tariff board then in existence and which however was shortly after abolished. The Prime Minister at that conference attempted to impose his views not only on Great Britain, but on all the nations of the commonwealth.
He reiterated what he had stated during the election of 1930. His party advocated the policy "Canada First" in which he had an unshakable faith. The Prime Minister laid down as a basis in the trade negotiations with
England and the other nations of the British Empire, a preference of a new order; he stipulated that Canada would maintain her present tariff on imports from Great Britain-this happened hardly a month after the considerable increase in our tariff had been resolved upon- however, he pledged himself to raise by 10 per cent the tariff against all foreign countries. In return, he requested England to grant to our products free entry, and levy on foreign goods the same duty of 10 per cent. The British government, at that period, was a labour free-trade government which did not admit that protection was in the best interests of England, and the British Prime Minister's reply was that it was impossible.
We cannot they said, tax food-stuffs entering Great Britain. This conference was not a success; it was a failure, a fiasco. [DOT]
For two years we have awaited the Imperial economic conference, at Ottawa. In the meantime, an election was held in England. The labour party was defeated and a national government was formed. At the Ottawa conference, last summer, the Prime Minister-he states so himself-endeavoured to have the same policy he had advocated in London in 1930 with minor changes adopted. He did not, however, generalize as he had previously done, but all the changes were founded on protection. The agreements were signed in August. I shall shortly discuss some of the clauses to prove that, for Quebec and even for the other provinces, the advantages to be derived from these agreements are very debatable. As Liberals, we cannot approve of these agreements, our principles tend to a lower tariff, to a tariff for revenues. In the discussions which took place at these two conferences, we note that a component part of the British Empire, Canada, endeavoured to impose her views on the other nations of the commonwealth.
In the past, the two political parties loudly proclaimed their autonomy as to domestic affairs. It is unnecessary to repeat what has already been stated in this respect. In 1859, Sir John A. Macdonald sent through the intermediary of his secretary of state, the following communications to the secretary for the colonies: "It is the duty of this government to assert the right of the Canadian legislature to adjust and determine the system of taxation, in whatever way it may deem proper, and this at the risk of displeasing the mother country. Sir Robert Borden gave expression to the same principle in 1918: "We shall not interfere in the domestic affairs of the mother country, but neither do we wish the mother country to dictate to us what our
678	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
policy should be as regards the tariff or taxation." It was the first time, in 1930, that a Prime Minister endeavoured to impose his will as regards the domestic affairs of the other parts of the empire. He, therefore, opened himself to receive,-when the occasion presents itself-from the other countries of the empire, advice or even to be dictated to as regards our domestic policy. As a sequel to these discussions of 1930 and 1932, we abandon part of that autonomy for which we have struggled since confederation, and even as far back as the conquest of Canada by England.
I think that the Prime Minister and the other delegates to these conferences should have known-and they did know-that protection had been given a trial in other countries, and that the results had proved disastrous. Notwithstanding the example of the United States, Australia, Germany and other nations which had endorsed high protection, part of the British Empire' was made to sign agreements based on the principle of high protection.
May I quote a few extracts from an article signed by John T. Flynn, in Colliers Weekly, published in the second week of August, 1932. I shall read the quotation in English, as I have not the translation with me. This article refers to the economic situation of the United States at present, resulting from high protection :
For years we lived in a fools' paradise. We had our tariff walls; our chief buyers had none. We sold what we wished abroad save what we actually needed. We were young; we needed much and so trade moved in both directions.
But we developed fast. We shut out first one commodity and then another. Then came the war and soon we found ourselves selling very much and buying much less. After the war, with the Fordney-McCumber tariff bill, we attempted to close our ports to the trade of the world as completely as possible. Of course, we could hardly expect to do business with the rest of the world on this basis. We could not sell to people who were not permitted to pay with the only things they had to pay with,- their goods.
Yet we did do business with them. We sold them each year from half a billion to a billion dollars' worth of goods more than we bought from them. How were they able to pay for these goods? They were not. Our bankers simply loaned them the money. They still owe the loans.
This is briefly a description of the situation created in the United States by this high protection policy.
In concluding, Mr. Flynn suggests means which will be put into practice shortly; he names two:
What is the way out? Hopeless as it may seem, there is a way out. First we must put

an end to the policy of tariff boosting. Next we must put an end to the making of "most-favoured nation?" treaties designed to kill off reciprocity. Finally, we must summon other nations to sit with us in an international economic conference or council and see if, by a policy of give and take, we cannot make a beginning of lowering along the frontiers of all the nations of the world, the inhospitable walls which now shut out trade, intercourse, good will and good understanding.
This is, briefly, what could be applied to our country. As to population Canada holds the thirtieth place in the world. When the Liberal party was defeated in 1930 our little nation, holding the thirtieth place as regards population, occupied the fifth position as to her trade-both exports and imports. It has fallen within the last two years to the seventh place. Therefore other nations must have exported or imported more than us.
One can always find arguments in upholding principles, either economic or political. They are debatable. Our views are formed through studying; convictions are results. Notwithstanding all the deference I have for the convictions and views of the members on the government side, it seems to me that their convictions and views must be tottering when they perceive that their policy does not produce the results promised to the people in 1930. They no further state: protection will bring back prosperity, decrease unemployment, find markets for agricultural and manufactured products, but they state: wait until we apply these agreements and you will discover all the advantages the Canadian people will derive. The Conservatives follow the same tactics used in the past, and if the people were so gullible as to believe them, they could indefinitely remain in power under false representations.
May I now refer to the Ottawa conference itself. I shall quote certain extracts from the opening speech of the Prime Minister, who acted as chairman of the conference:
We meet in days when the machinery of world commerce is out of gear. International finance has broken down; the old-fashioned industrial life to which we have grown accustomed has undergone a change. We move towards a new economic order of things.
