1932-10-31

UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour) :: 'I desire to lay on the table of the house a number of orders in council referring to payment of money under the measures with respect to relief.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. POUDIOT:: 1.	Does the letter formula "C" reproduced at page 9 of file S.P. 257, Ref. 244 of 1932, contain the following statement: "The Civil Service Act provides for the dismissal of any government employee who renders himself guilty of political activities in connection with elections, either federal or provincial"?
2.	To how many postmasters was this formula letter sent by the Post Office Department?
3.	How many employees of the Post Office Department were dismissed since August, 1931, for political activities in connection with provincial elections?
4.	Does the Post Office Department still maintain the rule that a government employee who has been guilty of political activities in connection with provincial elections must be
dismissed?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	134.
3.	22.
4.	Section 55 of the Civil Service Act provides that no government employee shall engage in partisan work in connection with dominion or provincial elections and that any person violating these provisions shall be dismissed from the service.


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


Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	362.
2.	$64,933.34 per month.
Note.-The above mentioned amount is contingent upon the number of cruisers operating during the winter months and the cost of repairs necessary at annual overhaul.
3.	Halifax-Doctor Angus McD. Morton.
4.	$100 per month.


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT BORROWINGS IN NEW YORK
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: 1.	Did the government of Canada borrow $19,000,000 in New York in July of the present
year?
2.	If so, from whom and on what terms?
3.	How much of said amount has been repaid, and how?
4.	Did the government within the past three months negotiate in New York a credit of $60,000,000?
5.	If so, with whom and on what terms?
6.	What debts or obligations have been met by this latter sum?


Mr. RHODES:: 1,	2 and 3. No.
4 and 5. An issue of $60,000,000 4 per cent one-year notes was sold to a syndicate headed by Chase Harris Forbes Corporation at 99.28 and interest.
6. The issue provided for the following New York requirements:
(a)	$40,000,000 two-year 4 per cent notes due December 1, 1932; (b) $13,000,000 5 per cent treasury notes callable, being balance outstanding of an original issue of $19,000,000 made in September, 1931 for the purposes of the Canadian National Railways as to $18,500,000 and the dominion government as to $500,000.

Questions


* CAN AD IAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY- SEQUESTRATED STOCK
Mr. BLAIR:: 1.	For how many years did the Canadian custodian of enemy alien property hold Canadian Pacific Company stock sequestrated from alien enemies residing in Germany and Austria, and what was the value of the stock so sequestrated?
2.	Has the Canadian Pacific Railway Company paid the government of Canada the dividends earned upon such sequestrated stock?
3.	How much Canadian Pacific Company stock is still in the hands of the custodian?


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: It is doubtful whether this question should be put upon the order paper, as the Custodian's Office is neither a department of the government nor a branch of a department of the government. However, without considering it as a precedent, I have here the answer to the honourable gentleman's question.
1.	Stock of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, standing on the register of the company in the names of then enemies and other persons resident in then enemy countries, was vested in the Custodian by the superior court of the province of Quebec on the 23rd of April, 1919. After the termination of the war, some certificates of this stock came into the possession of the Custodian from the German government and some more certificates also, from time to time, came into his possession from other sources. It is impossible to place a value on the same, owing to the fact that the quantity and the value varied continuously.
2.	Yes.
3.	33,532 shares of the par value of $25.


PUBLIC DEBT
Mr. FONTAINE:: At the present time, what is the public debt of Canada?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The net debt of Canada as at 30th September, 1932, was $2,400,190,695.95.


ST. PAMPHILE, QUE., POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. FAFARD:: 1.	What is the name of the postmaster at St. Pamphile, county of L'lslet?
2.	Is he appointed temporarily or permanently ?
3.	Who recommended him?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1 and 2. Arrangements are being made for the temporary transfer to Mr. Pierre Chouin-ard.
3. L. J. Gauthier, ICC.


W. N. TILLEY, K.C.
Mr. BLAIR:: What payments, and for what services, were paid to W. N. Tilley, K.C., director of the Canadian Pacific Railway:	(a) for legal services for the government of Canada during the years 1919, 1920 and 1931; (b) for general counsel work during the said years for the government of Canada; (c) for what retainers or services is Mr. Tilley retained for the government of Canada?


Mr. BENNETT:: The question raises an
issue that was mentioned in a previous session. Questions should at least conform to certain rules.
What payments, and for what services, were paid to W. N. Tilley, ICC., director of the Canadian Pacific Railway: (a) for legal services-
Of course, if the question were answered in that form the answer would be nothing. That is not the way in which the question should be put. If it were asked in the same way what monies were paid Hon. N. W. Rowell, K.C., president of the Toronto General Trusts Corporation, the answer would be nothing.
I suggest that the question should drop as an improper question to put on the order paper. Please put it in a proper way.


Mr. DUFF:: The question is quite clear.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Shall the question stand, dropping the words "director of the Canadian Pacific Railway"?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The injury intended having been done, I suggest the question should drop, and the proper question be put on the order paper.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The question will be
dropped for amendment.


TEMISCOUATA COUNTY-POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP INQUIRIES
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	How many investigations for political partisanship were undertaken in Temiscouata county since the month of August, 1930?
2.	Against what postmasters?
3.	How many of these postmasters were dismissed?
4.	What are their names and their post office address?
5.	Were any postmasters dismissed in Temiscouata county without previous investigation?
6.	If so, what are their names and their post office address?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	14.
2.	Postmasters at: Cacouna, Chemin Tache, Gironde, Lamy Sud, La Richardiere, Le Petit

Questions
Bois Franc, Montagne Ronde, Notre-Dame du Lac, Pied du Lac, Raudot, St. Eusebe, Squatteck, Sully.
3.	10.
4.	Johnny April, Gironde; Narcisse Ouellet, Lamy Sud; Joseph Michaud, La Richardiere; Michel St. Pierre, Le Petit Bois Franc; David Lebel, Montagne Ronde; Antoine Landry, Notre-Dame du Lac; Charles St. Pierre, Pied du Lac; Andre Beaulieu, Raudot; Joseph Viel, Squatteck; J. B. Plourde, Sully.
5.	No.
6.	See answer to No. 5.


POSTMASTERS-DISMISSALS FOR POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP
Mr. POULIOT:: How many postmasters were dismissed for political partisanship since the month of August, 1930: (a) in the province of Quebec; (b) in the eight other provinces?


Arthur Sauvé: (a)	270.
(b)	:
Ontario	 10
Nova Scotia	109
New Brunswick	 72
Prince Edward Island	 6
Manitoba	 10
Saskatchewan	 11
Alberta	 1
British Columbia	 -


POST OFFICES-CLOSING
Jean-François Pouliot: How many post offices were closed in each province since the month of August, 1930?


Arthur Sauvé: Nova Scotia	110
Prince Edward Island	 4
New Brunswick	 60
Quebec	118
Ontario	 62
Manitoba	 24
Saskatchewan	 66
Alberta	 62
British Columbia	 39
Yukon	nil
North West Territories	nil


POST OFFICES-CHANGE OF SITES
Jean-François Pouliot: How many postmasters lost their position in each province since the month of August, 1930, as the result of a change in the post office site ordered by the Postmaster General? 53719-44J


Arthur Sauvé: Ontario	 4
Quebec	 28
Nova Scotia	 23
New Brunswick	 14
Prince Edward Island	 -
Manitoba	 2
Saskatchewan	 6
Alberta	 6
British Columbia	 4


POST OFFICES-NEW ESTABLISHMENT
Jean-François Pouliot: How many new post offices were established in each province since the month of August,
1930?


Arthur Sauvé: Nova Scotia	 8
Prince Edward Island	nil
New Brunswick	 5
Quebec	 65
Ontario	 48
Manitoba	 14
Saskatchewan	 42
Alberta	 74
British Columbia	 22
North West Territories	nil
Yukon	nil


* WHEAT SHIPMENTS
Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Did the Dominion government prepare for and submit to the Ottawa economic conference or any committee thereof, data and information bearing on the important problem of whether or not Canadian wheat when stored at Buffalo or other American points and rebilled for export to the United Kingdom would be eligible to enter that market under the British preference of approximately six cents per bushel on Canadian and other dominion wheat?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I need hardly point out
that the question relates to an imperial statute. Representations were made to the conference with respect to the matter. The British, being large ship owners, claimed the right, which they have exercised, to determine the conditions under which the preference provided by the statute would be granted. I can add nothing further to that.


BEAUHARNOIS, QUE., POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. RAYMOND:: 1.	Who is the postmaster of the town of Beauharnois, county of Beauharnois?
2.	When was he appointed?
3.	Is his appointment temporary or permanent?
Questions


Arthur Sauvé: 1,	2 and 3. Mr. J. N. Laberge is in temporary charge of the Beauharnois post office since the 4th October, 1932.


DB. CAMERON WILSON
Mr. HEPBURN:: 1.	Is Dr. Cameron Wilson, Conservative member of the Ontario legislature for the constituency of London South, now in the employ of the Department of Pensions and National Health?
2.	If so, what position does he occupy?
3.	Was the position advertised by the Civil Service Commission? If so, when?
4.	What salary does he receive?


Mr. MacLAREN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Temporary medical officer, grade 2 (part time).
3.	Yes; April 28, 1932.
4.	$200 per month, less ten per cent deduction under the Salary Deduction Act, 1932.


TEMISCOUATA COUNTY POSTMASTERS, DISMISSALS
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Since August 1, 1930, have any postmasters in the county of Temiscouata resigned after having received a circular from the Post Office Department?
2.	If so, on what dates and what are their names?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Joseph Michaud, postmaster at Lamy, on the 11th November, 1930.


LONG LAKE, QUE., POST OFFICE
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Has the location of the post office at Long Lake in the county of Temiscouata been changed?
2.	If so: (a) what is the distance between the old location and the new location; (b) were any complaints made with respect to the old location?


Arthur Sauvé: There is no post office by the name of Long Lake in the counity of Temiscouata.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-ARTHUR LALONDE
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What are the duties of Mr. Arthur Lalonde, at the present time, in the Post Office Department?
2.	Since what time has he been performing said duties?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Departmental solicitor.
2.	1st March, 1932.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-G. C. ANDERSON
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Is Mr. G. C. Anderson, of the Post Office Department, a bilingual employee?
2.	Has he performed the duties of Acting Deputy Postmaster General?
3.	If so, from what date to what other date?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	No.
2.	Yes.
3.	From 30th September to 11th October,
1932.


SULLY, QUE., POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Was the chief inspector of the Post Office Department instructed to examine the qualifications of Isidore Jean, veteran of the Great war and a candidate for the position of postmaster of Sully, Quebec?
2.	If so: (a) on what date; (b) why; (c) since the month of August, 1930, how many times was the chief inspector of the Post Office Department instructed to examine the qualifications of veterans of the Great war who were candidates for the position of postmaster; (d) in what cases?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) 12th July, 1932; (b) to ascertain definitely whether candidate Jean was personally qualified to competently manage the Sully post office; (c) twice; (d) Acton Vale, P.Q., Sully P.Q.


ST. ARSENE, QUE., POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Did the Post Office Department order Mr. Edmond Rioux, former postmaster, on or before September 10, 1931, to change the location of the post office of St. Arsene, Quebec?
2.	If so, on what date and by what employee or official of the department was the order issued?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 1.


Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What is the name of the present postmaster of St. Arsene, county of Temiscouata?
2.	Is bis appointment of a permanent or temporary character?
3.	On what date was he appointed?


Arthur Sauvé: 1 and 2. Mr. Jean Baptiste Laforest is in temporary charge of St. Arsene post office.
3.	September 10, 1931

Motions for Papers


DEPARTMENT OF PENSIONS AND NATIONAL HEALTH
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	What was the total amount voted for the Pensions branch of the Department of Pensions and National Health, including that voted for the Board of Pension Commissioners for Canada, during each of the past three fiscal years?
2.	What was the net total amount expended?
3.	What	were	the	net total	payments	to
returned soldiers and their dependents?
4.	What	were	the	net total	payments	to
members of the medical and dental professions, exclusive of indirect payments through hospitals not operated by the department?
5.	What was the total cost of administration of the Pensions branch of the Department, the Board of Pension Commissioners, the returned soldiers' insurance, the Pension tribunal, the Pension Appeal court, the "Veterans' Bureau and the War Veterans' Allowance committee?


Mr. MacLAREN:: 
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Does the total number given relief 741,241 (page iv of the last report of the Dominion Director of Unemployment Relief) include men and women?
2.	If so, what is the proportion of men and women ?
3.	Does it include boys under twenty-one years of age?
4.	If so, how many?
5.	Does it include: (a) railway employees; (b) farm help; (c) store clerks; (d) commercial travellers; (e) agents; (f) miners; (g) sailors; (h) carpenters; (i) bricklayers; (j) masons; (k) plumbers; (1) office clerks; (m) day labourers, and (n) people who were working for manufacturers?
6.	If so, how many of each class?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	Yes.
2,	3, 4, 5 and 6. The statistics regarding the number of persons receiving direct relief under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931, were submitted by the provinces under the following headings:
(a)	Number of heads of families given direct relief.
(b)	Number of dependents on heads of families.
(c)	Individual relief cases covering one person only.
Therefore, the Department of Labour has no information as to the division of men, women, etc., or the occupation followed by persons receiving relief.


VALUATION OF IMPORTS FROM JAPAN
Mr. YOUNG:: 1.	When goods are imparted into Canada from Japan, is the duty levied on the par value of the yen?
2.	Has any fixed value been placed on the yen for special duty purposes? If so, what is it?


Mr. RYCKMAN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The proclaimed, i.e. the par value, is taken-one yen = $0-4985.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	AVhat was the original estimated cost of the reconstruction of the parliament buildings, after the fire?
2.	What was the total cost of the parliament buildings?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, reports, or other documents relative to the position of postmaster at Long Lake, county of Temiscouata.
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, reports, and other documents relative to the position of postmaster at Squatteck, county of Temiscouata, since the month of August, 1930.
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, reports, and other documents relative to the position of postmaster at St. Eusebe de Cabano, since the month of August, 1930.
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, reports,^ and other documents respecting the post office of Le Petit Bois Franc, county of Temiscouata, Quebec.
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, petitions, reports, and other documents, including the report of the chief inspector of the Post Office Department, with respect to the appointment of the postmaster of Sully, Quebec, since February 10, 1932.
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, petitions, reports, and other documents with respect to the appointment of the postmaster of Notre-Dame du Lac, since March 2, 1932.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: These questions are not
in order, as the correspondence and other- documents required are not sufficiently described to make it possible to comply with the order They will have to be amended.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will those motions stand
in the meantime?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: In their present form they are out of order. They may be amended and restored to the order paper.
Remembrance Day


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-QUEBEC-CHICOUTIMI DIVISION
Mr. DESROCHERS:: For a copy of all documents, letters and protests, in the possession of the Canadian National Railways with respect to mile post 35, Quebee-Chicoutimi Division, since 1917.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The government have declined to supply similar information, on the ground that it is entirely for the railway company, therefore this resolution is out of order.


