1932-10-18

QUESTIONS

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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaVERGNE:
1.	Is Mr. Lueien Moreaud, of Quebec, one of the directors of the Canadian National Railways?
2.	If so, on whose recommendation was he appointed?
Mr. MANION:: I will answer this orally. The answer to question No. 1 is, yes. The answer to question No. 2 is: the Minister of Railways and Canals.


ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PENITENTIARY DOCTORS
Mr. BARRETTE:: 1.	What are the names of the doctors who are in charge at the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary?
2.	What are the dates of their appointment?
3.	What are their respective salaries?
4.	By whom were they recommended?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	Doctor L. F. Lavigne, Doctor E. Coron.
2.	Doctor L. F. Lavigne, January 13, 1930; Doctor E. Coron, December 18, 1930 (temporary capacity).

3.	Doctor L. F. Lavigne, $2,640; Doctor E. Coron, $125 per month when employed.
4.	Doctor L. F. Lavigne, recommended and appointed by Civil Service Commission; Doctor E. Coron, casual employment authorized upon recommendation of Minister of Justice.


DOUKHOBOR &quot;SONS OF FREEDOM&quot;
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	How many Doukhobor "Sons of Freedom"
were convicted of parading while nude:	(a)
men; (b) women; (c) children?
2.	Where are the men now imprisoned?
3.	Where are the women now imprisoned?
4.	Where are the children being taken care of?
5.	Have any babies died? If so, how many?
6.	What proportion of the cost of keeping these people is borne by the Dominion government?
7.	What has their conviction and keep cost the Dominion government to date?
8.	What is the cost per week, per child?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	Informed by provincial authorities as follows: (a) 303, (b) 288, (c) none.
2.	291, Piers Island penitentiary, B.C., balance in hands of provincial authorities.
3.	Informed by provincial authorities as follows: Oakalla prison farm, 109; Grand Falls camp, 48; Nelson gaol, 131.
4.	Informed by provincial authorities as follows: Children's Aid Society, Vancouver B.C.; Industrial School for Girls, Vancouver, B.C.; Private Home, Chilliwack, B.C.; Loyal Protestant Orphanage, New Westminster, B.C.; Protestant Orphans Home, Victoria, B.C.; Industrial School, Coquitlam, B.C.; Mental Hospital, Essondale, B.C.; General Hospital, Vancouver, B.C.
5.	No information.
6.	Information not yet available. Dominion will bear cost of imprisonment in the penitentiary and out of pocket expenses of province for keep of prisoners from 30 days after commitment until delivery to penitentiary.
7.	$42,359.90.
8.	Informed by provincial authorities, $4 per week.


PERMANENT FORCE
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	What is the strength of Canada's permanent
force:	(a) officers; (b) non-commissioned
officers and men?
2.	What is the yearly payroll: (a) officers; (b) non-commissioned officers and men?

Questions


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	The strength of Canada's permanent force as of the 30th September, 1932, is as follows:
Naval-(a) officers, 88; (b) ratings, 781.
Militia-(a) officers, 410; (b) warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men, 3,117.
Air-(a) officers, 99; (b) airmen, 596.
2.	(a) Officers-Naval, 8259,889.94; Militia, $1,368,446.34; Air, $359,730.94.
Ob) Warrant officers, non - commissioned officers, men, ratings and airmen-
Naval, $1,007,921.30; Militia, $3,388,992.22; Air, $816,230.80.


SULLY, QUE., POST MASTERSHIP
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What is the name of the postmaster at Sully, county of Temiscouata?
2.	When was he appointed: (a) temporarily;
(b) permanently?
3.	What education has he had?
4.	Did he receive a business or university course ?
5.	Did Mr. Isidore Jean, a veteran of the Great war, apply for the position?
6.	If so, what was the date of his first application ?
7.	What education did Mr. Jean receive?
8.	What is the occupation of the present postmaster?
9.	Is he a veteran of the Great war?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1 and 2. Andrea Tardif is in temporary charge since February 5, 1932.
3.	Primary school.
4.	No.
5.	Yes.
6.	February 27, 1931.
7.	Primary school.
8.	Day labourer.
9.	No.