In 1930, the then leader of the opposition travelled through our countryside repeating the same thing, that the machinery of world commerce was out of gear. Only he made the following reserve: it was only the commerce of Canada that was out of gear. If trade was in the sad situation as represented in 1930, the Liberal administration was to be blamed. Two years later his argument necessarily extends to all the world commerce. He

United Kingdom
must have known in 1930 that not only Canadian trade was disorganized, but that the crisis had spread throughout the world. "International finance has broken down," but it is also on that argument that he was elected. He explained that we had not a financial system capable of meeting the needs of the people. What did he do to better this financial system? "We move towards a new economic order of things," but this is a truism; the trade of a nation, the trade of the world follows the same evolution as a child himself; in developing a new order of things springs up in the growth of a human being, as well as in the development of trade, but they do not seem to adhere to the same principles. A little further he continues:
We have a common purpose. We have a supreme desire to achieve it. And there can be no group of countries in the wide world so capable of united action as are the countries which comprise the empire.
What is that common purpose? It is clear, it is self-evident. For the last two years the Prime Minister has surrounded Canada with an almost impassable tariff wall. Not content with having applied this policy to our country, he has endeavoured for the last two years to surround the whole British Empire with the same tariff barrier, so as to exclude from the empire foreign exports.
It is the Right Hon. Mr. Stanley Baldwin himself who, at the outset of the conference, pointed out to the delegates that we should not forget that seventy per cent of the trade of the empire is carried on with the nations of the world, while there is only thirty per cent carried on with the nations of the commonwealth.
The main idea which seems to dominate in the mind of the Prime Minister, is to exclude all trade with foreign countries. However, it is absurd to think that we, in Canada, can dispose of all our products with the nations of the empire. There are not enough markets in the whole British Empire to absorb all we produce in this country, which is almost as large as the whole of Europe. We must have world markets. Where we differ with Conservatives is when they think by erecting tariff w'alls around the empire, in exporting what we can of our surplus production to the nations of the empire, we shall force the other nations to purchase our products. It is absurd to think that the other nations will pay tribute to us, a tax, will submit to our demands to trade with us.
The same thing will happen as in the United States which, after raising its tariff out of all proportion against the other countries, found that 38 nations raised their own to avoid paying tribute to the United States. This policy of the Prime Minister is economically impracticable. A tribute is paid only under great pressure. No human being wishes to bend the knee or pay a tribute if he can possibly help it. It is our present situation. The Prime Minister does not conceal the fact; in a speech delivered in Calgary, he again makes the statement; he is very lucid in this respect. We do not believe that by carrying on an economic war against other nations, we shall succeed in bringing back prosperit}' to this country. I am quite aware that the Conservative party is a war party which wants to apply war methods to trade. I fear that it is a fundamental error of Conservative principles. We do not trade with those we dislike or with those who will not welcome us or with those who place restrictions on our trade, but we have trade intercourse with those who offer us the best advantages or are friendly to us; never, however, with those, who are obnoxious to us in some way or other.
Further on the Prime Minister states:
What do we hope from this conference? The answer is, I think, from all of us, greater markets wdthin the empire. There is the answer from all of us undoubtedly, if we are persuaded, as I am, that greater empire markets mean as well greater world markets.
This claim that greater empire markets mean greater world markets is false. They wish to form an economic group of the whole empire. Other nations will unite together and surround themselves with tariff walls. When all have organized and united, the result will be that of 1914, a great war sponsored by trade predominance of one country over the others. If tariff wars are less threatening, at first, they necessarily lead later on to real warfare. The policy advocated in these agreements has that tendency.
In turning the page of this publication on the Imperial economic conference, I come across a statement of one of the delegates from Great Britain, the Right Hon. Stanley Baldwin:
International trade is so hampered by barriers of all kinds that a strong opinion is developing in favour of groups, not necessarily political in character, but offering to members economic advantages in the mutual opening of markets.
He himself recognizes that countries today, tend to surround themselves with tariff barriers to hamper trade, and what is worse, they endeavour after to grant themselves mutual concessions so as to compete against other groups. Let me further quote:
Reverting now to empire trade, we hope that as a result of this conference we may be able,
680	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
not only to maintain existing preferences, but in addition to find ways of increasing them. There are two ways in which increased preference can be given-either by lowering barriers among ourselves or by raising them against others. The choice between these two must be governed largely by local considerations, but subject to that, it seems to us that we should endeavour to follow the first rather than the second course. For however great our resources, we cannot isolate ourselves from the world. No nation or group of nations, however wealthy and populous, can maintain prosperity in a world where depression and impoverishment reign.
I do not contend that increase or decrease in tariffs, or even the preference granted to the mother country could entirely do away with the evil from which we, at present suffer. It would be one of the means to which we might have recourse. Both parties in Canada are at loggerheads as to the means to take. In granting a preference to England as we did in the past, since 1897, that is in maintaining our general and intermediary tariffs and granting a preference of 12| per cent on the general tariff, in 1897; of 25 per cent, the following year and 33| per cent, in 1902, and today, a prefererfce of 50 per cent, as the leader of the Liberal party stated, but without further increasing the duties against other countries, I think we could succeed in relieving the distress, today, by returning to this policy and establishing the tariff proposed in the Dunning budget of 1930. These are my humble views.
We have gone over what the Conservative party has done to this day. The results obtained by their policy do not further justify the application of those political principles.
The agreements themselves contain a number of articles, I note, however, that I shall not have time to discuss them, but a few of them have particularly struck me. Article I reads as follows:
His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom undertake that orders shall be made in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Import Duties Act, 1932, which will ensure the continuance after the 15th November, 1932, of entry free of duty into the United Kingdom of goods consigned from any part of the British Empire and grown, produced or manufactured in Canada which by virtue of that act are now free of duty subject, however, to the reservations set forth in schedule A appended hereto.