SOLDIERS PENSIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (Temiskaming North):: I beg to ask the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. MacLaren), if he will consider the case of two returned soldiers named Joseph Husson, Drinkwater Junction, Ontario, and Sergeant Frederick Whaling, of Verdun, Quebec. I have in my hand an editorial from the Porcupine Advance dealing with the matter in a fair-minded way and very thoroughly, which information I would be glad to give to the minister if he will promise me that these cases will be considered again. They are worthy of his attention.


Murray MacLaren: Will the
member kindly let me have the information which he has, and I will look into the matter.


UNEMPLOYMENT SITUATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: Mr. Speaker, I observe by press despatches that the British House of Commons is expediting the close of the discussion of the trade treaties in order to discuss the question of unemployment. I am just wondering whether our Prime Minister will follow the example of the British House of Commons and give us here some two or three days to discuss the economic situation in Canada, with particular reference to the unemployment situation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have nothing to answer, Mr. Speaker, no observations to make.


HUDSON BAY RAILWAY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: On Friday, last week, the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh)

asked if steps had been taken to print the information and conclusions of the court of inquiry regarding the steamship Bright Fan. I replied that it had not been considered, that the conclusions were being printed, not the evidence. That work is in hand in the printing bureau. It is not thought desirable to print the evidence unless something unforeseen arises to make it desirable that the expenditure should be incurred. But the findings will be available for members of the house at a not distant date.


REMEMBRANCE DAY'
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. FINLAY MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve). I am in receipt of a telegram from the Canadian Legion protesting against giving them only a half holiday on Remembrance day. I would ask (the hon. gentleman if there is any possibility of it being made a whole day, if it is going to be observed at all.


Arthur Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, in answer I might say that last year it was enacted that Armistice day should be known as Remembrance day. It was hoped that (the public would fully obsei've the day, but some service was found to be necessary; this was only agreed to on the understanding that all returned soldiers, and others, would have opportunity given to attend services. In order adequately to meet the wishes of the public and those of the returned soldiers' organizations I have issued instructions to the effect that all postmasters are to be advised to restrict their services ito an absolute minimum. While postal employees are civil servants, and as such come under the Civil Service Act so far as the observance of holidays is concerned, yet the postal service is a public utility and, of neoessity, must operate in such a way as not to interfere unnecessarily with the carrying on of public business. A strict adherence to section 45 of the Civil Service Act would mean that no postal service whatever would be given on the days enumerated therein. I am given to understand that the legion representations would be met by instructions mentioned above, namely, that no delivery will be given unless absolutely essential and in that case restricted to the business section.

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, October 28 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.
Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, the motion now before the house, moved by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) is for the purpose of endorsing the agreements which arose as a result of the deliberations of the gentlemen who took part in the Imperial economic conference in Ottawa last summer. The fact that the meeting at Ottawa was said to be an economic conference implies that it had for its purpose the solution of our economic ills. In examining the agreement now before us, therefore, we ask ourselves: To what extent, if any, does the agreement provide for the solution of our economic troubles? Do these agreements give any assurance to the Canadian workmen that in future they will be able to earn their bread by the sweat of their brow? The highest authority has decreed that in that manner man shall earn a livelihood. Only recently the heads of all churches denounced a system which has caused so much misery and distress to the human race. We must ask ourselves the question: Did the Imperial economic conference tackle these problems, or does the agreement now before us restore and expand the purchasing power of people within Canada and the empire? If not, then we must have with us unemployment and its attending miseries. Did the Imperial economic conference attempt to remove those conditions which are causing nations to strangle each other by tariffs, by quotas, by the juggling of exchange and in other restrictive ways? Surely we should ask ourselves whether or not these matters were considered because, on the one hand we see scientifically equipped factories capable of providing for every human being a much higher standard of living than obtains to-day. We see, further, that providence has provided us with natural resources in abundance. Those natural assets were provided not for the benefit of a few but for the good of the whole of mankind.
On the other hand despite the equipment in our factories we know that many are closed down, some working only 25 per cent or 50 per cent of their capacity. We see our fellow Canadian citizens out of work, in distress and misery. Many of them are at the point of desperation, knowing not from where their next meal may come. They are only a part of the millions throughout the world who find themselves in a similar plight. If the conference was not called to help those people, if it failed to remedy these injustices, I am afraid parliamentary language prohibits me expressing my opinion in connection therewith. If the conference did not tackle the problem I can say in parliamentary language that the conference was called under false pretences, that it was carried out with the intention of deceiving, and therefore it is not only a fraud and a failure but results in the disregard and betrayal of the rights of the masses of our people.
Having said that I purpose, in the few moments at my disposal, to examine the United Kingdom agreement and to see wherein the farmers and labouring men of Canada may secure any benefits, or in what manner they are protected. Members of the government have stated that as a result of the agreement trade now going to other parts of the world will be transferred to the empire. They state that as a result the British working men will secure more work. I am interested primarily in the Canadian working man, but my view is not so restricted that I cannot show interest in the problems of British labour. If the agreement is intended to give more work to the British working men why did not the Canadian government insist that the agreement should provide for 100 per cent British labour content? We give only 25 per cent Canadian content. Up to the present time we demand only 50 per cent British labour, content. We have heard the accusations to the effect that the British industrialist has his goods fabricated in cross-channel countries, brings them to Britain for finishing, and puts them on the Canadian and dominion markets as goods of British origin. At a time like this when we are making an agreement for five years surely we should protect the British workingmen at least to that extent. The very fact that this point has been omitted from the agreement leaves doubt in my mind as to whether or not British workingmen will receive any benefits.
Is it fair that the members of this house should be asked to vote on these agreements in toto first, and then afterwards, when we
696	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
come to many items which will show that a mistake has been made, be told that there is no more room for criticism inasmuch as we have already accepted the agreements in their entirety? Surely our constituents do not expect us to vote blindly on so important a measure as this. The electors of South Huron refused to be used as rubber stamps and I am certain that the majority of the members on this side of the house will also refuse to be so used. I am satisfied that if we were allowed to go through these items, if we were permitted to examine them in detail, we should find that they are intended to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. For example, we have tariffs imposed now on many implements used by the farmers, such as barbed wire, cream separators, fertilizers and electrical equipment, all of supreme importance to the agricultural industry; and we find another example in the fact that automobiles and motor cycles which are used by the well to do will come into Canada free, while the poor boy's bicycle and the omnibus, which is used as the poor man's method of travel, will be taxed 15 and 20 per cent.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: What was the duty on
boys' bicycles when you were in power? The same as it is now.


Peter Heenan: 
Pierre Édouard Blondin: Without wishing to interrupt the hon. member I would suggest that it might be as well to keep to the subject matter of the resolution before the house.


Peter Heenan: What benefit is to be
derived from these agreements by our pulp and paper industries? This industry depends largely upon exports to the United States and it has found it impossible to prosper under Conservative policies. A comparison of Liberal and Conservative administrations shows that in 1923 there were 20,000,000

hundredweight of newsprint exported from this country; by 1930, still under Liberal administration, these exports rose to 44,000,000 hundredweight but by 1932, after two years of Conservative policies, these exports had dropped to 39,000,000 hundredweight. The wages of the men employed have been reduced and I say that the policies of the Conservative party have been harmful to this industry in my part of the country. As a member from northern Ontario I am asked to endorse these general agreements and then examine them afterwards.
What provision has been made in these agreements for a national fuel policy? The Prime Minister has stated that he would establish such a policy, but let us inquire how the mining industry of Nova Scotia has been getting along under the policies of this government. In round figures, in 1929, under a Liberal administration, 7,000,000 tons of coal were mined in Nova Scotia; in 1930, with a Conservative government in power for half the year, 6,000,000 were mined, and still under Conservative government, in 1931, which is the last figure I have, 4,000,000 tons were mined.
I have under my hand copy of a resolution sent to the Prime Minister from the miners of Nova Scotia, showing the distress and suffering that prevail in that locality. It goes on to show the number of women who are in a delicate state of health, undernourished, without sufficient clothing and requiring medical attention; the number of children who, under present conditions, are unable to attend school, and so forth. It is a heart-rending document to read. They finish up by saying that the miners of Nova Scotia are getting thirteen cents a head direct relief while it takes from forty-five to ninety cents per day to feed convicted thieves and murderers in this country. The document shows the situation among the miners of Nova Scotia. With the capacity that we have to produce by machinery in ever-greater abundance, I ask:	Was any effort made at
the imperial conference, because I refuse to call it an economic conference any more, to ensure a shorter working day in Canada or within the empire? Was any provision made for the more equitable distribution of the wealth of Canada or of the empire especially in relation to those matters pertaining to the maintenance of health, comfort and happiness? These machines which are now taking the place of working men, were purchased out of the profits made by good, loyal, efficient workmen in Canada and within the British Empire. Consideration therefore has been given only to the question of profits

United Kingdom
and dividends, and no consideration has been given to the men who produce. X am not surprised at this, because, so far as Canada is concerned, this government refused to tolerate any labour advice in connection with the conference. Was the question of unemployment or how we were to take care of the unemployed men and women throughout Canada discussed at the conference? If it was not, why not? The attitude of the Prime Minister this afternoon in his reply to a question raised by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) would indicate that it is one of the last things he would discuss in the House of Commons, let alone a conference. So, having these thoughts in mind and having these documents before me for ratification, after giving the matter consideration, and having an interest in and representing the workers and farmers in my constituency, I could not possibly assent to or support the principles upon which these agreements are based.
The Prime Minister, in concluding his remarks the other day, resorted to poetry. We can all recall it. I am not a poet, but I think what he ought to have had in mind and what would be more appropriate to the occasion would be along these lines: In 1930 the Tory party was made mighty by deceiving the Canadian electors, and now hope by bluff, bluster, ballyhoo and buncombe to become even mightier yet.
Mr. IV. T. LUCAS (Camrose):	Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention at this time to discuss at any great length the agreement now before the house. I believe it has already been carefully analysed by both sides, and therefore no particular advantage will be gained by reiterating what has previously been said, thus prolonging the debate. Having listened to the arguments pro and con and having carefully studied the agreement,
I have come to a definite decision as to how I shall vote on this question, and I therefore feel it is only fair to the house that I should indicate my reasons for so doing.
May I first, however, be permitted to say that with the arguments of those who advocate greater freedom of world trade, I heartily agree, but here again one has to deal with facts rather than with a theory. It cannot be said that the present high tariffs of the world were put up in retaliation for the action of Canada or of Great Britain. In fact we find that those barriers were put up and the doors almost closed to our trade when a Liberal government was in office in Canada and while Great Britain was yet a free trade country. I think hon. members will agree with me that conditions must
have been very serious in Great Britain when that country decided to abandon its free trade policy which had been in existence for almost a century. In my opinion they had no choice in the matter but were simply forced by a set of new conditions to make the change. May I ask hon. members, knowing conditions as they exist to-day, with the industrial development which has taken place in every country in the world and with the piled up surplus goods which are looking for an outlet at distress prices: in all sincerity could Canada tear down her tariff barriers and become the dumping ground of the world while those other markets remained barred to us? These are cold, hard facts which have to be faced whether we like them or not. It was because of such conditions that the empire countries, finding themselves barred from those world markets, met in Ottawa in July last in an attempt to bring about better trade relations among themselves. It is my belief that the action of Great Britain in adopting a tariff policy will hasten the day when we may look for a lowering of tariff barriers all around.
Science and invention are bringing the world closer and closer together and while our ultimate goal is a world confederation, the day for that has not yet arrived. In my opinion the development towards that goal is from the small to the ever larger, growing unit. Within the last fifty years we have seen that development clear and distinct. First we had the small village unit, almost self-contained, with the different craftsmen plying their various trades and supplying the needs of the community. Second, we had the small town factory, and the village craftsman disappeared. Third, we had the age of the combine and merger when the small factory was swallowed up and our great industries located in our larger cities. At present we are organized as national units. This is what has happened. Following along the same line, the next logical step to form again a larger unit is a combination of nations such as the British commonwealth of nations which was furthered and strengthened by such a gathering as we had in Ottawa last summer. The United States is large enough to form such a unit; in fact, it is an empire within itself and I am of opinion that we shall next see a confederation of the states of Europe-and after this has run its course, finally a world confederation. The condition which Tennyson so beautifully pictured in that prophetic poem Locksley Hall:
Not in vain the distance beacons. Forward, forward let us range,
Let the great world spin forever down the ringing grooves of change.