BOARD OF RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS-FRENCH SECRETARY
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaVERGNE:
1.	Is the position of French secretary of the railway commission vacant?
2.	If so, will the appointment be made in the near future?
3.	If not, is it the intention to abolish said position ?
Mr. MANION:: 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-EMPLOYEES AND SALARIES
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What was the total salaries of the employees of the Post Office Department: (a) at Ottawa; (b) outside of Ottawa, on August 1, 1930, and September 30, 1932?
2.	How many employees of the Post Office
Department were in receipt of a salary of more than $2,500:	(a) at Ottawa; (b) outside of
Ottawa, on August 1, 1930, and September 30, 1932?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	August 1, 1930
(a)	$ 123,280 79
(b)	1,420,107 15
2.	August 1, 1930
(a)	68
(b)	200
September 30, 1932 8 104,006 69 1,229,621 34
September 30, 1932 63 204


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-CLASSIFICATION OF POSTMASTERS
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What difference exists between class B and class C for those who apply for the position of postmaster?
2.	Was Mr. L. P. Simard, who was classed in class C, appointed in preference to Mr. Joseph Arthur Morin who was classed in class B. to the position of postmaster of St. Joseph d'Alma? If so, for what reason?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	(a) Class B is a resident returned soldier, (b) Class C is a resident civilian.
2.	No permanent appointment made. Case before the Civil Service Commission.


POSTMASTER OF ST. EUSEBE DE CABANO
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Does the evidence forwarded by the commissioner of the inquiry, Alphonse Garon, indicate that Paul Langlois, postmaster of St. Eusebe de Cabano was guilty of political partisanship in the provincial elections of 1931?
2.	If so, was said Paul Langlois dismissed and on what date?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Postmaster not guilty, according to finding of commissioner.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
30S	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. GOBEIL:: 1.	How many petitions requesting the issuing of currency in both languages in Canada were received by the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister or other members of the cabinet, from May 1, 1928, to May 1, 1929, and what action was taken following the reception of said petitions ?
2.	How many of said petitions came from each province in Canada?
3.	How many of said petitions came from the following counties: Compton, Bellechasse, Quebec East, Richelieu, Dorchester, St. James, and Charlevoix-Saguenay?
4.	Were the circumstances and conditions for the issuing of currency the same at that time as they are today?
5.	Is the issuing of Canadian currency awarded by contract?
6.	If so, what is the date of the last contract awarded and for what length of time?


POST OFFICES-STATISTICS
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	How many post offices were closed since August 1, 1930?
2.	How many new post offices were opened since said date?
3.	How many of said post offices covered their expenses?


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-EMPLOYEES
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	How many employees were there in the Post Office Department: (a) at Ottawa; (b) outside of Ottawa, on August 1, 1930, and September 30, 1932?
2.	How many employees were dismissed in said department since August 1, 1930?



OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. B. HOWARD (Sherbrooke):: I
should like to draw to the attention cl the house a matter which I think is of extreme importance and that is the publication of Hansard. Hansard is published in English and translated into French, 'but the French translation does not get into the hands of the public until at least two days after publication in English. In the mixed papulation of the eastern townships this does not give a fair chance to our Freneh-Canadian friends and I should like to know if you, Mr. Speaker, would take steps to have the translation made, if possible, so that the French and English copies of Hansard would be published cm the same day.


Mr. SPEAKER:: It takes one day for the printing in English before that can be translated. I shall, however, look into the matter and if the situation requires adjustment, I shall endeavour to secure more expeditious translation.



BUTTER IMPORTATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. F. DONNELLY (Willow Bunch):: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question of prime importance to the farmers of western Canada. Can he tell me whether any butter has arrived in Canada during the past three months from Australia or New Zealand and, if so, how much?


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: I shall be glad to let the hon. gentleman have the information tomorrow.


Thomas F. Donnelly: At the same time I
should like to ask whether any shipments of Canadian butter have been returned from the British Isles to Canada during the past three months and, if so, how much.



IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, October 17, 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 of His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom, subject to the legislation required in order to give effect to the fiscal changes consequent thereon.
Hon. JAMES MALCOLM (North Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, the house is asked to approve a treaty drawn between His Majesty's government in Cheat Britain and His Majesty's government in Canada for the benefit of Canadian trade and, I presume, also for the benefit of British trade. It is only fair, before discussing the treaty, to go back and discuss the history of the treaty. At the time of the bringing down of the so-called Dunning budget, the government then in power having analyzed the trade that existed between Canada and British countries as against the trade that existed between Canada and foreign countries, found that the British Empire was buying from this dominion approximately $500,000,000 worth of mer-

United Kingdom
chandise, and that this country was buying from the British Empire $250,000,000 worth of merchandise-I am taking the figures for 1928-while as regards foreign countries the trade of this dominion consisted of an export business of $730,000,000 and an import business of $860,000,000. From all British countries we had a favourable trade balance of approximately $250,000,000 and from all foreign countries an adverse trade balance of about $130,000,000.
It was the desire of the government of that day, and I think it was the desire of everyone in the parliament of Canada that if possible our fiscal policy should be so adjusted as to give more business to those who were giving business to us. It was the desire of the government of that day and of the party to your left, Mr. Speaker, in so doing to increase our purchases from Great Britain and by so doing at lower rates of duty, to assist the primary producers in this country. It was also the desire of the government of that day, as it is the desire of the Liberal party, that upon the imports of merchandise substantial revenues should be raised. It was also the desire of the government of that day that those who were engaged in production of any kind in Canada and who were called upon to meet foreign competition in the markets of the world should have their implements of production, and raw material, at prices which would enable them to compete in the world's markets. The Dunning budget was presented in 1930 with five primary objects in view: First, to divert trade, upon which all agreed; second, to lower the cost to the consumer in Canada of the things he needed in his daily life; third, to decrease the cost of the implements of production to the primary producer, fourth, to lower the cost of all raw materials to the Canadian manufacturer for export so that he would be more able to compete in the markets of the world and fifth to produce revenue. Such, I think, is a fair representation of the position taken in the Dunning budget by the government then in power.
The present Prime Minister, in appealing to the public in the last election, 'stressed certain points. He stressed what was existing at that time in a slight degree, namely, unemployment. He stressed what he claimed were low prices for agricultural commodities. He stressed what he thought was entirely wrong, namely, too great an importation of foreign commodities, and he clearly stated on the platform to the public that it was the fault of the then government that those conditions
existed and that if he were elected Prime Minister of Canada, those conditions would not obtain, that unemployment would be corrected, trade would flourish, and the farmers would enjoy a more prosperous condition.
I believe the Prime Minister will agree with me that that is a fair representation of the facts. Not only did he so state, but he went farther and prescribed, honestly, a cure by which he would bring about these conditions. He stated that his highly protective policy would give adequate protection to agriculture as well as to industry, would result in a condition in this dominion very much better than that then existing.
No one who has followed the course of the Prime Minister since attaining office in the mid-summer of 1930 can accuse him of insincerity. No man can accuse him of not having applied the cure in ever increasing doses. No one can see, however, any improvement in the patient's condition after heavy doses have been applied. Having arrived at that point we must consider, before discussing the treaty, whether or not in so far as our domestic condition is concerned an extremely high protective policy is best. It is with extreme high protection that members on this side disagree. I do not believe any man on this or on the other side of the house seriously disagrees with his fellow member of parliament on any thing except the policies which we advocate, ours being entirely different from that advocated by my hon. friends opposite. Therefore our discussion of the treaty now before us must be entirely upon the policy which is followed in making the treaty, as against the policy we advocated when in 1930 we suggested a treaty with Great Britain. In so far as our internal condition goes I do not need to labour the situation in Canada today. I do not wish to decry conditions, nor do I wish to make out for Canada any condition worse than that actually existing. It is only fair to say, however, that unemployment has not been solved; it is not true to say that farm prices have improved, or that the manufacturers in Canada have enjoyed any period of great prosperity.
Although that is so the government presents to us the draft of a treaty based on the protective principle. Again still greater consistency is exhibited than has been exhibited before, as evidenced in the fact that every clause of the treaty, every item in it, consistently holds to the policy advocated by the Prime Minister during the election campaign of 1930. With that policy we entirely disagree. I purpose to show that in the drafting of this
310	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
treaty the Prime Minister has gone beyond the point I believe he himself intended to go. During the campaign the Prime Minister said-and I believe he has fairly maintained his position-that so far as he was concerned he would raise tariff barriers in Canada, and by virtue of the fact that he held as many cards in his hand as the other players, he would make tariffs fight for Canada. He recalled that between the years 1920 and 1930 countries throughout the world consistently raised tariff barriers against each other. In other words, the Prime Minister indicated that he would induce trade by lowering tariffs only when some other country lowered tariffs against us. I believe the Prime Minister will agree that that is a fair representation of his policy.
In connection with this particular treaty he has gained certain advantages, but I think in doing so he has tied his hands. That in blasting his way into British markets he has tied his hands more tightly than he may realize for future treaties. I purpose presently to show why I claim the Prime Minister of Canada has, whether by motive or innocently, put himself in a position where his blasting process will be after this treaty is passed of very little avail in securing markets in other countries. In so far as the main points of the treaty are concerned, I should like to direct attention to the first point stressed last night by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) and to which reference was made by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps), to the effect that there is diversion of trade from foreign to British countries. That is a correct statement. Unquestionably there is a diversion of trade, and in so far as it takes place it is not inconsistent or out of line with the desire of Canadian people in all walks of life and in all political parties. To the diversion of trade as designed and carried out by this treaty no one can take any objection.
But there is a second feature of this treaty providing for very much higher duties, a provision which comes directly into conflict with Liberal principles. We note that higher duties are placed on implements of production. I wish to say to the Prime Minister and his supporters that in a low price market such as we have today in which commodity prices are probably at the lowest level they have reached in 'the lifetime of any of us, it is going to be very difficult for any person to make a living except in one of two ways. Either he must get his equipment at the lowest possible cost and operate his busines efficiently,- whether it be farming or manufacturing-or he must lower wages. Costs must be reduced in some way, and it does seem to me that in