We must note that in February, 1932, our exports entered free in Great Britain. And it is on the pressing requests and entreaties.of our government that the British government has become protectionist-at least such are the contentions of the Conservative party. We must not forget that, in February, 1932, the

United Kingdom levied a duty of 10 per cent on a number of items imported from foreign countries and allowed our products to enter free. Is it reasonable to think that, even had the Ottawa conference not had any results, the United Kingdom would have taxed Canadian and the other Dominion's foodstuffs? Was it in England's interest to tax the foodstuffs coming from her colonies and thus deprive them of the English market. The mere thought of it is ridiculous.
The limited time at my disposal precludes my discussing all the articles. I shall simply refer to the last article which restricts the agreements to a period of five years. Future governments both in Canada and the United Kingdom are thus tied down.
We shall not be able to trade with foreign countries, we shall be bound by these agreements. Even if benefits were to accrue from these agreements, the fact that they tie us down for five years would certainly be a reason to repudiate them.
Reference was made to the fact that the exports of other countries were detrimental to our trade. All have read in the newspapers that shiploads of crude oil had entered Canada, and as a result the Arvida Aluminium Co. had employed 100 men more and that moreover workers had been required to refine this crude oil.
Reference was further made to the advantages of these agreements as regards Canada's dairy products. The press informed us, in September, that we were short of butter and that Canada would be forced to import at least 5,000,000 pounds. We were unable to compete with New Zealand butter in our own country, how are we going to compete against that butter in the United Kingdom, since New Zealand butter enjoys the same protection as ours on the British markets?
The following is what some people think of the present tariffs, in the United Kingdom. I shall again have to quote these views in English because I have not at hand the translation. The Right Hon. Mr. Snowden, after resigning his post, when the agreements were signed, stated his views. I quote the Evening Citizen, September 29, 1932:
"Six months' experience of tariffs," he wrote, "has disillusioned every unprejudiced protectionist. None of the blessings, which were to fall upon and fructify the sterile industrial soil has descended. Our foreign trade has declined considerably; unemployment has increased greatly, and the policy of the government has led to more foreign reprisals and restrictions.
"The British delegates to the Ottawa conference have come back after weeks of acrimonious disputes and sordid struggles with vested interests, with agreements wrenched from them

United Kingdom
to avert the collapse of that conference and the exposure to the world of the hollowness of talk of imperial sentiment in economic affairs.
"Nothing in my political experience has been more disgraceful and dishonest than the misrepresentations of the results of the Imperial conference which are being circulated in the Tory press."
And if I may be allowed to quote the Droit of Ottawa, which far from being a party newspaper, proclaims itself an independent newspaper, in its first edition October 18, 1932, this newspaper refers to an article by Mr. Camille L'Heureux, which states that we have dropped from the fifth to the seventh place among the trading nations of the world. The following is an extract:
Protection, as conceived by Conservatives, has not produced the results expected. People will conclude that high protection, as a means of bringing back prosperity, has failed in this country.
I am one of the youngest members of this house, however, if I may be permitted to give an advice to the Prime Minister, I would advise him to read the words of Sir Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of England, who, recently, in a lecture stated:
The difficulties are so vast, the forces so unlimited and so novel and the precedents so lacking, that I approach the whole subject not only in ignorance but in humility. It is too great for me.
Have you ever met a public man in the Conservative party admit his helplessness in dealing with the present problem? A thousand arguments were dug up to prove that they were right, and meanwhile the people were in distress, unemployment increased and farm products found no market. This afternoon, the hon. member for Dorchester stated that the Liberal members were to be pitied. May I reply to the hon. member for Dorchester that it is not the Liberal members who are to be pitied but really the farmers of his own county who cannot dispose of their products or pay their municipal taxes! Let the hon. member for Dorchester extend his pity to the 750,000 unemployed in Canada, and which are totally in want; to those rendered unhappy and miserable by the policy and measures adopted by this government! We have no need of his pity. When the people will be called upon to decide the issue, the hon. member for Dorchester will then be an object of pity and that will be extended to him.


Fizalam-William Perras: Mr. Speaker, I have the great honour and privilege to represent in this house one of the finest and fairest rural constituencies in Canada. I am deeply appreciative of that honour and consider it a pleasant duty to express in this
house the sentiments of those who have honoured me with their confidence. I feel that in electing me as their representative the people of the county of Wright showed good sense in not falling victims to the multitude of preelection promises made by the then leader of the opposition. They showed a keen sense of appreciation of the sound principles of Liberal doctrines and paid no attention to the rash and inconsequential promises of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). Would that heaven had willed that the majority of the electors of Canada should have had the same vision and the same sense of appreciation of the principles which were best for the welfare of Canada as had the electors of Wright county. If today the population of my county feels, as does the population of every other constituency, the tight pinch of the depression and the privations and hardships which go with poverty, they have the consolation of knowing that they did not bring them upon themselves. They know that in the dying days of 1929 the clouds were gathering and that the storm had broken out in many parts of the world. But they felt in 1930 that the Dunning budget would, if carried through, bring Canada past the crisis, so they voted for the Dunning budget, and today they feel that they did right.
The electors of Wright county could see that the storm was world-wide and they were prepared to weather it. But, sir, the worldwide adverse conditions are made ten times worse by the ill-advised policies of the Prime Minister, policies that in a cooler atmosphere, in a more collected state of mind, in a less reckless moment, he would never have framed. Times were getting bad the world over in May, 1930, but conditions were relatively good in the county of Wright. The farmer there lived in peace and contentment. The price for his butter, eggs, and other farm and dairy products enabled him to live happily. His sales were as numerous and as profitable as he desired, and his purchases of the necessaries of life or of implements or other manufactured goods were made under very favourable conditions. The farmers of Wright county got a fair return for their products and paid a fair price for their purchases. They were happy under Liberal rule.