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements_
And again:
Till the war-drum tlirobb'd no longer and the battle-flags are furl'd
In the parliament of man, the federation ol the world.
The hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), very fair and moderate as usual, in his speech in this debate pictured a development somewhat similar to the one I have endeavoured to portray; but he viewed such a development with fear, fear of the results. But I have no fears, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I look to this very form of development to hasten the day we all desire to see. Just as it would have been impossible to have jumped all at once from the small village unit to the national unit we have today, so it would be impossible for the many national units throughout the whole world to form at once one harmonious whole. Before that can be accomplished we shall have to develop more of the spirit of brotherhood and cooperation, and I believe that this can best be achieved by a grouping together of those peoples more or less similar in character, and then when they have learned to cooperate within their own sphere there will be greater hope of the larger world groups getting together to form a world confederation.
No one will deny that the British Empire has been a very potent factor down through the ages in the development of our world civilization. It has stood as an example of liberty and justice, and anything that will tend to strengthen the empire so that it may continue in these days of stress and tribulation to point the way to peace and a better understanding amongst the peoples of the world will have my support. I am sure that no one who listened to that very earnest address delivered a few days ago by Earl Reading could help but feel that with such men to guide and direct the empire there was at least some reason for hope, and that the influence of such an empire upon the world at large could have only beneficial results.
I have also a profound admiration for that great statesman who headed the British delegation to the recent Ottawa conference, the Right Hon. Stanley Baldwin. Not the polished type of .orator, but the earnest, capable thinker, who in beautiful and simple language impresses everyone with his great sincerity of purpose. Those who heard him speaking at the Canadian Club during the conference will remember that he said: We are building for eternity and the ultimate goal of man is the kingdom of heaven here upon earth. I have

always been impressed by the statement that he made at the Imperial conference in 1926:
We had been taunted in the past with being an aggressive race. If ever the lust for dominion possessed us, that phase has passed. We are a league of nations within ourselves, devoted to the cause of peace.
We seek to improve the methods of peaceful intercourse with foreign nations, holding ourselves together one-quarter of the human race. If we can make the bounds of freedom in the world yet wider, if we can faithfully discharge our responsibilities to civilization-to civilizations other than our own, which exist in Asia, in Africa, and in the islands of the seas-then, indeed, our empire can be justified to the world today and justified to posterity. On those foundations and on those foundations alone it will endure.
Then he quoted that age-old motto:
In essentials unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.
It was the practising of such a motto, Mr. Speaker, that enabled the British people in days gone by successfully to colonize and develop her dominions, and anything that can be done to further those ends by knitting closer the bonds of empire, thus developing and strengthening the spirit on which it wras founded, should have our support.
In furtherance of this unit development, Mr. Speaker, the empire countries came together in July last. The delegates were all chosen in our best known democratic manner, and may I pause here to say that I believe they were as sincere a body of men as could be found anywhere, and that they did not come to Ottawa with any ulterior purpose, but with the best interests of the empire at heart. But as these delegates were all human beings it was only natural that each group should want to make as good a bargain as possible for its own unit, and as no one could have everything and give nothing, it meant that there had to be compromise; and so if there are some things in the agreement which we do not like we may look upon them as the price we had to pay for the things we received.
I believe I am safe in saying that the greatest disappointment to the people cf Canada was the fact that the conference did nothing to stabilize exchange or to give any lead in regard to monetary reform. I heard many discussions before and during the sitting of the conference, and the consensus of opinion that I found was that while some advantages might be obtained in so far as trade was concerned, if only the exchange question was settled, and at least some lead given on the question of monetary reform, the conference would then have been well worth while, and

United Kingdom
there was certainly a very strong feeling of disappointment when the monetary committee of the conference made its report, and it was found that nothing of importance had been accomplished in these vital matters.
If we have found it necessary because of trade barriers placed against us by other countries to divert more of our trade to the United Kingdom then I think it is also necessary and very important that the payment for those goods exported should come direct through Canadian channels, instead of through New York, as it does at the present time. I believe that the time has come for Canada to establish some form of central bank, one of whose powers it would be to handle our exchange direct through Canadian channels, and I hope that the government will give due consideration to this suggestion.
While I am disappointed. Mr. Speaker, that no action was taken by the monetary committee of the conference, I realize the fact that to reject this treaty would have no effect on the exchange question, but would leave it just where it is at present. In fact, I believe that a solution of the exchange question will be found sooner by accepting this treaty, and for this reason: The government has staked its political future on these agreements. Now it is my opinion that the preferences which we are being granted in the British market will be almost if not completely nullified by the depreciated currency of other exporting countries, and so if Canada is to receive any actual benefit from these agreements the government will simply be forced to deal with the exchange question.
I understand that the Prime Minister took the ground that Russian dumping would nullify our proposed preferences in the British market. With this I heartily agree, and we are told that this dumping is to be stopped. But, Mr. Speaker, what difference does it make to a farmer or a lumber merchant in Canada if the preference is wiped out by Russian dumping or by ithe depreciated currency of some other country? The effect is just the same in either case, and therefore I feel certain that before Canada will receive any substantial benefit from the preferences which we are to obtain in the British market under this agreement the government will be forced to deal with the exchange question.
It is my opinion that Canadian agriculture should receive some benefits from these agreements and under the conditions with which we are confronted today, conditions which I shall not attempt to describe because they have been ably depicted by many former speakers, agriculture will certainly need some stimulus. I
doubt very much if the six cents per bushel will appreciably raise the price of wheat, but I wonder in what position we would be if that six cents were against us. I must say I have been very much amused by some of the arguments of hon. members to my right who have stated definitely that the six cent preference will be of no benefit. Then, almost in the same breath they have shown great concern about the grain to be shipped through the United States, for fear it may not come under the agreement and thereby receive the benefit of it. If they are sincere in their argument that the six cent preference is of no use, why worry about the manner in which grain is to be shipped?
I believe Canadian farmers will receive a distinct advantage in so far as removal of restrictions on cattle are concerned, and also to the pig, poultry and dairy industries. Canada will be afforded an opportunity to develop trade in these commodities. Whether or not we accept the opportunity now afforded us remains entirely with ourselves. If full advantage is to be derived I believe that the government will have to create at once an export marketing board with very wide powers, one with power to control the full shipping space for cattle so that no middle man may step in and reap a toll on every head of cattle shipped. Cooperative agencies should be formed as collection and shipping agents so as to give competition to our private packing companies in order that they may not reap the full benefits at the expense of the farmer. Further, such a board should encourage the development of trade iu order that a continuity of supply may be assured the British market.
After giving careful consideration to the agreement now before us it is my belief that if the measure is carried advantage will accrue to Canadian agriculture, to the lumber and mining industries. If rejected, however, what is the alternative? Last year Great Britain changed her whole fiscal policy when she passed what is known as the Import Duties Act. Under this act a ten per cent duty was levied on all imports from foreign countries, with the exception of a limited free list. Empire products were exempted until November 15 of this year so that the dominions could have time to negotiate preferential treaties with the United Kingdom. The goods of any dominion not reaching an agreement by that date will be treated as coming from a foreign country and will be subject to the Import Duties Act. So that there may be no mistake as to the position taken by
702	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
British statesmen, and in answer to hon. members who argue otherwise, I should like to quote a statement made by Hon. J. H. Thomas in the British House of Commons on October 26, 1932. A Canadian Press despatch of that date states as follows:
The Irish Free State will lose the advantage of impex-ial tariff preferences in the United Kingdom on November 15. J. H. Thomas, Dominions Secretary, told the House of Commons today. On that date, he explained, preferences granted goods from the dominions under last year's tariff act will expire, and as the Free State failed to conclude any trade agreement with the United Kingdom at the Ottawa economic conference, its exports to Great Britain will be accorded tariff treatment similar to that affecting goods from foreign countries.
Then the correspondent goes on to explain:
Under the Tariff Act a general 10 per cent duty was levied on all imports from foreign countries with the exception of a limited free list. Empire products, including those of the Free State, were exempted until November 15 of this year. Meanwhile difficulties arose between the United Kingdom and the Free State over the land annuities question, and the United Kingdom imposed a special 20 per cent duty on imports of Free State goods such as live animals for food, butter, eggs, cream, bacon, pork, poultry, game and meats. At that time, however, the general 10 per cent preference was continued.
The article continues:
Mr. Thomas made his announcement as he moved second reading of the Ottawa agreements bill which will give effect to trade pacts concluded between the United Kingdom and the dominions. The bill when passed will continue preferences on goods from empire countries, except those from the Free State.
The net result will be that all goods imported to the United Kingdom from the Free State except those on the free list of the Tariff Act, will be charged the regular duty of 10 per cent, while those already assessed 20 per cent under the special duties will be charged an additional 10 per cent.
In making the announcement Mr. Thomas said, "AAre deplore that there is one dominion which by her own actions has deprived herself of the Ottawa agreements, but I wish to say on behalf of the government we hope it is only temporary."
The hon. member for North AA7aterloo (Mr. Euler) admitted that while the conditions described in this newspaper article may be true, Canada held an effective weapon by which, in the event of her goods being denied entry to the British market, she could remove the British preferential rate on British goods entering Canada. While that may be true, it is that very action we do not wish to take, and I wager the hon. member would rather support the treaty, even if it were less favourable to Canada, than to have such a condition brought about.

I fully appreciate the fact that the passing of the Canada-United Kingdom agreement will not afford a panacea for all our ills, but at least it may lay a foundation upon which we may build for the future. While this agreement may not be all we should like it to be, and as only time can fully demonstrate its value I think it should be given a fair trial. As a farmer representative with full knowledge of how other world markets are barred against us, I could not conscientiously vote to place restrictions upon the one great free market now open to our products. Therefore I shall vote for the agreement.
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):	Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks of the last speaker, the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Lucas), and if I did not miss the point he was trying to drive home I gathered that he stood for still higher tariffs for western Canada. AA7ell. Mr. Speaker, I do not; I never did, and I do not intend to thus betray my constituents in the future. I shall oppose this trade agreement, and that is one reason for my opposition, and one reason why I intend to vote against it.
Then I noticed the hon. member depicted in rather splendid phraseology the coming federation of the world under a Tory policy and Tory principles. I do not believe there is the faintest possibility of achieving that end. I do not think there is a chance for the nations of the world to be harmoniously drawn together under a policy such as that outlined in this trade agreement. I believe nations will be torn asunder by it if we are not vigilant, and instead of unification and harmony there will be recrimination, disharmony and discontent.
AVith these few remarks I should like to pass on to the matter of the motion for the ratification of the treaty. I believe I have already in this question defined my attitude. I can see nothing of any account in the treaty which merits my support. In fact, when I balance the good with the bad appearing in it my immediate conclusion is that I must oppose it. I oppose it not only on behalf of my constituency, but also on behalf of that section of Canada I represent, namely, western Canada. No matter what riding I represented in this house I could not do other than oppose the treaty now before us. I dhall later give some of the reasons for the position which, as a responsible member of this chamber I must take in this matter.
Up to the present time there has been a splendid debate and, Mr. Speaker, I must

United Kingdom
say it reminds me very much of a baseball match. The Prime Minister went to bat first and, with full knowledge of the trade agreement, being in intimate touch with it from its inception until the time the signatures were attached, and having nursed it from one week to another, he came to the house and made a very commendable presentation. I should say he made a home run-scrambled across the home plate. But although the Prime Minister said he was embarking on a new empire policy-and I think he is, and a dangerous one for Canada too-and although he said "we have done well," I cannot see any remarkable enthusiasm on the part of his followers since the first day the treaty was introduced into the house. We have only had what you might call a straggling debate; we have not had as far as government supporters are concerned a debate on the merits of the matter at all. This is a momentous question; in many respects we are at the crossroads in the history of the empire. A few timid debaters on the other side of the house have risen to support the Prime Minister, who did make a home run, and who had every opportunity to do so. Personally I should like to have seen more hon. members who sit behind the Prime Minister, especially those from western Canada, get up and tell their ridings why they are supporting this agreement. Let them, as we are endeavouring to do, inform their electors on that question, and we will see what will happen to those hon. gentlemen later when the election rolls around.


An hon. MEMBER:: We have no worry
about it.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Does my hon. friend say we shall never hear of him after another election? If so, I think he is about telling the truth. My belief is that within another decade there will not be a high tariff government left in the world. I believe the great fight going on now across the international boundary means only one thing; it means the defeat of a party that for years has stood for out and out high protection, and although the party opposing them has not definitely stated that it will lower tariffs,-they know that would be politically dangerous at present,- when it is returned to power there will be a definite move in that direction, there is no doubt of that. And so it will be all over the world. The present government in Great Britain stands for higher tariffs on raw materials and food stuffs, but it will never see daylight in the next election. Those two great nations with additions will make a girdle around the world as far as freer trade is concerned. Then we shall have an opportunity to do something for the common people by bringing down measures looking not only toward freer trade, but also toward vital reforms in other directions.
After the Prime Minister had his say in the debate, the official opposition in the house continued the discussion, and the right hon. leader of the Liberal opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), may be said to have made a home run as did the Prime Minister. The right hon. leader of the opposition simply took the arguments presented by the head of the government and demolished them. From then on the debate on this side of the house, including the southeast corner, has been, I would say, extremely useful. Our endeavour has been to bring out the principles involved in this treaty, and also to get before the country all the information possible with regard to it in order that the people may be armed with facts so that when the next appeal to them takes place we can have a definite decision one way or another in regard to spurious ultra-imperialistic ill-conceived treaties of this kind.
.Now, Mr. Speaker, may I say that in considering this pact we as a party stand for more and freer trade with the empire and the world. That, this treaty does not give, therefore we are not going to vote for it. We stand, I say, for freer trade with the empire and the world, not on narrow lines of exclusive nationalism and ultra-imperialism, but on the broad basis of a recognition of the world as the ultimate economic unit. That is our policy, and any treaty in opposition to such a policy we as a party will oppose and do our best to defeat. The ramifications of it may be as beautiful as the Prime Minister indicated, but the ramifications of a self-sufficient empire mean no more to me than the ramifications of a self-sufficient ultra-economic nationalism. Ultra-imperialism is just as dangerous and ugly as ultra-nationalism. The dominion and British parliaments it is conclusively shown in these treaties, dictate to the colonial empire what taxes they shall have to levy on their people, and the conditions on which they shall trade with the worid. That is not the way to build up an empire, because dictation by one part of the commonwealth of the fiscal policies of another simply means retrogression and resentment, not advancement or prosperity.
Let me read what the Manchester Guardian says about this empty treaty to which the government are pinning their faith as a fettering instrument of empire and nationhood.
704	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
The Manchester Guardian says that an "imperial partisan policy" has been forced on the country. That is a nice thing to have said across the north Atlantic. It also says that this treaty is "the culmination of extreme protectionist policy." Yet we have hon. members from western Canada defending a treaty of this kind which stands for extreme protectionism, as though we had not had enough of it. Then it goes on to say:
Every day that passes brings forth fresh evidence of the dangerous character of the Ottawa agreements, whether they are looked on narrowly as they affect British trade or more particularly as they affect the prospects of the revival of world trade.
Looked at from any angle you like, from the standpoint of nationalism, from the standpoint of Canada, from the standpoint of the empire, from the international standpoint, these treaties are not worth supporting. Then again the same paper says:
Ottawa has become a matter of derision rather than of serious argument outside any assembly but a public meeting of Tory politicians.
The Manchester Guardian says further that the treaty is the product of a conflict between the British government and the Canadian government and between British industries and Canadian industries. That is, it is a result of a conflict between the British government and the industries supporting that government in the old land, and the Canadian government backed by the invisible industrial government of this country that wants a higher tariff.
In the motion for ratification the Prime Minister asks us to ratify this treaty, subject of course to the fiscal changes consequent thereupon. In the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) four or five main points are emphasized; first, that we would welcome any condition in the treaty that would tend to lower tariffs and help market the products of Canada in an international way; second, that we condemn any agreement which would increase an already unreasonably high tariff; third, that we disapprove of any treaty that would prevent us from exercising our rights to negotiate with other countries in a commercial way in order to secure favourable commercial treaties for the marketing of our goods beyond the seas; fourth, that we regret that there is nothing in the treaty to show that the government is doing away with order in council action restricting imports into Canada. And lastly, as of course any one would expect, the Liberal party reaffirms its stand on the