this situation every hon. member in the house and every person in the country who has anything to do with labour would sooner cut down costs through efficient and lower priced machinery than take it out of labour.
I do not think at the present time there is anything as desirable for industry in Canada, whether it be mining, lumbering, farming or manufacturing, as to be able from the low returns received to get the implements with which we manufacture at costs as low as possible, to introduce the most efficient methods possible, and to treat our labour as well as we can with the remainder of the money at our disposal. So I say to the Prime Minister, in raising the prices of implements of production he has made a practical blunder, in so far as assisting Canadian producers is concerned in the exportation of materials- whether they be raw, semi-finished, or finished.
The third point in the agreement was discussed yesterday by the leader of the opposition, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I refer to the differential which is to be maintained. I do not know whether I shall succeed, but I should like very much to explain a difficulty appearing in the agreement which leads me to fear the Prime Minister and his ministers will experience some embarrassment when they come to make other treaties. In the past when making treaties former governments offered certain concessions. There are several ways to give concessions under a treaty, and if hon. members will pardon me for labouring a point, concerning which they may know more than I do, I shall outline the different classifications, so far as duties are concerned. We have the British preferential the intermediate, and the general tariffs. Also, by certain treaties we have given a lower specific duty to some countries, termed favoured nation treatment. In the main we have always tried to make our treaties by offering the intermediate tariff or favoured nations treatment.
When in power the party now on this side of the house in many instances did give specific duties in treaties and when in opposition the Prime Minister criticized us by saying that in connection with the French treaty the agreement made it possible for them to raise their duties against us, but that it was impossible for us to raise duties against them. Yet under the agreement now before us the Prime Minister grants endless specific general duties, rather than using existing tariff items and schedules and in the preferential column places these items on the free list. How will this work out?