Then came the elections. Then came the lavish promises, recklessly made by the present Prime Minister and his followers. Then they started to peddle gold bricks throughout Canada. Unfortunately, in the majority of the counties the electors chose them; but not so with the electors of my county. True,
682	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
there were some who thought there was meat in those promises and who voted for the Tory party, but today you cannot get anyone in my county to say that he would do so again, or anyone to boast of what he did in so voting; because today one and all in the county of Wright feel the effect of the changed conditions and earnestly pray for a return to Liberal rule. None of the electorate of my county has forgotten the high prices that were secured in those days as compared with the ridiculously low and even famine prices that they now get for their products.
The present Prime Minister had made the promise that under his one-man government the prices of all farm products would soar away up; that all would be milk and honey; that all would get rich overnight, and that whatever unemployment there was would be ended. In those days of Liberal rule the pulpwood industry of Wright county flourished. Many hundreds of breadwinners were engaged in that trade, either as jobbers or day labourers, during the wood season. Many farmers of limited means, or those just starting out, or many men without farms, but living in the country, spent the winter months at that trade and all found therein their livelihood. But as soon as the change of government took place, so soon did conditions change in Wright county. With the coming into office of the new administration, the population lost faith and confidence, particularly in view of the fact that immediately matters started to get worse, prices fell, markets closed and unemployment increased. Prior to that time all had been peace and happiness.
There is no other constituency in Canada where the two great races, English and French, live in closer harmony and friendship; there is no other constituency where all creeds live in better understanding, where feelings of greater mutual respect and esteem prevail; there is no other constituency where greater loyalty to the crown exists than in the county of Wright. But today it would break your heart, sir, as it does mine, to go through once prosperous parishes and mingle with those unfortunate farmers, those unfortunate men, young and old, who are now unemployed, and see the distress in the faces of the mothers and the famished appearance of the children.
How did this all happen? Simply as a result of the ill-advised action of the Conservative party in changing so radically and quickly the policies that up to that time had made the people of my county happy and contented. My county is an agricultural one; its inhabitants live on the fruit of the land,

whether it be farm or dairy produce or lumber. For years the valley of the Gatineau has been known for the remarkable quality of the products of its farms and famous for the products of its forests. Its timber has had an international reputation. Private interests for years, yes, for over a century back, have made millions of dollars out of its timber. Companies by the score have been attracted to its vast resources. One of the most powerful lumber and pulpwood companies in the world has settled right in the heart of the Gatineau valley, mostly in my county.
All through the Liberal regime could, in my county, be heard the sound of the axe in the forest, the crashing to the ground of the majestic trees, the gay songs of the lumbermen, the buzz of the saws in the sawmills along the numerous streams, and the humming of large powerhouses along the picturesque Gatineau river. But today, because of the tariff policies of the Conservative party, the songs and sounds of activity are no more. Those tariff policies have cut off our markets, have shut off our avenues of trade, have chased away our customers. Our tariff walls are so high that the rest of the world cannot trade with us, nor can we trade with them. And now, to make matters worse, the Prime Minister asks that we make those markets even more impossible of success. He wants by this agreement to have us tied to one customer for three, five or ten years. No one is more loyal than are the electors of my county or than myself, but I say that the survival of the empire and of Canada is not dependent solely upon our trading exclusively with the empire. For years, ever since we have been able to trade, we have traded with the empire and the world, and under the Liberal regime and under Liberal trade policies we prospered. Why should we now tie ourselves up to one customer only, particularly when we find ourselves with a surplus production and feel so keenly the lack of markets? Why should we shut ourselves away from the rest of the world and sign an agreement to deal with one customer only for the next three or five or ten years?
If prosperity is just round the corner, as the Conservative party says, why does not the Prime Minister do something to help the farmers of Canada dispose of their surplus production at a reasonable price ? Why does he not do something to help them dispose of their present stock of pulpwood? Why does he not do something at once to enable them to realize on the timber that lies rotting in the bush and the cutting of which he encouraged when he urged the farmers to produce, saying that he would blast a way

United Kingdom
for them into the markets of the world? The Prime Minister solemnly promised to help agriculture, but now after two years agriculture is in a mess. Never at any time have conditions been so bad. After two years of this Conservative administration the farmer is ruined and on the verge of starvation. All the Prime Minister has to offer him now is an agreement the effects of which may not be felt for many years. What did the Prime Minister say at Calgary on June 13, 1930?
We will look over the top of the wall and beyond the horizon, to make provision for the Canadian agriculturist and secure markets for him.
What a consolation! For two years this . great architect of Canada's reconstruction has been building high walls around her. Now that the walls are so very high is it any wonder he has to look beyond the horizon to search for customers after having chased them all away?
Again at Regina on June 11, 1930, the Prime Minister said:
There is a good time coming. We may not live to see it.
How encouraging! Yes, Mr. Speaker, good times are coming, but we will not see them, it is true, under Conservative policies and tariff doctrines. Good times will come with the return to power of the Liberal party. Of that the electors of Wright county are convinced, and they only desire the opportunity to prove it again. The farmer is tired of vain promises. He is tired of waiting. He wants action and results, and he is entitled to them. A happy and prosperous farmer means a happy and prosperous country. A discontented and unhappy farmer, as is the Canadian farmer today, means a discontented and unhappy country, as is Canada today. From this agreement when can we expect results, if any?
May I point out that in September of this year Canada's total trade has decreased by
518.119.000	over the corresponding month of last year. Our total trade for the period ending September 30 of this year has been S459,596,000, a decrease of 8159,908,000 as compared with the same period in 1931.