British preference, the foundation of all preferences in 1897 under our great leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, whose memory we shall ever revere. We know he laid the foundation of preferential imperialism, and we know that foundation was sound. It was voluntary, not involuntary; it was a preference secured not by haggling pressure or hard bargaining, but by good-will and mutual friendship. On that foundation we stand at the present time. I oppose the treaty, sir, for every one of the reasons mentioned in that amendment, which is in reality before the house.
May I go back for a moment to the pledges made by this party in the election of 1930? What did they say? They said they would foster and develop agriculture and the live stock and dairying industry. Have they fostered and developed these industries ? I would say they have fossilized and destroyed them. Agriculture to-day is the pity, not the admiration of the people of Canada, because thej1' know it is in a mess; and this is largely due to the fact that the party opposite has put it on the rocks in the last two years. Again, hon. gentlemen opposite pledged themselves to the stabilization of economic conditions and a continuity of opportunity and freedom from manipulation of tariffs at home and abroad. Well, we have never had such manipulation of tariffs in this country. We are not free from tariff manipulation, for we have had, in the last two years, more tariff manipulation than we have ever had in the history of Canada. Nor has there been any economic stabilization; on the contrary, the whole financial structure of the country is in danger today, because the party opposite two years ago gave the people a number of pledges not one of which they have attempted to fulfil. Further, they declared that they would develop interprovincial trade and secure foreign markets. Where are the foreign markets today, pray? We have not a paying foreign market today for our produce, not one. And where is the increased trade as between one province and another? Why, sir, our trade is almost down to the vanishing point. Hon. gentlemen opposite pledged themselves to foster, support and promote greater non-voluntary empire trade on the basis of haggling, or, as they say, mutual advantage. Their policy in this regard is found, of course, in this treaty; they think they will build up the largest possible volume of empire trade by this means, but I do not believe they will. Lastly, they said they would introduce compensating adjustments in the different provinces to make up for the high tariffs given to the industrialists. We know what they have done in that direction. For

United Kingdom
instance, the wheat problem, which I shall discuss presently, will show you just what compensating advantages the wheat growers of western Canada have received by reason of the extension of these tariffs to the industrialists. The fact is, they have received none.
Before this treaty was brought down in the house I was in some doubt about what its contents would be, and I had misgivings for the following reasons. In the first place, I was not unmindful of the pledges of hon. gentlemen opposite, which I have quoted to this house and not one of which has been redeemed. Again, I recalled that at the special session of 1930 this same Canada first tariff policy was put into operation and the government jerked up the tariff on about 170 items. That, of course, made me suspicious. Then in 1930 our Prime Minister went to London and, for the first time, turned the imperial conference into a " humbug " conference, so that no advancement was made at that conference in the direction of increased trade or lower empire tariffs. The only thing he did was to inculcate, or to try to inculcate in the minds of the British electorate a desire to adopt a protective tariff. We know Britishers have adopted it and now we are at the mercy of that tariff. Following this in the regular session of parliament in 1931 this high tariff policy was persisted in, with the result that the tariff was increased on over two hundred articles. That intensified my suspicions. So that, combining the special session of 1930 with the humbug conference and the session of 1931, I had every reason to be sceptical of the contents of this treaty which is now before us. But, more than that, there was the fact that no information was given to this house before the close of last session. We were asking for information every day with respect to the agenda of the conference, but no information was given us, with the result that we went home absolutely in the dark, knowing nothing whatever as to what was going to take place. The only information we could gather as to what was taking place in Ottawa in connection with the conference was such information as was given us through the medium of the press. Moreover, the iron and steel men got together and industrially carved up Canada, and other interests tried to do the same thing, but failed to agree. It turned out later on that the conference simply developed into a hive of factious and commercial rivalry. The industrial' interests of Canada were opposing the industrial interests of Great Britain; the government of Canada and the government of Great Britain were in fighting opposition, and in consequence we have this 53719-45
practically useless agreement which is now before us for consideration. We are told that
this treaty is a step in the direction of new and sound empire development, but I, for one, do not think it is.
May I point out that these treaties were signed by the government of Canada without the consent of the Canadian people or of parliament, and the only intimation we had as to what they contained was that in notice after notice that came from the daily and weekly press in connection with the conference-certain statements were vouchsafed to the public of Canada by the Minister of Railways. Well, we know what that information amounted to. It was really not solid information at all, it was largely worthless; and although a good many of these news items were disseminated throughout Canada, and editorial comment was based upon them, the people of Canada will now realize that much of that news and much of the editorial comment thereon was unsound. The result is that the people will have to do their thinking on these treaties all over again-a sad condition of affaire.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that this is very commendable; this is not the way to build up a strong and well-informed Canadian nationality. I do not believe it is the way to found a greater Canada, because it cannot be done. Subsequently the government went into the constituency of South Huron and fought a by-election. The contents of the treaty were then unknown and they tried to win a snap verdict there on it. With what result? They were beaten by a plurality of approximately 2,000. And that is as it should be. I believe that if the treaties had been presented to the electorate during that by-election the majority against the government would have been, not 2,000 but more like 4,000. Not only that, but one very great drawback to the conference, as I see it, is the fact that at that conference there was no direct representation for agriculture; neither the farming nor the labouring classes were represented. That ought not to be so. I believe that when we hold an empire conference, especially in Canada, we ought to hold a four-square conference, and our endeavour should be to prove to the people that we want to do business in the right way and that we are going to act squarely and in good faith toward all sections and industries of Canada, The government leaders were not actuated by these sentiments at the conference of last July and

706	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
August, nor are they embodied in the treaty now before the house.
But notwithstanding these doubts and suspicions, I did think that the Prime Minister and his government would at least rise to the occasion and endeavour to do something that would be of benefit to Canada as a whole. Why, Mr. Speaker, the price levels in Canada, in agriculture and in every other industry, constituted a challenge to any man who called himself a statesman; they were a challenge to any cabinet to take action and do something practical. Did this government do anything of a practical character? Not at all. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the trade of this country has dwindled to about one billion dollars, so that we are back where we were in 1911. At that time our trade amounted to about eight hundred million dollars, and now, as I say, it is about one billion. But that is not all; our trade is dwindling steadily, it is going down and down, and if this trend continues we shall find in a few years that we have no more trade-no more business. Moreover, the gap that exists today, just as it existed last July and August, between the prices which the farmers receive for their products and those which the industrialists get for theirs, should have been closed. The conference, however, did not make any move at all, either in a commercial or in a monetary way, to close that gap, with the result that the situation is becoming alarmingly worse. And what about the debt situation? The debt of this country is stupendous, while the prices of primary products have suffered enormously. How shall we ever obtain money with which to pay our debts in this dominion-our national debt, our provincial debts and our municipal debts? It cannot be done if we go on as we are; yet no move was made at the Imperial conference, that great gathering of empire statesmen, to effect a solution of this pressing problem. Nothing was done by the conference to meet this problem-absolutely nothing. As I say, I had my doubts, but I reserved judgment until I should find out what had been actually done to mitigate our debt burdens, but when the truth became known I found that no move had been made at all to meet the problem. Again, Mr. Speaker, the unemployment situation is one that would challenge any government; but no move was made either directly or indirectly to solve this problem. Unemployment is becoming worse; we have over 700,000 unemployed in the country; yet a conference like this is held and nothing is done to solve

a problem of such a serious character. Inasmuch as the conference was interpreted as a turning point in the history of Canada, as of the empire at large, one would fancy that the cabinet ministers, led by the Prime Minister, would at least have made some effort to live up to the high ideals of the Canadian people. But they did nothing of the kind. The Prime Minister and his associates refused to stand for lower tariffs, for a true reconstruction policy, and for principles that would make for a better and more prosperous Canada in the present day as well as for the future. On the whole, then, nothing was done and we are in the same dire position today as we were before we entered the conference.
These serious conditions were not faced and because of this the message to parliament of the Prime Minister did not contain much to instil confidence in the people of Canada. So in order to put the facts of this treaty before parliament, in order to have every aspect of the agreement presented to the electorate, in order to show why we are opposing this treaty on national and empire grounds, as the Liberal party of Canada we are carrying on this debate. We believe that when the particulars of this debate reach the average home in Canada, the conclusion of the average elector will be that this government has made one of the most critical blunders in its history.
Every Tory government has always been a high tariff government and when we look back to the days before and after confederation we realize the truth of this statement. Before confederation our average tariff was from 10 to 12 per cent; the Conservatives came into power and the tariff went up to 15 per cent-they said it was going to increase business-then between 1873 and 1878 there was another jump to 17^ per cent; then from 1878 to 1896, under Macdonald, it jumped from 20 to 30 per cent. The Conservative governments have always been trying to build up business with high tariffs, but let us consider the trade figures for these periods. It will be found that the total trade kept going down and down, just as it is doing today. When protection is raised beyond certain limits trade is discouraged and the whole burden is placed upon the primary producers. Buying power is cut to pieces and we are put on our backs financially and commercially-where we are at present.
The Liberals were in power from 1896 to 1911 and during that period they reduced tariffs by easily 5 per cent and adopted the voluntary preference idea. Leaving out the war, the next period was from 1921 to 1930, during which the tariffs remained about the

same, but from 1930 to 1932, under another Conservative government, the tariff has gone up in spots to 60 and 80 per cent to over 35 per cent on the average. Under Conservative governments 'the tariff is going up all the time-continuously.
The trade figures show that high tariffs do not develop trade. From 1868 to 1873 the increase in	trade	amounted to about
$91,000,000. From 1874 to 1878 there was a drop of $41,000,000, and from 1879 to 1896 there was an increase of $72,000,000. During the next fifteen years, under a Liberal regime with moderate tariffs and the British preference the trade increased by over $500,000,000, or within a few millions of our present trade. From 1923 to 1930 Canada had the highest per capita trade in her history. In 1929 the total was $2,654,000,000, it then dropped in 1931 to $1,700,000,000 and again in 1932 to $1,100,000,000. These figures demonstrate the destructive influence of high tariffs and yet this government continues with its policy which will surely put in danger the economic and commercial fabric of this country.
Let us consider wheat as a potential trading product for a few moments. Economically the business structure of western Canada is based on wheat. We grow other products, but wheat is the most important. Any move internationally which will cut down our wheat production rather than obtain a fair price for the producer is a move in the wrong direction. We should be enabled to exchange our goods for the goods of other countries; if tariffs were lowered and production costs decreased, then we could trade our wheat- economically produced-for the cheaply fabricated products of other than wheat producing countries. Any treaty which does not remedy present trading defects as explained will in time so undermine agriculture that prices will be forced still lower. The following are our approximate wheat yields at different periods:
Bushels
1901	(only) 4,200,000
1911	 132,000,000
1921	 226,000,000
1926	 407,000,000
1930		 420,000,000
1931		 304,000,000
1932	(around) 425,000,000
In 1916 we had a total grain acreage of over 19,000,000 acres, 11,000,000 acres of which were in wheat. These figures give an idea of what western Canada can do in the production of wheat. We want to be able to exchange that wheat on the best possible terms for the prc-33719-454
United Kingdom
ducts of other nations and if we cannot do that, wheat prices cannot and will not improve. Our exports of wheat have been approximately as follows:
Bushels
1926	 249,000,000
1928		 266,000,000
1929		 270,000,000
1930		 177,000,000
1931		 217,000,000
1932		 250,000,000
The average price per bushel was as follows:
1923
1925
1930
Cents
67
123
49
This government came into power in 1930.
1931	 38
1932	 24
to 30
How can farmers live on these prices? The cost of taking a bushel of wheat from North Battleford to the head of the lakes is 23 cents per hundredweight or 16.8 cents per bushel. The commission and elevator charges take up another five cents per bushel, which leaves the farmer about 24 or 25 cents per bushel for number one northern. How can any farmer buy the products of the factories of eastern Canada when wheat brings a price like this? Wheat cannot be produced for anything less than 55 cents to 87 cents a bushel.
According to this agreement we are to get a preferential protection of five or six cents a bushel on wheat entering the United Kingdom. However, article 4 reads as follows:
It is agreed that the duty on either wheat in grain, copper, zinc or lead as provided in this agreement may be 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.
We obtain this preference only so long as we are willing to supply the British Empire with all the wheat she wants. We have been told that the British market is a sheltered market, therefore it cannot be considered as a world market. Wheat will be sold on another world market and the price obtained there will be the price we will be paid for our wheat. I cannot see any benefit in the preference we are given because after all is said and done we must accept the world price as previously.
708	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
I should like to read a few telegrams which show just what the farmers of western Canada and particularly of my constituency think of this treaty. The first is from the reeve of the municipality of North Battleford, and it reads:
Our ratepayers earnestly request you make every effort to have bonus paid on 1932 wheat crop.	_
Lome Foster,
Reeve.
These men know that they will not be able to get by safely by selling their wheat on the sheltered British market. They desire something more. They would like the government to take some action in the way of a bonus. The next is from Livelong in Saskatchewan, and reads:
Farmers here are desperate. Do your best to get bonus of last year reinstated.
The next is from Mr. Schlieman, the reeve of the municipality of Round Hill, and reads:
Have wired premier urging bonus on wheat. Depend on you to press the matter.
These men have lost confidence in this treaty already if they ever had any. The next is from near Shellbrook, near Prince Albert, and reads:
We, the Shell lake wheat pool committee representing the pool farmers of Shell lake district respectfully request the Dominion government to pay a bonus on 1932-1933 productions.
The next is from the Turtleford wheat pool, and reads:
At a joint meeting of agriculturists Turtle-ford district and the Turtleford board of trade, the following resolution passed: Resolved that this meeting requests the Dominion government to pay an equitable bonus on the 1932 grain crop.
The next is from the municipality of Meeting Lake, and reads:
Urgent government grant immediately bonus on 1932 wheat. Conditions much worse than in 1931. Results from council following.
The resolution passed by the council reads as follows:
Resolved that this council petition Dominion government, in view of dire stress of farmers and to extreme low price of grain, that government take immediate steps for granting of bonus to farmers of western Canada on 1932 wheat. It is our opinion that this step would create confidence of far-reaching nature and would result in payment of taxes local and government, and would place municipality in strong financial position and enable it to liquidate financial obligations and aid over-coming relief problem. In addition we are of opinion granting bonus provide immediate circulation money which would benefit many branches of industry and government.