United Kingdom
Last night the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) was speaking about these free items,-whether or not they amount to a great deal I will deal with later-the fact remains that where the item from Great Britain, is free and the intermediate and general rates are 20 and 25 per cent, it will 'be impossible toi make new treaties over a differential of 20 per cent. For the whole life of this treaty it will foe impossible to give a lower rate of duty on any commodity than the minimum now set by the intermediate tariff. Should we find it desirable to transfer some business from the British Empire say to Belgium on some steel product, in return for Belgium giving us substantial business on our wheat or barley or other primary products, we simply never could give Belgium anything lower than the rate provided in the intermediate tariff.
Not only that, if the intermediate and the general tariff had the ordinary variation we could say to Belgium; We will give you the intermediate tariff. But the intermediate tariff today is in many instances just as high as the general, so offering them the intermediate tariff is of no value. My right hon. friend knows that. Whether it was as a result of very clever design I do not know. My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce complimented the civil servants and the officers of his department last evening, very justly I think, on the work they have done in helping the conference. I think we might also have complimented just as deservedly some very clever tariff experts in the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. I do not want to impute motives of brilliant design for their own purposes which they do not deserve, but, knowing the gentlemen as well as I do, I cannot impute stupidity. Certainly everything about this tariff shows to me a cunning and brilliance, from the standpoint of protection, that has never been equalled in anything presented to this house before. The country must clearly understand that it was a protectionist government that brought down this treaty. I would never have expected anything different from some hon. gentlemen opposite. The Prime Minister and his colleagues were so insistent on the argument that only through a protective system could our condition be improved. But I do think that there are many hon. gentlemen opposite who if they knew the full import of each of these items in the schedules which we will have the privilege of discussing at a later date would find that they are not in accordance with their views.
I want to say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that some otf the items he mentioned last night will be of benefit to Canada. He said that the linen schedules had been changed, linen coming into Canada free. Perfectly sound, perfectly justifiable. Linen used to be admitted into Canada at a very low duty, and when they were so admitted the retailers of this dominion sold just as much linen to American tourists as to the Canadian people. Canada's imports of linen were a source of very considerable resale revenue. Canadian linen experts will tell you that Canada consumed twice the volume of linen products that the population of this dominion justified, and it was known quite well in Northern Ireland what became of it. American tourists could buy Irish linen in Canada for very much less than in their own country, and I am glad that the minister has restored linen to the free list, it will be helpful to trade in this dominion and trade with Ireland.
But may I speak of the country of my forebears? If it is good in relation to linen from Northern Ireland, why is it not good in regard to fine woollens from Scotland? The very finest garments produced in Scotland cannot be produced in Canada or the United States. American tourists take the finest woollen goods off our counters and the finest of British cloth. There was a substantial resale of British woollen goods in this dominion because they were of a class not procurable on the American continent. That business is lost. Ask Holt, Renfrew, or any of the big retailers of fine men's wear where there trade has gone in fine British sweaters, overcoats and golf socks? It has gone to-day because you can buy the same overcoat in New York for the same price as in Canada. The American rate of duty against fine British woollens, when it is all worked out, is no higher than the rate in Canada, in fact with our depreciated currency I think in many instances it is higher into Canada than into the United States.
With regard to these items which my hon. friend the minister says are on the free list we have no criticism to make. But let me return to some items which are on the free list and which he says he has done well with. Cream separators are one example. But they were always on the free list. They are only on the free list because the duty has been raised in the intermediate and general columns. To show that we have no quarrel with the Conservative party, only with the policy as outlined in this agreement, may I say that every hon. gentleman knows that a former Prime Minister of Conservative persuasion was the man who put cream separators on the free list, they were not put on
312	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
by the Liberal government at all. Cream separators are made in Canada and constitute a very substantial manufacturing business. They were not coming from Great Britain; as the leader of the opposition showed yesterday, they were being made at home, and some imported from the United States. Does any man believe that the Canadian export of cream separators will not continue? Certainly it will, and it will continue on the basis of competition with world prices. Our cream separator manufacturers will still get some foreign business, but is any man so optimistic as to believe that with a 25 per cent duty and with the British production what it is at present it is going to control the price in Canada and that the price of cream separators in Canada will not go up? I do not believe it, I believe the Canadian manufacturer will do what he usually does, he will get the benefit of his protection in the local markets, or else why the protection? He will certainly sell in the export markets at world prices, because he has to, but as far as Canada is concerned he will try to get all the money he can for his products. So that is one of the free items in which I cannot see any benefit. And many others are the same. Furthermore I think that the government, down in their hearts, would admit that if you go through that whole schedule from start to finish-and we will see it all when we come to the resolutions- that the number of free items from Great Britain which are going to be of some benefit to the consumer are very few, but that most of the free items on the list are of much benefit to the Canadian manufacturer. Item after item " for use in the manufacture of-" it runs through the whole schedule, practically all the free items are for the benefit of the industry.
In so far as that is concerned it is not inconsistent with the policy Of my right hon. friend. But I do not think my right hon. friend should try to put down the throats of the Canadian consumers the idea that there are on this free list many items from Great Britain which are going to be of benefit to them. If the protection against British cloth is raised to a point which makes it impossible to get that cloth, what good is it to give the Canadian manufacturer yarn at a low rate of duty and lose the revenue to this country? The Prime Minister is facing now one of the most serious problems any prime minister in this dominion has ever faced, the problem of revenue. No man can accuse me of being a free trader, but I care not one whit whether