Exports of lumber and other kindred pro-ductsh have also decreased. Exports of dressed lumber, such as boards and so forth, have decreased from $10,934,000 to $6,543,000; pulp exports have decreased from $14,146,000 to $8,134,000; and exports of newsprint from
553.492.000	to $40,215,000, all in the last six months.
May I, in conclusion, quote the words of the Prime Minister as reported in Hansard of October 12, 1932, at page 124.
Under favourable marketing conditions and with a price maintained continuously above the cost of production, Canada has potential possibilities for the production of 8,500,000 hogs by 1937, permitting of an export volume of 300,000,000 pounds of bacon and 10,000,000 hogs by 1942, permitting of an export volume of 500,000,000 pounds of bacon and hams.
Commenting on that, the Ottawa Citizen of October 15 says in an editorial, under the heading "Hogs of Empire":
Under the five-year plan of the imperial conference, Canada is apparently to become a land flowing with hogs and bacon in 1937. According to Premier Bennett's estimate:
"Canada has potential possibilities for the production of 8,500,000 hogs by 1937, permitting of an export volume of 300,000,000 pounds of bacon and 10,000,000 hogs by 1942, permitting of an export volume of 500,000,000 pounds of bacon and hams."
In the meanwhile, even at this moment, there is no scarcity of hogs or hams in Canada, but many thousands of Canadian people lack the purchasing power to indulge in anything so luxurious as breakfast bacon. There are millions of people similarly situated in the United Kingdom.
Perhaps the magic touch of the imperial tariff is going to make it possible for the United Kingdom to consume Canadian hogs by the million. But the imperial vision of this stream of hogs across the Atlantic ocean is hardly going to feed hungry people in Canada this winter, or next.
The vision of a great armada of 8,500 ships, every one with a passenger list of one thousand Canadian hogs, to do battle with Danish, Irish and other hogs outside of the imperial fold, is thrilling evidence of the high statesmanship of the Ottawa conference. How foolish of starving Canadian ex-service men to throw themselves into the Rideau canal when they need only wait five years to see this great imperial hog solution of the problem of hard times!
Mr. Speaker, to conclude my remarks, as the signing of the agreement will bring no better results to the farmers of my county, I shall vote against the measure now before the house.


Mr. W. G. WEIR (Macdonald):: Mr. Speaker, we are in process of considering an agreement of far-reaching importance, an agreement which may have undreamed of effects on the domestic life of this country, an agreement that may completely revolutionize the entire status of the British commonwealth of nations by its complications and ramifications of tariff changes. It is an agreement which may go down in history as a turning point in international affairs. Realizing the importance of this agreement, as the government surely does, they place it before us as if it were some ordinary measure, and expect this house and the country to accept it. I am very much in sympathy with the suggestion made by several hon. gentlemen
684	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
on this side of the house, both from the official opposition and from the group in the corner, that it would seem a much more reasonable course for us to discuss this measure in committee, getting information on the details, rather than proceeding as we are. As it is now we have the cart before the horse. Surely with an agreement as important as this is, arrangements could have been made to deal with it in that manner. It would not be so bad if hon. gentlemen opposite when they rise to discuss this measure would endeavour to give us some information on the details instead of indulging in generalities that leave us as much in the dark when they sit down as when they started. I cannot see how the government can expect us to vote intelligently on this measure with the little information they have so far given us. They may say: Let the measure pass and go to committee; then the detailed information will be given. But what will be the use of discussing the details after the whole thing is passed?
There met in this fair Canadian city a few weeks ago the leading statesmen of the British Empire. To what end? Whatever their intentions may have been at the beginning, they ended up by arranging a general increase in tariffs, and by fixing of trade agreements on the British Empire for the next five years that cannot be changed, regardless of what changed conditions may require. The action taken at the Imperial conference has really resulted in placing a tariff wall around the British Empire, thereby virtually making a zollverein out of the British commonwealth of nations and saddling high protection on us for the next five years. To me this is a dangerous course to pursue, and one that we may live to regret. It is dangerous for its effects on world trade; it is dangerous to Canada and the British Empire for its possible effect in causing other nations or combinations of nations to join together for a similar purpose; it is dangerous for its possible effect on international relations. May I here be permitted to read part of an article by Sir Arthur Salter on the imperial conference, which appeared in the London Times of September 27, 1932. Referring to the conference, he said:
In addition to reciprocal concessions on tariffs imposed for national reasons, Great Britain undertakes to impose new tariffs and not to remove certain existing ones without consent.
This is a real innovation in tariff history. Hitherto countries have imposed tariffs in the real or supposed interests of themselves or their producers; and they negotiated, successfully or

in vain, for general or reciprocal concessions. But even the most protectionist countries have not entered into engagements to put on tariffs they do not want or retain others they may find injurious.
The new engagements to impose and retain tariffs are, in general, for five years. This must both restrict the area and complicate the process of bargaining with other countries. It used to be argued that the power to impose tariffs ourselves would enable us to bargain down the tariffs of others. But to bargain it is just as necessary to be free to remove duties as to impose them. Our domestic policy, by limiting any pledges to a year, left this freedom, nominally at least, little impaired. A period of one year is not fatal to bargaining, but one of five years (in the sphere in which the agreements apply) most certainly is.
An engagement for five years, extending beyond the life of the parliament asked to ratify it, is a constitutional innovation. Such an innovation might well have been desirable as a part of a bargain with other countries for the purpose of limiting and reducing tariffs. It is surely regrettable that it should have been introduced for precisely the opposite purpose.
Next the agreements endorse the "compensatory" principle. It is when tariffs are in excess of a level which compensates for differences in costs of production that our industrialists are to have the right to protest.