Then I have another telegram from the North Battleford Board of Trade, and this is what the members of this august body have to say about the situation now:
Have wired the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett as follows at a meeting of the North Battleford Board of Trade Council held this evening. It was resolved that in view of the plight of grain growers

Note the word "plight."

in the western provinces that the federal government be urged to take into earnest consideration the question of granting a bonus to the said growers.
Shades of 1930! So I might go on. The farmers of the west are advocating a bonus. If they cannot get a bushel bonus, they want a certain value per acre for every acre sowed. They want a bonus or something of that nature because they realize that this treaty, when it goes into effect, is nullified because of the high protection principle under which the agreement operates and that so far as the preference in the British market is concerned, it does not and will not amount to anything.
I -might go into the imperial conferences that have been held from 1887 to 1932 and show, if I had time, that in all those conferences Canada and the British Empire have stood for certain well-defined and constructive principles. For instance, they opposed the new imperial council formulated and supported by Joseph Chamberlain at one of those conferences-the 1902 meeting. They opposed that and would not accept it, -and rightly so. They also opposed non-negotiation in trade treaties. They wanted to negotiate their own trade treaties, as we do at the present time. That is Liberal policy. They opposed a unitary navy, and our reason for opposing that principle was that we came to the conclusion that by building a Canadian navy we could fight for the empire better than if we backed one empire navy. And that is undeniably the truth. Then we said that without power of negotiation of a trade treaty we would not sign the treaty or accept any responsibility for it, thus showing that we stood for commercial supremecy so far as Canada is concerned, in negotiating treaties with other countries of the world. More than that, we opposed a state church in 1791. The Liberal party opposed an hereditary aristocracy in Canada and drove it out of existence. They opposed irresponsible government by the Family Compact, and also drove that out of existence. We are now going to oppose any economic harnessing of any part of the empire, because if you do that, you will destroy the fiscal

United Kingdom
autonomy of the empire. We are going to drive the government to the country on this question and let the Canadian people judge as to the stand (Liberals have taken in connection with the economic freedom of thi3 dominion.
My time is almost up. I would say that the treaty is discouraging for these reasons: One, it encourages the .principle of a higher protective tariff policy, making reciprocal concessions in the direction of economic nationalism which of course, is the foundation of imperial nationalism, a dangerous ultra-imperial economic narrowness. We oppose that. Two: we oppose the five year term of these treaties because it is vicious, because it limits the negotiable area open to Canada during this period and complicates the process of negotiating new trade treaties with other nations. Three: we oppose the five year term because it is vicious in another direction, nemely, that during this period there is to be no reduction in tariff; the tariff level at its present height is to be maintained-actually increased instead of reduced. Four:	we
oppose the treaty because of its compensatory principle, that is, tariff bonusing of industries that are not efficient, that should not be bonused, and by doing that, destroying trade and adversely affecting the Canadian consumer. Every treaty that Canada enters into should-if based on justice-be followed by an increase in trade and an economic certainty in regard to the future of trade. Viewed in that light, this is a treaty that ought to be repealed because I do not believe it will make any contribution in any of these directions. Five: the high and extensive imperial -preferences render unattainable any move in the direction of freer trade in the future. By nullifying any action in this direction the whole treaty is fraught with danger because it simply stands for higher tariffs and cannot bring about in this nation that economic stability which the present government promised it would secure. Six: it endangers as I have said our constitutional freedom-won after a hundred years of struggle. Seven: it meddles in imperial politics and by such muddling and meddling lays the foundation of the destruction of the empire of our fathers.


The Acting SPEAKER (Mr. MacNICOL):: The hon. gentleman has spoken for forty minutes.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: May I say in conclusion-


John Ritchie MacNicol: I said the hon. gentleman has spoken for forty minutes.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Are you sure of that?


Sir GEORGE  PRELEY@: Mr. Speaker, will you allow the hon. member to finish his sentence?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I thank the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley). May I say that since there are few tariff reductions and many increases, few benefits and many bad features as I have explained, in the agreement,
I intend to vote against it. I hope however that although we differ on this side of the House of Commons with hon. gentlemen opposite these lines descriptive of the empire and which run as follows, may still apply to us imperially:
Time and the ocean and some wandering star
In high cabal have made us what we are.
May I hope in the future time will be on the side of the British Empire because I love it as well as I love Canada. I know it will. I hope too in the future the ocean,-our field of all conquering fame-will be on the side of the British Empire, because I am satisfied this will mean greater freedom of trade and political freedom in the days to be. And lastly may I hope there will be a wandering star overhead, a dominating ideal that will ever beckon us on to greater heights of national, imperial and world usefulness.


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that in the critical situation in which Canada finds itself at present, such an important measure as this should have been brought before the House of Commons upon party lines. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), on October 12, when depositing these four agreements upon the table of the house, used the following words:
These agreements mark the first forward step in a definite scheme of closer empire economic association. They are based upon the principle enunciated by the Conservative party before the last general election, and steadfastly supported by it from that time to the present. They conform to the general plan proposed by this government at the economic conference held at London two years ago, reaffirmed at the opening of the Ottawa conference, and adopted in a very practical way by the agreements which are the outcome of its deliberations.
We are therefore placed in this position: though we admit there are some good features about this treaty-it would be impossible to make a treaty without having some good features in it-it is unfortunate that the defects are more numerous than the good points. It is unfortunate that His Majesty's loyal opposition in this house, representing practically half the population of Canada, should have been debarred from assisting in any way to improve
710	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
our trade relations within the empire. This question has been made a party one. It is said that it conforms to the principles of the Conservative party as enunciated at the Winnipeg convention. The other day listening to a rising young member from Quebec, I was amused to hear him express astonishment that this was being made a party question. He evidently had not read carefully the words of his leader (Mr. Bennett), in which that principle was laid down as a condition that holds today. This merely by way of introduction.
In 1911, some eleven years after I had the honour of being sent here to represent my constituency, the present Prime Minister came into the house as an opponent of reciprocity. Of course he has modified his views somewhat in the case of the St. Lawrence river arrangement, but then he was an out-and-out opponent of all interchange of relations with the United States. I see the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley), who sat in the house in those days. He will remember how dangerous it was considered to trade with the United States. At that time I had the honour of presiding over the deliberations in the house when the Hon. Mr. Fielding and the Hon. Mr. Paterson returned from Washington and laid before us the results of their negotiations in the United States capital. For weeks and weeks and even months this question came before us and day after day I put the question to the house, but the Conservative party steadfastly refused to vote on it. They never would consent to divide the house, and finally an appeal was made to the country with the result that we know. But, of course, the whole country did not vote on reciprocity. There were certain provinces which were a unit on reciprocity. In my own province, for example, where the question was not debated at all, the election was won on the question of the navy.
The Prime Minister says that this is the first definite step towards commercial relations with the empire. I shall read his exact words:
These agreements mark the first forward step in a definite scheme of closer empire economic association.
That must have been a slip on the Prime Minister's part because I know he is a well-read man. Besides, in his autobiography it is said that his recreation is reading. He must have read the history of Canada and must know that it was Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who in 1897 made the first definite step towards closer commercial relations with the empire. It was in 1897 that our leader, the then Prime Minister of Canada, Sir Wilfried Laurier, probably the most outstanding figure at the jubilee

after Her Majesty Queen Victoria herself, offered to the British people the first preference that was given by the dominions beyond the seas. I can still remember the complaints from the press gallery and later on on the floor of this house, complaints of all kinds raised by the other side because in giving this preference to England, Canada had received no compensatory advantages. It was forgotten by those who have revived that argument at the present time that at that time the British market was a free market, and so we did not need any preferences; we did not need any tariff reductions, because the whole of our production entered the market of Great Britain on a free entry basis. We therefore did not need and did not want to have any different arrangement than that. Sir Wilfrid Laurier openly declared throughout the country that this was his policy, and the country supported him for many years after that, and to its advantage because the period from 1897 to 1911 was the golden age of Canada in all respects, economically, nationally and socially. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said at the time: We are offering these concessions to Great Britain of our own free will, and we are doing it because it is in the interests of Canada herself; we are asking for nothing in return, but we know that the results will be favourable to Canada. And the results were favourable to Canada. The first preference of 12^ per cent was raised the next year to 25 per cent, and the year following to 33 per cent. Then as if by magic our trade rose by millions and millions, and then by hundreds of millions. The St. Lawrence waterway was converted into one of the finest waterways in the world. Whereas in the olden days a large steamer had to anchor in the lower reaches of the St. Lawrence at sunset, the waterway was developed so that the largest vessels could enter the port of Montreal at midnight as easily as they did under the noonday sun. The whole of Canada was transformed. We passed the autonomy bills notwithstanding the dire opposition of the Conservative party which raised the sectional and religious issues on that great question, but we passed them to the glory of the Liberal party and to the advantage of Canada, and Canada was transformed. In 1911 we went to the country, and on what issue? On the issue of reciprocity. This question of reciprocity is not a new one to those who are familiar with Canadian history. There are now living sons of men who remember that we had reciprocity with the United States which was a mutual advantage to both countries right up to the abrogation of the Elgin treaty in 1866. That treaty

United Kingdom
was probably more advantageous to Canada because it enabled the eastern parts of Canada to obtain their natural market across the line. In those days western Canada did not exist except as part of our geography. It had no representation in this house, nothing beyond the early pioneers, the first settlers, the couriers du bois and the missionaries. But eastern Canada existed, and eastern Canada then was made up of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec. The maritimes, when they were forced into confederation, had then their natural market in the New England states. Boston was then the greatest fish market of the United States, as it is to-day of the .continent of America. When Sir Charles Tupper used to say to the people of the maritime provinces that Halifax would become the new Liverpool of North America he persuaded, nay, almost forced, the people of Nova Scotia and the other maritime provinces into confederation. The results of confederation I have no hesitation in saying have not been beneficial to the provinces by the sea. They are losing representation in every parliament of this dominion, and it will be our sad duty again this year to reduce the representation of Nova Scotia, one of the finest provinces in Canada, by two more members. A reduction will also have to be made in the representation of New Brunswick, but Prince Edward Island is saved by that clause which provides that it shall have no fewer representatives in the House of Commons than in the Senate.	.
The breaking of our commercial relations with the United States has been a misfortune to our maritime provinces. In Quebec we have always been favourable to reciprocity and have always advocated it. I remember very well when Mr. W. S. Fielding, probably the most gifted and most talented Finance minister who has ever served Canada, laid his reciprocity proposals on the table of the house. Members flocked around the Speaker's chair. Many Conservative members still living today did not know what to do about it, whether to accept it or not. I remember that Mr. Borden, then the leader of the Conservative party, rose in the house and did not know what stand to take. Why? Because Canada had been advocating reciprocity with the United States for forty years. Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Charles Tupper, Sir Leonard Tilley, and all the stalwarts of the Conservative party had gone year after year on this mission to Washington after the abrogation of the Elgin treaty in 1868 for the purpose of renewing reciprocal relations with the United States. But their efforts were unsuccessful, and then Sir Wilfrid
Laurier came into power, and having secured for Canada the British market, having improved our relations with the empire, having increased the British preference in 1897, 1898 and 1899, in the imperial conference of 1902 he made another proposal, to allow certain goods to be admitted to Canada notwithstanding our tariff at that time. He declared that he was prepared to make modifications in our tariff in favour of the British Empire. Under such circumstances it seems incredible that the Prime Minister should say today:
These agreements mark the first forward step in a definite scheme of closer empire economic association.
He must have entirely forgotten his history. The right hon. gentleman was absent from this house from 1917 to 1925, and when he came back here his views had been somewhat modified by experience, as is the case with all of us. Conditions had changed somewhat. Finally he went to the country as leader of the Conservative party, replacing a very distinguished leader, a very strong man, a man from the west like himself. He went to the country on two questions which could not fail to appeal to a majority of the people. He promised work for the unemployed, and that is the most popular cry on which any man can go to the country at the present time. Witness what is going on now in the United States of America where we are told that fourteen million men are idle as the result of high protection and closed markets. We have got the same thing here. We have raised our tariffs. We did not benefit from the experience of the United States. When the Hawley-Smoot tariff came into effect they received the protests of sixty-seven countries. Notwithstanding that, however, they closed their markets to the world with the result that today there is stagnation of trade. What a spectacle, Mr. Speaker, to find the charitable federation of the city of New York faced with the problem of feeding and clothing a million people. That is the condition of our neighbours. In our own city of Montreal during the summer there were 150,000 unemployed receiving aid from the federal, provincial and municipal governments. How long will this last? Where are we going? Has the world gone mad, and is Canada following in its footsteps?
I see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie), in his seat. I hope before his political career closes he may realize that the policy he is following now is not the one he advocated so strongly, patriotically and successfully on that January day when he had the honour of moving the address in reply which I had the honour
712	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
to second. Today we are the sole survivors of the 250 men who listened to us at that time. The policy of lower tariffs is the policy of the future; the policy of reciprocity is the policy of the future. The League of Nations, which we are sustaining at a cost of from $200,000 to $300,000 per year, and to which we send some of our most distinguished men, has over and over again sounded the warning that high tariffs are practically economic warfare, and that they must be abolished before peaceful conditions may be reestablished in the world. Before any readjustment is brought about the channels to trade must be opened.
We return now to Right Hon. Stanley Baldwin, the man who occupied the most distinguished place at the Imperial economic conference. What did he say? What were his remarks in his opening address? "We have come here to lower tariffs, not to vote to raise them." What I 'most regret in the trade agreement-and I have not time to discuss it at length-is the fact that for five years we are shackled, economically, with Great Britain and the dominions of the empire. We are barred from entering into arrangements with other countries of the world. Let us suppose that Roosevelt wins the election to be held next week in the United States. The Democratic party has always supported lower tariffs and freer international commerce. What would happen if that party asked for a reciprocity arrangement; where would we stand? I shall indicate to the house the difference between the Conservative and the Liberal policies. Today the Conservative party is atempting to tie us down to a five-year agreement.
To indicate what was done at an earlier period in our history, namely in the year 1912, I shall quote from the sessional papers of the parliament of Canada for the first session of the twelfth parliament. At that time a reciprocity arrangement with the United States was under consideration. The following are the words of Mr. W. S. Fielding and Mr. William Paterson addressed to the Secretary of State for the United States:
Nevertheless, it is distinctly understood that we do not attempt to bind for the future the action of the United States congress or the parliament of Canada, but that each of these authorities shall be absolutely free to make any change of tariff policy or of any other matter covered by the present arrangement that may be deemed expedient. We look for the continuance of the arrangement, not because either party is bound to it, but because of our conviction that the more liberal trade policy thus to be established will be viewed by the people of the United States and Canada as one which will strengthen the friendly relations now happily prevailing and promote the commercial interest of both countries.
[Mr. Marcil.l
That was the policy laid down by the Liberal party. They made an agreement with the United States but did not bind that country or Canada for any definite period. The parliament of this country was free to act in the matter, and free to abrogate the treaty if it so desired. If an election were to be held next year or the yeiar after, and after such election the 'Complexion of this house were changed, m what position would we stand? We know the people of Canada are tired of the present regime. Would we be able to negotiate treaties with outside countries? No; the voice of the people would be of no avail; they could ask for a change, but they would not get it. They would find themselves in the same position as hon. members on this side of the house find themselves today. By a ruling of the Speaker the opposition has been prevented from amending the motion before the house; we cannot add a word to it, and we cannot take a word from it. What is the use of all this discussion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Charles Marcil: What are we here for; are we merely rubber stamps? Is that the position taken by hon. members opposite?