you knock the tariff wall down and let merchandise in without paying any duty or build it up so high the goods cannot come over, you are going to have to make up the resulting loss of revenue by direct taxation on business. Either course will bring about exactly the same result. The Prime Minister is putting himself in a position where he will have to increase direct taxation to replace the revenue he could enjoy under a moderate, reasonable and sane tariff. I object very strenuously to the heights to which this tariff has been raised. I am satisfied that the tariff now has been raised to the point of absurdity, where it will stifle business and will not redound to the credit of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister.
Just a word in passing with regard to treaties in general. The treaties made by the former government and by governments previous to that were criticized by my hon. friends opposite, when they were in opposition, and it is said now that they were made for terms of years. Of course they were. Any one in the house who has ever studied treaty making must know that treaties must be made for terms of years. There is no question about that. But the difference between this and those other treaties, the difference we are trying to point out, is that in previous treaties the government had a perfectly free hand to negotiate new treaties; nothing hampered them. If the old treaties which were in existence prior to this administration coming into office hampered the government in making new treaties, why is this treaty now before the house? The present treaty is the evidence that the other treaties did not hamper the government, and what we are pointing out now is that under the terms of this treaty, while in principle there is no difference, in practice we are insisting that for a period of years an extreme differential shall be maintained. In many cases the intermediate and general rates are the same, but in most cases they are so high that we have very little left to offer any foreign country. The Prime Minister said he was going to help the trade of Canada by using the tariff as an implement with which to negotiate bargains with other people. I do not see how he is going to do that. I think he has exhausted his force; I believe he has spiked his guns. I do not think he has any favours left to offer foreign countries, with these differential rates so high. Of course he may have some other process in mind. I do not know whether he is going to resort to barter, whether he is going to scrap the tariff and start carrying on direct trade, whether

United Kingdom
he is going to swap a shipload of wheat for a shipload of silk from Japan. He has already swapped a shipload of aluminum for a shipload of oil from Russia. I cannot see anything left to the Prime Minister except direct barter. That may be all right; it may be a very good way to correct the currency situation and take the money value problem out of trade. Considering our trade with Japan I do not see how my hon. friend is going to be able to help the manufacturers and growers of silk in that country, who are in the doldrums today just as Canadian wheat producers are, by placing high tariffs against their principal products. He certainly could do it; he could deal with Japan tomorrow by trading a shipload of wheat for a shipload of silk; there is no doubt as to that being a possibility, but whether that is to be the method my right hon. friend will employ I do not know. After this treaty is passed it seems about the only way left.
Let me make this prediction, in all seriousness: I know the Minister of Trade and Commerce has been more zealous, perhaps, than any man in his party; I believe he appreciates as much as any man in the Dominion of Canada the great possibilities for trade that exist on the Pacific slopes, and I think he understands the position Canada is in with regard to trading with the orient. I believe my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce is going to find this treaty not to his liking before many years have passed. Why do I say that? Let me refer for a moment to our trade with Japan; I think perhaps it might enlighten hon. members of the house. In 1928, which was previous to our peak year but was still a very good year, we sold Japan wheat to the value of some $11,000,000 and timber worth almost $6,000,000, divided up into logs, $1,500,000, lumber, $2,000,000 and squared timber, $2,000,000. In addition we sold paper to the extent of about $500,000; lead worth about $3,800,000; aluminum to the value of about $1,300,000 and zinc spelter worth about $1,800,000. What did we import that came in any way in conflict with our own manufactured products? Listen to these items, and remember that the items which held in 1928 hold today also:
Oranges	 $ 315,000
Rice	 301,000
Tea	 644,000
Silk	 8,250,000
Chinaware	 400,000
Buttons		136,000
That item may interfere with the business of my bon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). Why, Mr. Speaker, the production of the orient is extremely complementary to the production of Canada. There are untold possibilities of trade, but that trade can be acquired only by giving some concession, and I am very much afraid that the terms of this treaty, with the very high rates under the general and intermediate tariffs, will preclude any concessions being given to the orient in trade matters.
Now may I say just one word on behalf of industry in this dominion? I think on one occasion the Prime Minister referred to some utterances of mine in which I had argued, against the viewpoint held by some hon. member in this corner of the house, that high tariffs did not necessarily bring about high prices of commodities within the country imposing such high tariffs. I have always contended that they do not, except in certain cases.