This "compensatory" (or miscalled "scientific") principle is not new in the world's tariff history; on the contrary, it has played a great and disastrous role. But its endorsement in British policy is novel. This principle means that when an industry is specially unsuitable to a country protection, instead of being denied, is increased. To the extent to which it is applied it not merely reduces trade, it destroys its very foundation. The basis, and the only basis, of trade is that some produce more advantageously, and therefore more cheaply, than others. The only reason, apart from caprice or error, why any one buys from abroad is that he can get a given article at a lower price or a better article at the same price. Abolish this difference exactly by compensatory tariffs and trade is not diminished, it ceases.
After all the years that Canada has been working for complete autonomy as a British nation, finally culminating in the passing of the Statute of Westminster, it is hard to conceive how our statesmen and those from the other parts of the empire could take the backward step that appears to have been taken in this agreement, whereby Canada is restricted in making trade agreements with other countries and Great Britain cannot change her tariff without the consent of the dominions. That this has been done is clear from article 9, which is as follows:
His Majesty's government in Canada will invite parliament to pass the legislation necessary to substitute for the duties of customs now leviable on the goods specified in schedule E the duties shown in that schedule, provided that nothing in this article shall preclude His Majesty's government in Canada from reducing the duties specified in the said schedule so long

United Kingdom
as the margin of British preference shown in that schedule is preserved or from increasing the rates under the intermediate or general tariff set out in the said schedule.
Article 9 refers to schedule E. I find that in that schedule there are 215 items. Over 90 of the items are free under the British preferential tariff, and the intermediate and genera! rates are the same; consequently there is no chance cf changing any of the items in that particular schedule, because the margin of preference has to be maintained. And most of the items contained in the schedule cover articles which when they come into this country would reduce the cost of production and the cost of living. Great Britain has agreed to a similar undertaking, according to article 3 of the agreement. Let me read it:
His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom undertake that the general ad valorem duty of ten per cent imposed by section 1 of the Import Duties Act, 1932, on the foreign goods specified in schedule C shall not be reduced except with the consent of His Majesty's government in Canada.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, that is sacrificing the autonomy of both Great Britain and Canada.
Much has been said in this debate about bragaining in tariff making. For a country such as Canada, which is so dependent on export trade, I am opposed to it. Every deal, you may say, is a bargain of some kind. I do net agree. Canada must sell her exports in the markets of the world, and is not in a position to pick and choose to any great extent. I liken Canada's position, as the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Willis), did, to that of a man doing business with a storekeeper. A goodwill relation develops; they do not dicker over every sale. If they are fair to each other and the storekeeper ha3 the goods of the quality desired, and when, as often happens, advantage can be taken of some particular condition, the storekeeper will endeavour to share that advantage with his customer. That is not bargaining; that is mutual confidence and good-will, and what applies in business applies equally in international trade.
I must hurry to deal with two or three other features of the agreement. First I should like to say a word or two with regard to the removal of restrictions on our export cattle. Everyone is glad that this restriction against shipping female cattle into Great Britain has been removed. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins) endeavoured to make much of this accomplishment; he virtually said, "Even though the whole agreement is bad surely you can give the government credit for accomplishing something." I am quite prepared to give the hon. member for Marquette all the credit that is coming to him
for the valuable work he has done in that regard, but I think he should be equally prepared to share that credit with other people. The hon. member for Souris (Mr. Willis) was more generous when he said that the agitation for the removal of this restriction had been going on for thirty years. Why then, I ask the hon. member for Marquette, should not some credit go to other people? Why not give some credit to the officers of the various live stock breeders' associations throughout the country for the valuable work they have done? Why not give some credit to the various ministers and deputy ministers of agriculture and the live stock men connected with all governments in Canada for the work they have done? Why not give some credit to Hon. Duncan Marshall for the very valuable contribution he made in his good will effort to have this restriction removed? Why not give some credit to Miss E. Cora Hind of the Winnipeg Free Press, who did very valuable work, and who is the first lady to go to Europe by way of Churchill travelling on one of the early grain boats. In any case, I do not think an Imperial economic conference was necessary in order to have this restriction removed.
I should like to ask the hon. member for Marquette how he feels with respect to the duty on cream separators and barbed wire. He has been a rancher for many years, and I presume he knows something of what goes into the cost of producing live stock and dairy products in western Canada. Under previous tariffs these two items were free. There is now a duty of 25 per cent in the case of cream separators and 10 per cent in the case of barbed wire. I should like to take just a moment or two to indicate what this will mean. In 1930 our total importations of barbed wire amounted to $334,000, while in 1932 they amounted to $135,000. These importations were made up as follows:
1931	1932
United Kingdom	 $ 9,312 $10,382
United States	
187,192	39,076Belgium	
86,811	28,330Germany	
27,905	13,470Netherlands	
22,944	34,752
So it will be seen that this increased duty will materially increase the cost of barbed wire, since such a large proportion of our imports comes from foreign countries. That does not apply only to barbed wire; it applies also to other classes of wire which the farmers use.
With respect to cream separators the situation is even more disturbing. I find that our total imports in 1931 were over $1,000,000,
686	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
while in 1932 they amounted to 8455,000, and we did not import any cream separators from the United Kingdom at all. Our imports were made up as follows:
1931	1932
United States	
$859,311	$338,323Belgium	
85,953	....Finland	
28,140	2,207Germany	
6,960	11,448Sweden	
106,701	103,663
This clearly shows either that Great Britain does not make a separator suitable for ordinary farm purposes in this country or that they cannot sell their machines at a competitive price. From what I can learn the British manufacture a separator that is used in large centralized creameries rather than the ordinary farm separator, and consequently it cannot be expected that we will receive any cream separators from the United Kingdom. In addition, apparently the cream separator manufacturers in this country are limited to only two or three makes. On the basis of our importations from foreign countries, during the past five years this duty will cost the farmers of Canada about $176,000 more annually for their cream separators.