Mr. VALLANCE:: They are now.


Charles Marcil: 
Jean-François Pouliot: Did the Canadian government also make reservations?


Mr. BOULANGER (Translation):: The
Canadian government was represented in that committee by the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve), the hon. Minister of Labour and Mines and Acting Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Gordon), and I regret to see, according to the report, that our two representatives remained silent.


Jean-François Pouliot: The Postmaster General must have been inattentive.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Our
friends opposite try to excuse the government by saying: They had to bargain, they had to make concessions, to get some benefits in return. What are these benefits? I regret to say, notwithstanding the fine picture of it which the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) has given us the other day, that there seems to be none in the agreement that we are now discussing, at least for the farming class which I have the honour to represent in this house.
Mention was made already of this anomaly that whereas the wording of the agreement is very clear and concise as regards manufactured goods, it becomes uncertain and entangled in a lot of conditions and circumlocutions when it deals with farm products. There is nothing but plans and wishes to be carried out in the future, provided that certain things happen. There is nothing done; it is only a project, or if you prefer, a pious wish,
Regarding eggs, butter, cheese and other dairy products in which the farmers I represent are particularly interested, there is another anomaly which was brought to our attention. Indeed, while the agreement, according to Article 22, is supposed to remain in force for the space of five years, the preference granted by England to the Canadian farmers for the products I have just mentioned, is good only for three 3fears.


Mr. DORION (Translation):: Do you find it too long?


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: If the hon. member will bear with me for a minute, he will grasp the argument. Here is what schedule A says:
As regards eggs, poultry, butter, cheese and other milk products, free entry for Canadian produce will be continued for three years certain. His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom, however, reserve to themselves the right, after the expiration of the three years, if they consider it necessary in the interests of the United Kingdom producer to do so, to review the basis of preference so far as relates to the articles above enumerated and, after notifying His Majesty's government in Canada either to impose a preferential duty on Canadian produce whilst maintaining preferential margins, or in consultation with the Canadian government to bring such produce within any system which may be put into operation for the quantitative regulation of supplies from all sources in the United Kingdom market.
What is the reason for that, I wonder? Is it through a mere coincidence that precisely three years hence the British government will have to appeal again to the people for a new mandate?
Does it mean that the British government has no intention of asking the consent of the people of Great Britain for the renewal of this preference? Does it mean that the British government does not intend to uphold this part of the agreement in the next election, but will be satisfied with saying to the voters of that country: Let us not talk about it any more; it is all over; it was only for a term of three years and it has expired.
At six o'clock, the house took recess.
720	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose, at six o'clock, I was stating that notwithstanding the rapturous admiration and ecstasies evidenced by our friends opposite for the imperial conference, and such as shown by our friend from Dorchester the other day, the Canadian farmer will remain sceptical. He has the best reasons in the world to be so, for our farming class recall the extraordinary pledges made by the Conservative party at the last election, and which were not carried out. These highly attractive agreements mean nothing to them, and they repose little faith in the realization of these wonderful day dreams which our opponents have in the house.
I fear greatly that this so-called preference granted by the United Kingdom to Canadian products, are delusive and of no benefit to the Canadian farmer, if we consider that Great Britain still maintains an embargo on our potatoes and restrictions on our cattle as our hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) stated a short while ago; if we also consider that the United Kingdom is at present negotiating a treaty with Denmark as regards the exports of bacon and other farming products from the latter country; if we further consider that our lumber is not cut to suit and does not fill the requirements of British importers, according to recent press despatches; and again if we consider that we are thousands of miles from the English market, while the farmers of Ireland, Brittany, Normandy, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway, can supply fresh products, as they are only a few hours distant from that market; and lastly if we consider that the depreciation in British currency eliminates the difference in our favour resulting from the preference granted by the trade agreements of the Imperial Economic Conference, at Ottawa.
I am sorry to state that I find nothing in the agreements which might benefit the farmers. On the contrary, I note that owing to these agreements the farmers will pay dearer for their clothes, kitchen utensils, table-service, cutlery, certain building material, paint, glass, pottery, barbed wire, cream and butter separators, carpenter tools, hats, blankets, socks, gloves, leather, chemical fertilizers, farm motors, etc. Why? Because the Ottawa trade agreements served as a pretext to the government so as to raise the tariff on close to 200 classes of manufactured articles which must be purchased by farmers, and because one can rest assured that all tariff increases, on

the whole, mean an increase in the price of such articles. Experience has proved that.
There is one thing which must not be forgotten: The Ottawa trade agreements, even if the wonderful day dreams of our opponents should come true, will not increase trade; they will only divert it. They will not increase it by five cents, they will only result in diverting it into other channels. These agreements will not increase the trade of Canada or the British Empire, but will impede the trade of the Commonwealth with the rest of the world. The situation may be compared to that of a farmer from St. Charles-de-Bellechasse, who grows 100 bushels of potatoes per year and always sells them in St. Gervais, one day he changes his mind and sells them in St. Michel. This would not increase the quantity he had to dispose of, there would be nothing gained by making this change, unless he could obtain a better price for them. I sincerely hope that the farmers may obtain better prices on the British market for their products; however, I have my doubts, because of the reasons just mentioned and the following two: Our farm products, on the British market, will have to compete with the products of the other dominions to which the same preference has been granted; furthermore, I can find nothing in our agreement with the United Kingdom which prevents the latter granting to foreign farm products the same preference as that granted to Canadian products.
I wonder greatly whether before looking for knots in a bulrush and at markets thousands of miles away where our products cannot be shipped without losing their freshness; I wonder, as did the member who has been sitting the longest in the house, the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), whether before concluding an irrevocable and unchangeable agreement for five years, we should not seek to improve our trade relations with our neighbours where our natural market lies. I admit that our neighbours were the first to place obstacles in the reciprocal trade of our products. They will however have a change of government, this is as certain as we will repudiate ours at the next election, and we expect from the next government a broader and more sensible view of the trade relations which should exist between Canada and the United States. The British people seem to have realized this fact. I read in the Droit the other day a statement by Mr. Neville Chamberlain, Chancellor of the Exchequer, of Great Britain, who frankly admitted in the British house recently when discussing the Ottawa agreements:

United Kingdom
Canada had to turn more and more towards the United States and it would have been impossible for her to decline a new offer of reciprocity, which would definitely link her future to that of her great neighbour to the south.
That is why England showed haste to place Canada in the folds and entanglements of the Ottawa trade agreements and made her promise not to disentangle herself for a
period of five years.
It is impossible to find in these agreements the faintest hope for the masses. It is impossible to find anything which might improve the lot of the common people and increase their purchasing power, which after all is the only way to increase our trade. On the contrary, the enforcement of these agreements will mean an increase of restrictions and obstacles to the trade of the products of man's labour. It is nothing less than an unbounded protection in favour of a class of people who were in the habit of making exorbitant profits during the war and now endeavours by cunning intrigues and deceitful legislation to carry on a state of affairs which was abnormal and for the time being.
Hon. gentlemen may make all the agreements they wish; they may increase protection to its very limit; they may increase the tariff until it bursts; they will not succeed in improving the situation as long as they neglect the masses. If the purchasing power of the working and farming classes was increased, if the people had the money to buy, there would be no need to hold conference after conference to activate trade.
To improve the lot of the people and increase their purchasing power, it is necessary to break this concentration of wealth in the hands of a small group and obtain a better distribution of it; we must put an end to the controlling power of money makers over the people and their government itself and not concentrate that power by an exaggerated protection.
As the Holy Father, Pope Pius XI states in his encyclical "Quadragesimo Anno:
In the first place, then, it is patent that in our days not alone is wealth accumulated, but immense power and despotic economic domination is concentrated in the hands of a few and that those few are frequently not the owners, but only the trustees and directors of invested funds, who administer them at their good pleasure.
This power becomes particularly irresistible when exercised by those who, because they hold and control money, are able also to govern credit and determine its allotment, for that reason supplying, so to speak, the life-blood to the entire economic body, and grasping, as 53719-46
it were, in the hands the very soul of production, so that no one dare breathe against their will.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Example:
Taschereau and his cabinet.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: One
might think that the Pope wished to stigmatize some of our financiers, insurance companies, and probably the Canadian Manufacturers' Association.
He continues:
This accumulation of power, the characteristic note of the modern economic order, is a natural result of limitless free competition which permits the survival of those only who are the strongest, which often means those who fight most relentlessly, who pay least heed to the dictates of conscience.
This concentration of power has led to a threefold struggle for domination. First, there is the struggle for dictatorship in the economic sphere itself; then, the fierce battle to acquire control of the state, so that its resources and authority may be abused in the economic struggles. Finally the diash between the states themselves.
This latter arises from two causes: Because the nations apply their power and political influence, regardless of circumstances, to promote the economic advantages of their citizens; and because, vice versa, economic forces and economic domination are used to decide political controversies between peoples.
One cannot point out more strikingly the dangers of trade agreements founded on class selfishness and favouritism. And the Holy Father continues:
Furthermore, the intermingling and scandalous confusion of the duties and officers of civil authority and of economic have produced crying evils and have gone so far as to degrade the majority of the state. The state which should be the supreme arbiter, ruling in kingly fashion far above all party contention, intent only upon justice and the common good, has become instead a slave, bound over to the service of human passion and greed. As regards the relations of peoples among themselves, a double stream has issued forth from this one fountainhead; on the one hand, economic	nationalism or	even economic
imperialism; on the other, a not less noxious and detestable internationalism or international imperialism in financial offairs, which holds that where a man's fortune is, there is his country.
In my humble opinion, instead of posing as the founder of a new British Economic Empire, our Prime Minister should first look after the affairs of Canada, and endeavour to destroy the yoke of high financial interests which paralyzes national life. So many things remain to be done, for instance, to help the transportation of farm products which are rotting in lofts or storage, when thousands of people are dying of hunger. An endeavour should also be made to distribute wealth

722	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
among the people by putting a heavier tax on profits and incomes which are not the direct result of labour, in order that the state may have the necessary revenues to extend the farm loan and make it easier for farmers to help the farmer in improving the qualities of his products and give him an easier access to the markets; to establish, on a basis of contributions by the beneficiary, as well as by the state and industry of a system of insurance against unemployment, sickness, old age and for family allocations, etc.
It would be a kind of conscription of wealth. We had during the war conscription of blood and to-day the situation requires equally strong measures. It would also prove efficient in making those who have wealth practice charity, those who can afford spending $750,000 to pull themselves, so to speak, into power by their boot-straps, and making them contribute to the maintenance of peace, order and good government, and thus protect them, perhaps unwillingly, against the risks of a revolution.


Mr. DO RIO  N@Translation: That resembles the policy of Canada First.
Mr. ARMAND LaYERGNE (Montmagny): Mr. Speaker, I shall try to answer my distinguished colleague in one of the official languages and I shall ask the indulgence of the house. Of course it is to me a great pleasure to follow the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger), who is the national president of a society, the Native Sons of Canada, of which I am proud to be a member, but it causes me some embarrassment to have to follow in debate my so-to-speak political father. Nevertheless I shall try to look at the situation as a Conservative who is, as my hon. friend knows, independent of party discipline.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
Mr. LaVERGNE: This seems to make some of my hon. friends laugh. I suppose it is a surprise to them to discover that a man may have principles and follow them in spite of part}"- discipline. I understand that on the other side this is not the case, but it happens on this side and I shall ask my hon. friends' indulgence for a situation which may 'be surprising to them but which actually exists. I was going to say only this, that as an independent man-


An hon. MEMBER:: Where and when?
Mr. LaVERGNE: When I voted against my party when my hon. friend was voting against conscription, when he was denouncing it. That is one instance. Mr. Speaker, you
 >
will notice that my hon. friends on the other side seem to be more disposed to interrupt me than to give me a hearing. But I have no objection; I am a good sport who will accept a blow when it is given to him, and I am willing to answer every question put to me, even by the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis) if I can understand them.
I was about to remark: I suppose no party will take advice from me.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr. LaVERGNE: I see that I am correct in that supposition. As a former Liberal, if I had advice to give to the Liberal party as to the attitude it should take, I would suggest that the Conservative party be told: You have made these agreements; you have presented them; you say they are good in the interest of the country. Granted. You will pay the piper; you will assume the responsibility, but Canada is behind you in the passing of these agreements, and if they succeed, we are Canadian enough to accept them and are glad to accept them for the sake of Canada.


Mr. HEPBURN:: Canada is not behind them.
Mr. LaVERGNE: My hon. friend says: "Canada is not behind them." My hon. friends opposite have taken different attitudes. We have heard the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) say: This is almost disloyalty to the mother country; you have bargained with the mother country; shame on you! On the other hand we have heard a member like the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Perras), or hon. members for other counties just as illustrious, say: You have closed the markets of other countries in opening the markets of the empire; you have done this and you have done that; you have killed free trade. There are some sincere free traders on the other side, for instance the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young), the hon. member for South Battle-ford (Mr. Vallance). I should like them to rise-


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Put me in that category too.
Mr. LaVERGNE: But how many on the other side will get up and vote in this house in favour of free trade? There are a few who are sincere free traders. I have named them. If I move to their left I might add a few more; but that is about all. The attitude of hon. gentlemen apposite reminds me very much of a story I read in Mr. Florenz Zieg-feld's memoirs. We have heard many doleful

United Kingdom
predictions of what is going to happen if these agreements pass; hon. gentlemen are not willing to try them. I am sure that my hon. friend from South Battleford has read this story. Mr. Ziegfeld was on a train and had with him a box with a few airholes in it. The man sitting opposite asked him what was in it. He said: "It is a mongoose." "A mongoose?" "Yes, an animal that eats snakes. I am taking it to a friend of mine who has the D.T's." "May I have a look at it?" Mr. Ziegfeld opened the box and there was nothing in it. He said, "It is only an imaginary mongoose to eat imaginary snakes." I think that is very much the position of my hon. friends opposite.


William Duff: That is very smart.
Mr. LaVERGNE: It is not very smart, but it applies well to my hon. friend from Anti-gonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff).


William Duff: I had more respect for my position when I was deputy speaker than you have.
Mr. LaVERGNE: Mr. Speaker, that is a reflection on you.


William Duff: No, it is a reflection on you.
Mr. LaVERGNE: It is a reflection on a rule of this house which says the deputy speaker has to vote. I know that the hon. member for Antigonish-Guydoorough could vote without explaining his vote, but that is not so in my case.