An hon. MEMBER:: Furniture.


James Malcolm: Quite so; I am quite
willing to deal with that subject, because I happen to know a little more about it than my hon. friend. When the tariff on any commodity is too high business to a certain extent becomes a game. The game becomes attractive and a great many men go into it. We have had a good deal of high tariff in the last few years. Is there any industrialist in this house-I ask my hon. friend from North Perth (Mr. Wright)-who has not found the production greater than the demand and, by virtue of greater production and lesser demand, found price cutting to a degree never before known? Certainly if open competition exists within a country and combines do not exist it is a very easy matter for high tariffs to induce a degree of production which will make prices ruinous, but what has been the inevitable result? The result is that industry is driven into combines; different firms, for their own protection, are forced to combine, thereby creating vested interests, thereby raising prices and thereby injuring the consumer of the commodity. When that condition exists, what happens? A low tariff government comes into power; the whole thing is upset and we start around the circle again. Therefore as an industrialist I would rather have in this country a tariff of moderate proportions which would allow the importation of style goods and more expensive goods into the country, because these goods have a certain value. They have a value in giving inspiration to the designers of the country, for one thing. I would rather have seventy-five per cent of a good market than
314	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
one hundred per cent of a zero market such as we have today. I do not believe it is good for industry itself to protect it with a tariff so high that goods cannot come in from other countries.
What are the arguments of all importers today? Certainly Canadian Cottons can supply the demand for print goods, but it is equally certain that the limited designs and the very few patterns the stores can get are curtailing sales and doing away with any individuality. We cannot standardize our people. We cannot make Canada into a Ford factory. I do not think in this country we want to eliminate the artistic sense in industry. If that is so there is one thing we should fear in Canada today, and that is the standardization of individual effort and individual thought. I would far rather have forty small industries, each making something of individual value and individual character, than have those forty industries thrown together into one mass production industry and have every man wearing exactly the same colour of coat and the same sort of shoes. The whole trend of extremely high tariffs is to force industry, through ruinous competition and low prices, into standardization, which is not good for the morale or the economics of the nation.
There is one point I want to emphasize here, and I have no wish to do so unkindly. In the making of this agreement, we had the manufacturers of Great Britain here; we had the manufacturers of Canada advising; and we had interests of every description advising the governments of the various dominions; but there was one great class of interests unrepresented, namely, the consuming public. I could not see where the great mass of the consuming public were being considered at all, and may I say with all sincerity that if we want prosperity in industry in Canada we must see to it that the customers, the great consuming public, have some money with which to buy the products of our industry. If we cannot bring about prosperity among those engaged in primary industry, those engaged in taking wealth out of the soil, out of the forest, out of our mines, if we cannot make money for these people, then we cannot hope to sell them the ecimmodities which we manufacture in our factories. Now I am afraid that we are leaning so far to the right that some day the pendulum will swing back past the point of sanity and we may be sorry that we ever allowed it to swing so far in the other direction. As an industrialist, I would rather meet competition under a reasonable tariff which would allow us to