I must hurry along. I now wish to deal with that part of the agreement to which the government has pinned its greatest faith, and which they hoped would win the sympathy of western Canada. A good deal of misleading propaganda has been broadcast in an attempt to spread the idea, particularly in western Canada, that this agreement will make it possible for the farmers of the west to receive an additional six cents per bushel for their wheat. Article 4 of the agreement, which has to do with wheat, reads as follows: It is agreed that the duty on either wheat in grain, copper, zinc or lead as provided in this agreement may he removed if at any time empire producers of wheat in grain, copper, zinc and lead respectively are unable or unwilling to offer these commodities on first sale in the United Kingdom at prices not exceeding the world prices and in quantities sufficient to supply the requirements of the United Kingdom consumers.
In dealing with this matter the other day the hon. member for Souris very skilfully avoided that little joker which says that the wheat must be sold at world prices and in quantities sufficient to supply the requirements of the United Kingdom market. I give my hon. friend credit, however, for his attempt to explain some of the details of this agreement which have been avoided by other speakers on the government side. I should like to take the illustration given by my hon. friend in dealing with this matter. He stated that if there were two ships, one from Canada and the other from Russia, each carrying 300,000 
bushels of wheat to dock at Liverpool, the Russian ship would have to pay $18,000 to the British government before the wheat could be unloaded, whereas the Canadian ship would go in free of tolls. That is all very well, but we must remember that according to the agreement wheat must be sold at world prices. Do you think for a moment that the Russian wheat would stay there and pay that toll? Certainly not; it would proceed to the next nearest competitive market and save that $18,000. But there is still a more important feature. The Russian ship, together with hundreds of other ships, would speed with all haate to that other market, and as a consequence that market would become glutted, causing a reduction in price which in turn would bring about a lower price on the Liverpool market, which would be the price paid for Canadian wheat. So I am afraid that in this respect the agreement has been a leap in the dark and that the government is not going to get very much out of it.
In this connection I should like to read part of an editorial which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press a few days ago:
British Millers and Wheat Prices
Perhaps the demand which is said to be made by the British authorities at the instance of the millers upon Ottawa for information as to whether the government is doing anything to keep wheat at its present dizzy height of about 50 cents a bushel Fort William is the first fruits of the interlocking of authority between the two governments over certain matters effectuated by the third article in the Anglo-Canadian agreement.
By this article Canada agrees to supply wheat, copper, zinc and lead in such quantities as required by the United Kingdom and at prices not exceeding world prices, in default of which the preferential rate may be withdrawn. According to this if the world price is less than the level of 50 cents a bushel at Fort William, Canada must sell at this lower price and in quantities equal to the demand of the British millers. The world price is to be set, presumably, in whatever market on the continent there is the greatest glut of competing wheat.
As I read this, it would seem that Canada must at all times supply the requirements of the United Kingdom market even if it was felt that the price prevailing at the time is not a profitable or a reasonable price at which to sell. If Canada should hold out for a higher price for her wheat, the preference would be cancelled, according to this agreement. That is important, and it is one thing that is certainly in the agreement. It seems to me that this arrangement might quite possibly move the centre of the world's grain market to some other place than Liverpool. That may not be any of our affair, but I am suffi-

United Kingdom
ciently British to want to see the centre of the world's grain market remain within the British Empire.
Another thing that is important, and it is very important, is this. Canada has always enjoyed a premium in normal times over competitive wheats. We are now obliged to sell at the world price. What will become of our premium? Our 1930-31 crop sold, most of the time, at a premium of from 10 to 15 cents per bushel over competitive wheats. With tariff duties against our wheat in foreign countries, the tendency is to buy high grade wheat, because the cumulative effect of the tariff is not so great. Consequently our higher grade wheats will be in greater demand and at a higher premium. There is nothing in this agreement to indicate that we shall be able to maintain the premium which has really sold Canada's wheat, which has made a reputation for our wheat and permitted us to sell it in competition with wheat produced anywhere in the world. Nor is there anything in the agreement that will prevent other countries from bonusing exports, and thereby holding their place in the British market.
I desire to deal with the wheat situation of the British Empire as it appears from a review of the past five or six years. The figures I have are for the years 1925 to 1930, inclusive, for the chief empire wheat producing countries, Canada, Australia and India. [DOT]The figures are taken from the twentieth report of the Imperial economic committee on the wheat situation in 1931, are the average for the six years and are for wheat and wheat products. These are the figures:
Bushels
Total net imports United Kingdom. 220,000,000 Net imports from Canada, Australia
and India	 105,000,000
or 47-8%
Canada-total net exports-all countries	 300,000,000
Canada-net exports to Great Britain	 72,000,000
Balance to be sold outside Great
Britain	 228,000,000
Australia-net exports-all countries	 96,000,000
Australia-net exports to United Kingdom	 27,400,000
Balance to be sold outside United Kingdom	 68,600,000
In other words, the total net imports to the United Kingdom of wdieat and wheat products has been 220,000,000 bushels. Of this 105,000,000, or 47-8 per cent has come from the three chief wheat exporting countries of the British Empire, of which Canada's contribution was some 72,000,000 bushels out
of a net exportable surplus of 300,000,000 bushels. So that we have had to sell in foreign markets some 228,000,000 bushels.
Australia's net exports were 96,000,000, of which 27,400,000 went to Great Britain. In the past six years Canada has marketed 24 per cent and Australia 284 per cent of their total exports in Great Britain. On the other hand, Great Britain has imported 33 per cent of her requirements from Canada, and 12| per cent from Australia.