William Duff: When did I ever vote without explaining my vote?
Mr. LaVERGNE: When you were deputy speaker.


William Duff: That is not a fact.
Mr. LaVERGNE: My hon. friend says the deputy speaker has no right to speak?


William Duff: No.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	When my hon. friend
was deputy speaker he had to vote, according to the rules. The rules are clear. My hon. friend, then, must hiave voted without knowing what he was voting about, and he is probably the best example of the mongoose spoken of by Mr. Ziegfeld in his memoirs.
I am not a prophet of misery, Mr. Speaker. Since this government has been in power, in the county of Montmagny we have not moved to the left. We have opened a silk factory which works twenty-four hour-s a day, and we are going to open another one within a few weeks, thanks to the Bennett tariff.
53719-46i


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: No more unemployment there.
Mr. LaVERGNE: I would not say there is no more unemployment, but there is less than there was in 1929.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I would like the hon. gentleman to come and see conditions in my constituency.
Mr. LaVERGNE: I will go whenever my hon. friend invites me. I call his bluff right away because I never was afraid of a four-flusher.
We have markets for the people of this country, and the first market for the farmers is the home market. I do not consider speculators in wheat as farmers. I am talking of the peasant class of which the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) spoke last year -the farmers of Quebec, who do not get discouraged in a crisis, but toil and labour on and face the crisis, and win. I say we have opened world markets, and the first market is the home market. I suppose my hon. friends will admit that. Now we are trying by these agreements to open other markets. Will my hon. friends opposite have the courage to vote against them?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.
Mr. LaVERGNE: I am anxious to see the vote, to see if they will have the courage of their convictions.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: That is more than you
have.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	That is the ex-future
premier of the province of Ontario speaking.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Slightly twisted, as usual.
Mr. LaVERGNE: My English classics are not very good but I think it is Shakespeare who speaks of a man who is "hoist with his own petard." I was just going to appeal to my hon. friends: Why not try these agreements instead of condemning them without a trial? Some hon. members are in favour of free trade. Granted, but free trade is an ideal. You cannot free trade with nations that will not free trade with you. You cannot free trade with the United States, if instead of letting their barriers down, they raise them higher and higher.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: You can make treaties.
Mr. LaVERGNE: Yes, and this is a treaty we are making now, but not with the United States. I am not supposed to be a rabid im-
724	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
perialist, ibut I am glad to see this treaty made with our own kith and kin in the British Empire.
Hon. gentlemen also complain of the duration of the agreement for four or five years. I am sorry that its duration is not for ten years. Some hon. gentlemen would throw away this agreement, like the hon. gentleman who preceded me (Mr. Boulanger), just on the prospect of the elections coming in the United States on the fourth of November.


William Duff: The eighth of November.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	It does not matter, I
admit that my hon. friends are more learned in Yankee affairs than I am.


William Duff: I was never a nationalist.
Mr. LaVERGNE: My hon. friend was never a nationalist, no; but in this debate he was an imperialist, a nationalist, a free trader and an American, all at the same time-what we call in French a chameleon, of the same colour as the leaves which protect him.


William Duff: I shall not tell my hon. friend what I think he is. The smell would be too bad.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	I do not know if it is
within the rules of parliament, but I do know one thing: I do not suppose I am very much, out the day I shall deserve my hon. friend's esteem I shall be sorry for myself.
My hon. friend from South Battleford has suggested that we turn to the left. Is he endorsing his leader? Is he endorsing the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) ? We should like to know that in the province of Quebec.


John Vallance: I have the same independence that you claim.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	Then I know my hon.
friend is not endorsing anyone, but is speaking for himself. And I am glad for my hon. friend from Quebec East and for the leader of the opposition, because I feel, although I do not know, that the. leader of the opposition would not like that move to the left to be endorsed and known very much in the province of Quebec, where he draws quite a lot of his support. May I ask the leader of the opposition, does he move to the left so far that he reaches Russia?


Mr. DUPUIS:: You cannot go fast enough to reach Russia.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	In the province of
Quebec we turn to the right. We believe in conservatism-I do not mean in the political sense of the word, but in the real sense.

We do not believe that Jack is as good as his master, we do not believe in the equal division of wealth-though as far as I am personally concerned I would have no objection to that any more than I would object to the equal division of health. I do not think my hon. friend could grant me that at the same time as the equal division of wealth. We in the province of Quebec think that a move to the left has never done any good to any nation; that what has saved nations has been to return to the old principles which have been established in this world quite a number of centuries, principles that did not come from the left but very much from the right. Men are bom equal and die equal, but cannot live equal, and whether it be a gold standard, a silver standard, or a soviet standard the people of our province cannot be fooled with those doctrines because they know that life is very short in this world and that the reward is in the life to come.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Didn't your country
move to the left at the time of the French revolution?
Mr. LaVERGNE:	That is not my country; I am a Canadian. The next premier of Ontario is a hundred years late. And I go further; although it is not my country, but the country of my forefathers, I say that during the French revolution the French made fools of themselves.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: They did not think so.
Mr. LaVERGNE: I think so.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: There is a difference of
opinion there.
Mr. LaVERGNE: There is. Some of my hon. friends to the left think we are going to settle matters by inflation. I do not pretend to be an economist, but I would say to my hon. friend the member for South Battleford, who is a Scotchman, that it is the first time I have known a Scotchman who would take "a thrippence for a saxpence."


John Vallance: He is lucky if he gets
thrippence in this country. So far we have not got a cent out of this government. If my hon. friend wants to make a speech, let him make it. I think if I were not here he could not make a speech.
Mr. LaVERGNE: Well, my friend is quite right; he has uttered so much nonsense. But we will leave that aside. Gold, or money, is only a fiction anyway. It is a very good fiction, but be it paper or gold or silver it has to be represented by something. My hon. friend moving to the left is, I suppose, going

United Kingdom
to abolish the gold standard and give us inflation. I hope when he gets there they will keep him there.


John Vallance: You need never worry,
you will never get him.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	Is that a threat or a
promise? However, not to take too much time, I just wanted to express my opinion; why not try these agreements? That is the only interest I have in them as a Canadian. If they do not succeed we will bear the responsibility; we will pay the piper, and you will come in our stead to do better. Why not try them? The country is waiting and anxious to see them tried. There are more important questions waiting-for instance, the question of the railways, which is a very important question that ought to come before this house and is waiting to be discussed after these agreements are accepted.
If I may show my independence and please my hon. friends on the other side, there is one criticism which I might make about these agreements, only one. I do not know, any more than my hon. friends do, how these agreements are going to succeed, but I think it is my duty, the duty of every Canadian, to adopt them, to try them and see how they work. If they do not succeed we know who will be responsible. But I have one criticism to offer. The only thing I have to criticize about the recent conference is that at the meeting here in Ottawa in July the bilingual character of this countiy was not made sufficiently apparent. It is my duty to say that; I may be criticized, but I am going to say it. I understand that the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dupre) said last year that the moment bilingualism or French is mentioned in this countiy some people see red. But whether we like it or not, almost one-third of the population of Canada is French. There is an article in the constitution which makes the French language official. Whether we like it or not we have to live together. I understand very well those who say that there should be only one language in this country and one religion-though one religion might be rather hard in the English provinces. But anyway there are two languages in this country; it is no fault of ours, but I will say this, that the Canadians speaking French will not look upon this country as a country in which they are going to be pocketed in the province of Quebec as in a reserve. We have made this bargain of confederation-and bargain is a word I like, because bargain brings agreement-we have made the bargain of bilingualism. Whether
we like it or not we are here to live together, and we will not be parked in the province of Quebec as in an Indian reserve where we are to live alone. If I were an English-speaking instead of a French-speaking Canadian I would think that bilingualism is the salvation of this country and should be affirmed in every national act, because it is what differentiates us from the United States, and is the greatest barrier to Americanization.


William Duff: Who said otherwise?
Mr. LaVERGNE:	Nobody so far, but I
know there is a sort of atmosphere


William Duff: Not on this side of the house. We have never objected.
Mr. LaVERGNE : I will be honest-I will say on both sides.


William Duff: Say on your side.
Mr. LaVERGNE : I do not want to make this debate bitter and quote examples. I speak of it for the reason I have just given, that I thought that at the last conference the bilingualism of the country was not brought forward and affirmed as it should have been.


William Duff: Don't look at us.


An hon. MEMBER:: Ask the member for
Long Lake. Ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce, for instance.
Mr. LaVERGNE :	Do not let my hon.
friend from Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) ask me to give names. I have been in this house the last twenty-eight years-


William Duff: You have not.
Mr. LaVERGNE: Since twenty-eight years. I left the Liberal party on this question so I know what I am talking about.


William Duff: You had better come back.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	Well, I am glad my
friends have changed-


Mr. DENIS:: I object.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	That is the greatest
compliment I have received for a long time. We have within our borders two civilizations, two nations. We are very different from that civilization to the south of us-if one might use that term when describing our neighbouring country. We believe in the British Empire. I have been known as a rabid nationalist, but I believe in the British Empire because-


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: And the flag.
726	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
Mr. LaVERGNE: -because I think England has given the world the greatest criminal laws and France has given the world the greatest civil laws. Those laws we have in our province. I have never heard the hon. member who has just spoken raise his voice in the province of Ontario in favour of that civilization, although he is supposed to be the leader of a great party in Ontario-a great party with a very small man at the head of it.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: 
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Miss MACPHAIL:: It is too bad that statement causes laughter, because it is accurate. Mr. Bruce said: "It will be agreed that tariff arrangements can certainly be destroyed by instability of exchange." The free entry of Canadian products into the British market is useless, at the moment, because Canadian farm products cannot get into that market. They cannot enter the British market because the pound is worth only $3.62. It is useless, and the Canadian farmer knows it. In presenting the agreement the Prime Minister told us that by 1937 we should be able to produce and dispose of 8,500,000 hogs and that by 1942, we should have an export volume of 500,000,000 pounds of bacon and hams. That sounds encouraging on paper but it does not afford much comfort to the hog producer today. He cannot sell bacon and hams in the British market. The other day I had a letter from Peterborough, stating that a certain small abattoir had been trying to put bacon on the British market within the last month and had lost $2 a side or $4 a hog, which is about all the animal is worth at the moment. And in trying to export cattle to the British market now the farmer loses considerably more than $1 per hundredweight. It is all nonsense, and it is an insult to the intelligence of the Canadian people, to bring forward such an arrangement as an encouragement to our farmers. Let me for a moment discuss the Canadian exporter? and I am not speaking now of "peasants" but of honest-to-goodness red-blooded Canadian farmers. When these red-blooded people once come face to face with the type of gentleman who preceded me, the name of whose constituency I do not know, (Mr. LaVergne), I hope, in fact I am sure, they will say to that type of man that parliament would be improved if a "peasant" replaced him.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: They will say that Jack is as good as his master.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Why should anyone
stand up in this house and say that he represents peasants? Fortunately I do not represent peasants. May I say to the government that the farmers of my constituency are so intelligent that this kind of talk about bacon and hams which we shall be able to sell in 1942, or at some date in the future, does not fool them. They want to know how much of these products they wall be able to sell this year, 1932. If the Canadian exporter could send his product to England, even with the pound sterling very low, and buy, in return for his bacon and beef and cheese and wheat, such commodities as woollens and cottons, boots and shoes, cutlery and china, linen and so on, at the same value of the pound sterling as he receives for what he sells, the situation would not be so bad. That would be a fairer arrangement. But the government that has been so very dull on this exchange problem when it applied to exporters of farm products was quick enough on the "uptake" when it affected the Canadian manufacturer. The result is that when we buy woollens and cottons, boots and shoes, and necessities of that kind, in England, we have a fixed valuation of the pound sterling. One certainly gets lost in the maze of fixed valuations, but at any rate the pound for quite a period has been fixed at $4.40. When the duty is charged against the goods, it will be, let us say, 20 per cent against goods valued, not at $4.40 but at the old parity of $4.86f, plus an excise duty of 3 per cent levied on the duty paid value of the goods; and, if the commodity happens to be textiles, there will be an addition in respect of the -weight. In other words, a textile that is heavier and cheaper will pay a higher duty. Furthermore, there will be the new dumping duty. There was an old dumping duty, so that we have now two kinds of duty. I suppose we ought to call them the dumping duties first and second.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Call the first hump'ty and the second dumpty.


Mr. SPEARMAN:: No; he fell.


An hon. MEMBER:: Call it the jumping duty.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: 
Vincent Dupuis: Before giving my opinion on the question now before the house, may I say that I have followed with keen interest the discussion on this agreement and the arguments advanced on both sides of the house, and I cannot agree with those who say that this debate should not have taken up as much time as it has. I do not say that the remarks which I shall have the honour to make on behalf of my constituency will advance this debate very far, but it is my duty to express not only the opinion of my constituents but my own opinion as one of the representatives
rMr. Howard.]
of the Canadian people in this house. Although I am ready to agree with the statement made by a great statesman the other day, when he told us that we should not attach too much importance to the letter of the agreement but rather should abide by its spirit, for the sake of this discussion, and in view of the fact that our opponents have gone into the. details of the agreement, I think it is my duty to follow them on their own ground. *
As representing a farming constituency, I had the honour two years ago of a visit on the part of hon. members of this house coming from Ontario. They came as apostles of the policy of protection. They appeared in many counties in the province of Quebec, investigating the agricultural situation in that province. Among them I might mention the horn member for Haldimand, the hon. member for South Hastings and the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe. They came to Laprairie and made an investigation, and, of course; they found that the farmers of my riding, at the price at which they sold their- products, were going to starve. What were the prices of farm products 'at that time? That was during January, 1930. According to Hansard the price of butter in January, 1930, was Z7\, cents, and in April, 1930, 38i. I remember quite well that the hon. member for Haldimand contended in his speech that the herds were decreasing year by year, by reason of butter competition from New Zealand-What do we find after two years of Conservative regime? According to a report dated August, 1932, issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce, dairy herds have decreased by 170,000 head since 1930. The revenue of this industry, which in 1930 was $269,844,000, dropped to $161,243,000, in 1931, a de->
crease of $108,601,000, or forty per cent. This is what has happened during the regime of hon. gentlemen opposite who came into my riding, preaching the doctrine of high protection.
After two years of Conservative administration they come now and ask us to accept this agreement without any discussion. They tell us that as far as the agriculturists are concerned, it will be of great benefit. They claim that they have opened the markets of Great Britain to the farmers of Canada. I should like to deal with that item with which they used to fight us during the last elections *-butter. A preference of fifteen shillings per hundredweight is given by the United Kingdom, which, according to the actual value of the pound sterling, amounts to two cents per pound. In this connection I should like to