The average yearly imports of the United Kingdom for the past six years of wheat and wheat products has been 220,000,000. Canada and Australia's net exports alone have been 396,000,000 for the same period. So that the two countries still have to look to outside markets to sell some 176,000,000 bushels of wheat and wheat products. This 176,000,000 bushels will undoubtedly find increased competition in foreign markets because of the restriction on foreign wheat in Liverpool, with a consequent lowering of world prices which we are obliged to take in the United Kingdom according to the terms of this agreement. So where can there be any possible advantage to empire producers?
Granting for a moment that the 220,000,000 bushels of empire wheat imported to the United Kingdom receives the six cents a bushel preference over foreign wheats-which I do not admit-the other 176,000,000 presumably is to' be sold for less. How, then, is this six cents per bushel going to reflect back over the whole, or back to the farmers of Canada, as I understand the hon. member for Rosetown has claimed that it would be. Granting that one possibility, there is only one class that could gain, and that is the exporter or handler of wheat who happened to be lucky enough to get it sold in Liverpool unless a national marketing organization is established. I must confess that I cannot see how this six cent preference, with article 4, can be of any value, and it may even tend to lower prices.
The Minister of Agriculture and also the hon. member for Qu'Appelle made much of the point of a sheltered market in Great Britain for Canadian products. This sheltered market for wheat in Great Britain draws to my mind the picture of a man standing down in the lowlands, with the hills around him, holding an umbrella over himself while a downpour of rain is beating upon him. His shelter from the umbrella will be of value to him just so long as the rain does not flood him out at the bottom, but that will not be long; and this applies equally to empire wheat imported into the United Kingdom. Consequently I cannot see anything to be gained for this country in the statement that we shall have a sheltered
688	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
market in Great Britain. I am afraid the hon. gentleman cannot take much satisfaction out of this accomplishment. The price of wheat has already dropped fifteen cents since they started to consider these agreements.
The hon. member for Long Lake (Mr. Cowan), the other day, in a burst of fury, exclaimed, "Where is your world market today!" I presume he was implying that there was no world market for Wheat. Let me say to him that the world market for wheat today is the same as it has been for years and is reflected in the quotations of the various exchanges every day in a very scientific manner. If I drew a correct inference from his remarks, namely, that there is no world market for wheat today, why then stipulate a world price in this agreement?
I must pass over some other observations which I should like to have made, but let me ask: So far as western Canada is concerned, wrhat do we really get out of these agreements? Certainly nothing on wheat. Mighty little on cattle, because very few cattle from western Canada can go to Great Britain, and our hands are tied so that we cannot make our own arrangements in other directions should the opportunity arise-and it is quite conceivable that it might. Little or nothing on hogs or poultry, because you cannot produce hogs at 3 cents and poultry at 10 cents in western Canada; and in any event how are we going to sell to Great Britain with a 25 to 30 per cent exchange rate against us? So far as I can see, what we have really got has been an increase in tariff on barbed wire, cream separators, fertilizers and a long list of other goods the consumer requires. I am afraid we have lost more than we have gained.
There is one thing more I might mention with respect to the wheat situation. The other day the Prime Minister referred to the regulations with respect to the export of wheat from this country through American ports, and it was clear at that time that he was not sure in his own mind whether the preference would be applicable to Canadian wheat if consigned to American ports, and then reconsigned to Liverpool. I think the situ-attion has been cleared up today by statements emanating from the British parliament, but that was a particularly serious situation had Great Britain not been willing to accept the spirit of the agreement, but had instead held definitely to the wording of the agreement. Just how serious it might have been can be seen from the following figures of our domestic exports via eastern Canadian and
[Mr. W. G. Weir.l
American ports for the past few years. The movement of our wheat was as follows:
By	By
Canadian	American
ports	ports
Bushels	Bushels
1926	
56,000,000	127,000,0001927	
48,000,000	135,000,0001928	
73,000,000	164,000,0001929	
43,000,000	79,000,0001930	
45,000,000	86,000,0001931	
45,000,000	62,000,000
I am giving these figures only in round numbers, but they are sufficient to show the manner in which our shipments have gone out during this period of time.
I think the real test of the value of this agreement should be, first, does it provide for any extra trade for this country? It does not; it merely diverts some trade and, in my judgment, will tend to restrict trade. Second, does it reduce the cost of living or the cost of production to the primary producer in this country? This it does not do; instead it will tend to increase the costs of living and of production because of increased tariffs. There are two other very definite objections, namely: it is an interference with our national autonomy, and it constitutes the thin end of the wedge towards making an independent trading unit out of the British Empire, to which, in the words of the Prime Minister, other nations will be required to pay tribute if they wish to trade. I think every hon. member should consider the agreement with these points in mind before deciding upon the manner in which he will vote.
When the distinguished statesmen of the British Empire met in this fair city of Ottawa, leading economists, statesmen and students the world over were urging, yes, pleading, for a reduction in world tariffs. In spite of that our statesmen went ahead blindly and increased tariffs in the face of a contrary public opinion. I think the conference would have made a greater contribution to the peace, happiness and prosperity of the world had it forgotten about trade agreements and presented a united front to the world in favour of the reduction of war debts, an all-round decrease in tariffs, and the establishment of a medium of exchange by which the countries of the world could do business. It does seem a strange anomaly that this conference of British nations should meet here in the capital city of Canada and say that nothing could be done with the vexed problem of exchange because of a coming world economic conference, and at the same time, and in spite of a contrary public

Questions
opinion, tie their hands behind their backs so far as tariffs are concerned right on the eve of that world conference. They indicated clearly that they were not interested in the reduction of tariffs; that they hope to maintain them and fix them upon the world for years to come.
May I close by saying that so far as Canada is concerned what is needed today more than anything else is the courage to trade with the world.
On motion of Mr. Heenan the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Stevens the house adjourned at 10.40 p.m.
Monday, October 31, 1932