United Kingdom
quote the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) as reported at page 647 of Hansard, as follows:
-but the free trade policy of the British government did not give Canadian farmers and manufacturers much chance against foreign competitors located only a few miles from the great markets of London and Liverpool.
The hon. member believes that the protectionist policy of his party is a good one; he believes that this protection of two cents a pound on butter will be beneficial to the farmer. Let us see just where the United Kingdom obtains her butter. I have before me a bulletin dated October 16, 1932, issued by the Department of Agriculture, giving the following information as to 1932 exports to the United Kingdom:
Hundredweight
Denmark	 1,751,108
Australia	 1,149,660
New Zealand	 1,474,265
Canada is not mentioned, so she must come under the heading of "other countries", which exported the small amount of 217,336 hundredweight. The most important country outside of the British Empire exporting butter to the United Kingdom is Denmark, and that country comes within the category mentioned by the hon. member for Dorchester- she is a competitor located only a few miles from the great markets of London and Liverpool. Will we be able to compete with Denmark with a preference of only two cents per pound? How can we compete with New Zealand? According to hon. gentlemen opposite we were unable to compete with that country in 1930 because she was paying a bonus of five cents per pound for each pound of butter exported; how can we then compete with them on the London market?
I am convinced that under these agreements the United Kingdom has obtained more from us than she has given. Hon. friends opposite claim that this agreement is donnant-donnant, or fifty-fifty. In answer to that, I think I need only repeat the story of the butcher who had the reputation of selling the very best grade of sausages. A lady came to him and asked for the recipe and he told her that he made them fifty-fifty with beef and chicken-one bull for one chicken. I ask hon. members opposite: Where is the bull and where is the chicken in the agreement you are asking us to put through this house?
As I said before, to use the language of Lord Reading, the details of these agreements are of no importance whatsoever; it is the principle, the spirit of them which counts in my mind. If this be so, I claim that the principle of these agreements is hidden under the 53719-47
camouflage of tariff policy. What the Prime minister (Mr. Bennett) had in mind is not so much the advantage of trade policy as the advantage of the imperialistic doctrine which is dear to his heart, as dear as it is to the heart of the Right Hon. Neville Chamberlain.
I listened with great interest to the speech delivered the other day by the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) whom, may I say in passing, I admire very much for his courtesy, for his learning, and for the way in which we are able to approach him. He is a Canadian, and I think in public life there is something dearer to a public man than the party to which he belongs-it is friendship. But I am sure that he will be good enough to allow me to oppose his views so far as political doctrines are concerned. The other day, criticizing the exMinister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) for certain words that he had uttered, the Solicitor General gave a lesson to the ex-Minister of Justice and to my right hon. chieftain (Mr. Mackenzie King). Then he tried to put into the mouth of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier these words, amongst others:
My dear Ernest, my dear Bill, when you talk about protection and free trade please use the soft pedal and do not make it too thick.
May I say in reply to the Solicitor General that he is making a very big mistake when he contends that the principle underlying these agreements is one of tariff or free trade. What underlies these agreements is the question of imperialism, and this is exactly what we are opposed to. In answer to the Solicitor General, using the same kind of argument as he used and as attributing the words to that distinguished statesman, Sir George Etienne Cartier as the spokesman, I would say to the hon. gentleman: Beware, my young friend, when the jingoes talk tariff and offer you preferences even upon a silver salver; lift up the gift and you will find the serpent of imperialism. You had better apply the four-wheel brakes before it is too late and before the country has gone to perdition.
May I paraphrase the words of the wise in the Trojan war and say to my hon. friend: "Timeo jingoes et dona ferentes," or, in other words: "Beware the jingoes even bringing gifts."
I should like to say a word in reply to what the hon. member for Dorchester said the other day. After quoting Laurier himself, he said that by these agreements:
We have helped the provinces put through their schemes of relief. We have protected the farmers; we have protected the manufacturers; we have protected the consumers, but still the cost of living has been reduced.

738	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
Protection! What kind of protection have we had? What kind of protection have our farmers, industrialists and workingmen had? They are starving. They have nothing to live on. They have no money in their pockets. When I heard the hon. member for Dorchester say that his party had given protection to everybody, I was reminded of the fable of Lafontaine about the old man who had a bear for a friend. There was once an old man who, being left alone in the world, was looking for a friend. Walking in the woods one day he met a bear who was in a similar plight. They talked together and the old man treated the bear so well that the latter became his protector. Whatever the old man would do, the bear would follow and watch his master. One very hot summer day the old man was tired, so he lay down under a tree. The bear stood there watching him to see that he was properly protected. It happened that a fly came along and lit on the old man's face, and the bear became mad because he could not with his paw chase away this irritating fly. The bear, becoming madder, took up a stone and, trying to kill the fly while it was on his master's nose, killed his master. That is the kind of protection that our friends the Tories are giving us with these agreements which they are offering to the house. They say protection. Are they giving us protection? The only protection that the jingoes and the Tories have ever given to this country is protection for the rich, the well-to-do, the manufacturers, those who give money to the party to get votes so that after the party is returned to power they may obtain protection.
Hon. gentlemen opposite ask us what is the difference between the Liberal and the Conservative doctrines on imperialism and preferences. To my mind there is a very great difference. I may be wrong; I do not believe that what I am about to say will be swallowed by my opponents as dogma; in fact, I am sure they will not accept it. But I have the right to give my views in answer to their contentions.
In the conference of 1902 the imperialists in the old country had the same intention of inducing the colonies to form a political union, and who was the one who defeated this policy of Chamberlain? It was Sir Wilfrid Laurier. In the Life and Letters of Sir Wilfrid Laurier by 0. D. Skelton, at page 202 I find this:
The conference of 1902 convinced Mr. Chamberlain that the political and the military paths to his goal would give slow progress. He therefore turned to the pathway of trade, along which there had been some greater willingness to walk together. The launching of his imperial preferential trade campaign in 1903

was a direct result of the check in the colonial conference of 1902.	Let Britain adopt a
customs tariff, useful incidentally to protect her own industries and to give bargaining leverage with other powers, and let her grant preferential rates on colonial products in return for concessions on her manufactures, and the British Empire would become self-contained, self-sufficient, bound indissolubly by the ties of common interest.
And here is what is said about Mr. Chamberlain. He said that when the economic union became a fact, "political and military union would follow."
Quoting from page 307 of the same book:
On the tariff question Sir Wilfrid Laurier said little. He agreed in principle vdth Mr. Deakin's eloquent advocacy of imperial preference, but did not wish to interfere in British politics.
There, Mr. Speaker, is the difference between the principles of the Liberal party and the principles of the Conservative party.
The successor of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, with other representatives of this country, went to the conference of 1926, where the same question was again debated. I have before me the report of the Imperial economic committee published by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, in January, 1928. The committee concluded:
That the time is ripe for a national effort to stimulate the consumption of empire produce in the United Kingdom and that this could be effected by the exercise of voluntary preference by the British consumer. The scheme rests on the free will of the individual citizen as consumer.
What do they say about the British consumer?
On the one hand, the purchaser in the old country must be convinced of the desirability of exercising a preference in favour of empire goods, or in other words the housewife must be led to realize that in buying empire produce she is building up employment for her husband and sons. And on the other hand the producer in the empire both in the United Kingdom and overseas must be led to appreciate the fact that he cannot expect the exercise of a preference in his favour if bis goods will not stand competition in regard to price, quality and quantity, or in other words that he has no right to ask the housewife to lay out the family money except to the best advantage of her husband and children.
You find that summed up on the Liberal side in the words of Laurier as imperial solidarity based on local autonomy. Or in the words of our present Liberal chieftain, as expressed by the Imperial economic committee, " the freedom and the liberty of each party to the agreement to handle their own affairs and not to mix up in the other countries' affairs " As is said in the same report:

United Kingdom
Provided that no question which has any reference to another part of the empire may be referred to the committee without the consent of that other part of the empire.
To find out the policy of the Conservative party, shall we go back to the days of Sir John A. Macdonald? No, sir. If we go back to those days we shall find that the opinion of Sir John A. Macdonald was exactly contrary to that of the present Prime Minister. Quoting from page 581 of the Memoirs of Sir John Alexander Macdonald by Sir Joseph Pope, I find that Sir John said:
But, however that might be, I am quite sure that Canada would never consent to be taxed by a central body sitting at London in which she would have practically no voice.
Here is what Sir John A. Macdonald said concerning the tariff policy:
That form of imperial federation is an idle dream. So also in my judgment is the proposal to establish a uniform tariff throughout the empire. No colony would ever surrender its right to control its fiscal policy.
I ask hon. gentlemen opposite what they think of that. Is that in. accordance with the Conservative policy of .today? Sir, the policy of the right hon. Prime Minister and his followers-I say it very seriously if adopted endangers all the principles which we have won since 1837. Among the ninety-two resolutions which were presented to His Majesty in 1837 what do we find? As recorded in Boyd's Life of Sir George Etienne Cartier, page 39:
. . . the imperial parliament, wherein Canada had no representative, had no right to interfere for the renovation of laws which the Canadians considered needful for the maintenance of their rights. At the same time the people's representatives intimated that interference in the local legislation of Canada in any way by British legislatures could only aggravate existing evils.
If these agreements are adopted it means that the British parliament by their representatives are going to dictate to this Canadian parliament how we should increase or decrease tariffs or regulate our fiscal policy.
I said a few moments ago that the only aim of these agreements was a policy of imperialism, and I believe that both Right Hon. Mr. Chamberlain in England and Right Hon. Mr. Bennett in Canada are striving to find out who will win the race in imperialism and imperial matters. During the recent conference they came near to quarrelling because each one wanted to be the first to have these policies adopted. In the Montreal Standard of Saturday last we find this statement:
It is becoming clearer every day that the real strong man in the government is Right Hon. Neville Chamberlain. The gap between his 53719-17^
opinions and those of Mr. Baldwin is becoming more and more evident as the present session of parliament proceeds. . . .
Chamberlain has the advantage of knowing precisely what he wants, and he is equally determined to get it. He is as ardent a protectionist and imperialist as Mr. Amery. He feels it his duty to carry out the mission of his famous, father. He is also a stern economist.
And further the article proceeds:
Mr. Baldwin is a link between Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Chamberlain, and, with characteristic sincerity and honesty, he is trying to preserve the national character of the government and not let it become an administration dominated by Chamberlain and his Tory supporters.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. gentleman has spoken for forty minutes.
Mr. C. DUMAINE (Bagot) (Translation) r Mr. Speaker, may I, first, sincerely congratulate the hon. member for Laprairie Napierville (Mr. Dupuis), who has made such a splendid speech and who so forcibly expressed his opposition to the resolution under consideration. May I also extend the same congratulations to the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard), to the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger) and to the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), all of whom delivered such splendid speeches, this day. I feel rather shy in rising, after such distinguished speakers, to express my views as regards this resolution which is being discussed in the house.
I must admit there is not much to be added to this debate, because many members have threshed out this question. It has been studied from all angles and truly, if the members opposite had not endeavoured to prove to the house, the ratepayers and the people the benefits to be derived from the agreements entered into at the Imperial Economic Conference of 1932, it would be unnecessary to add anything further as regards these agreements with the United Kingdom and the Dominions. I shall be brief, because I have little faith in these agreements and, in my opinion, they are not even worth criticizing. However, this pact brings up an important question, namely that of imperialism, and if I raise my voice this evening it is to uphold the rights of Canadian farmers of my county and express, personally, my views.
May I first point out, sir, that many items under the trade agreements entered into with the United Kingdom comprise no changes and are therefore the same as they were previous to the Imperial Conference of 1932. There are, however, a number of items that indicate a decrease in duties. I shall quote items 146, 147, 152, 156 and 164 in connection with wine,
740	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
beers, porters and alcohol to which British preference extends and on which prices will be lowered. Was preference granted on these articles as somewhat of a consolation to the people of this country?


Charles Napoléon Dorion: As a consolation to Mr. Taschereau.


Mr. DUMAINE (Translation):: I trust not because our people have no need of this beverage to drown their sorrow. On a number of items which are indispensible to the farming class, such as separators and barbed wire the tariff was increased by 25 per cent. It was thought proper, in these trade agreements, not to lower, but rather increase the tariff on articles principally purchased by the poor classes-I can state that the latter include the farming and working classes. A decrease of duty is mentioned on cotton. The duties are lowered on the better quality of cottons: those that we, the poor, cannot afford to purchase; the duties were also lowered on fine linen goods, first quality, which are bought by wealthy people, and which the poor cannot afford.
In these trade agreements, the poor consumer is ignored, and the interests of the industrialist, capitalist and stock-holders whose life is one of pleasure, are looked after. That is as regards industry, trade and finance, as a whole, the tariff was fixed at so much per cent on each item. But, what was done for the agricultural class? Our hon. friends opposite state: the Imperial conference affords all the guarantees possible for the sale of farm products, and the farmers of this country Will greatly benefit in this respect. Yet, there is not a farm product on which a tariff duty was fixed and for which a market is guaranteed or a reasonable price equal to that of production, is assured.
The London market was thrown open for our butter. I have very little faith in the London market, because we shall have to compete with New Zealand and Australia which can produce butter and export it to the English market on better terms and at a lower price than we can. Do you recall, Sir, when the election of 1930 took place, Canada levied a duty of 1 cent per pound and our opponents contended that we could not compete with New Zealand and that Australia and the former country were stealing pur markets away from us. In my opinion this agreement is certainly not advantageous for the farming class of Quebec or the other provinces.
May I ask the hon. gentlemen opposite whether they have found a market for our hay. There is a large quantity of good hay

grown in my county. We cannot find a market. Our farmers would greatly benefit had they a market for this hay. A number of farmers in my constituency have at present, two or three hundred tons of hay in their barns and are unable to find any outlet for it. Do the new agreements of the Imperial conference give us a market for our hay? There is nothing in them which will be in any way advantageous to us. Have they found a market for our potatoes? Nothing in those agreements give us any hope of disposing of our potato crop. The same may be said for all our farm products. For instance, with reference to bacon, we are told: We open the great London markets to you. This market may, perhaps, be opened to us, but we are not told what price will be offered for our bacon. In my opinion, the farming class was ignored at the Imperial economic conference. A few days previous to the conference, the Prime Minister refused to meet the farmers of this country and to even grant them five minutes of his time. I think that he is still following the same tactics and policy.
I find no advantages in the resolutions under consideration and as the representative of a beautiful farming county I shall register my vote against these agreements, because I love my country and wish to carry out my pledges, as a member, to the very end.
On motion of Mr. Dorion the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Stevens the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Wednesday, November 2, 1933.