maintain something of the standard of living which we desire to have in this country, than be sheltered behind a wall which would permit of no competition from without, which would induce competition from within, and which in the long run would stifle enterprise and business and leave it die of dry rot.
What is there in this agreement to help the British exporter? What is there to help him lower costs of production? Certainly higher foods will not enable him to lower costs of production; but we are told that under the agreement foodstuffs will not be higher. I was talking with a commercial friend of mine the other day. He had read the agreement carefully and he saw that we had, according to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, a sheltered market for a certain amount of commodities; but he also saw that these commodities had to be sold to Britain at the same price as in other markets of the world. Let me quote his remarks; they were terse and to the point. He said, "It doesn't mean anything but what we have always practised in business. When prices are equal, friendship starts." And that is what it means; we have always had the friendship of the British market in the purchase of our wheat, just as we have always had the friendship of that market so far as a great many other commodities are concerned. If we are not to get a decided price advantage, then I do not know just exactly where the sheltered market will be of such great advantage to us. True, the Minister of Trade and Commerce says there will be greater quantities imported under the terms of the agreement than have been imported heretofore. How does he know? How does he know what the capacity of the British Empire will be five years hence? These things are all very much in the air.
Last night I listened carefully to the speech delivered by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and I enjoyed it; I wished he could have gone on for another hour and explained more about the treaty. I presume we shall hear some explanations when the resolutions are brought down. I certainly admired many of the pious hopes he expressed, and I sincerely trust that his prophecies of increased British trade will come true. But the minister touched a vital point. This, Mr. Speaker, is only a diversion of trade; it is not a creation of very much new trade. And what Canada needs today is more business. Just think for a moment where we stood a few years ago, when the foreign trade of this dominion amounted to $2,500J)00,000. Allowing four to a family, the export busines of the country at that time meant $1,000 per family. What

United Kingdom
is the situation today? Through the lowering of price levels, through the curtailment by tariffs of the total business of Canada, our foreign trade has shrunk to something less than 81,000,000,000, probably $900,000,000, but we will take it at $1,000,000,000. That means, with a population of 10,000,000, $400 per family. In other words, we have lost $600 per family in respect to our foreign business. No wonder we are feeling depression in our farms, mines and timber camps. You cannot run timber camps without business, any more than you can conduct a farm without foreign markets. That foreign trade has fallen off to that extent, and the treaty will only divert trade from one country to another; it will not solve the problem. The problem must be solved by new treaties, and my hon. friend will have to make trade arrangements in the future to step up the trade. The problem will solve itself to some extent when price levels rise, but at the present time everything possible should be done to increase our foreign trade.
Most economists, most people who have thought much about the economic condition of the world, have fairly well agreed that there are three major causes for the depression, for the lowering of world prices, for the stifling of trade. These three are, first, international obligations which are too heavy for the countries to pay; secondly, the trouble with the monetary system; and, thirdly, the erection of very high tariff walls throughout the nations of the world. I do not think that, in a broad way, anyone will deny that these three problems have 'been the subject of a good deal of discussion in every country in the world.
Now, everyone in this house knows that the enormous production of British industry cannot possibly be consumed within the British Empire. No one knows better than those of us who have had to do wTith the trade of the dominion that it is utterly impossible for the empire to consume all the wheat of Canada; that it is utterly impossible for the empire to consume all the aluminum produced in Canada; that it is utterly impossible for us to find markets within the empire for all our newsprint, all our timber, all our pulp and all our nickel. Why, sir, it is a foregone conclusion; it cannot be done. The empire does not consume as much as is produced. We must, of necessity, find markets outside the empire. Both markets are extremely essential. No one belittles our British trade; but when you consider that in good years when
trade was flowing freely, British trade was a matter of $750,000,000 within the British Empire and Canada, and foreign trade amounted to $1,600,000,000, you realize that it is absolutely essential, whether you be a fisherman in Nova Scotia or a packer canning salmon in British Columbia, whether you be a timber man on the Pacific slopes or in Ontario, or in the maritime provinces, to find world markets for your products.
That being the case, the Minister of Trade and Commerce must, of necessity, give some consideration to other things, and I come back to the three problems mentioned. The very first point, international debts, we will admit, is one which is so broad in its scope as not to be solvable by any one nation in the world. No one can gainsay that. The monetary system is probably in the same category, with this exception that if we cannot solve it within the British Empire the question arises, how can we hope to solve it throughout the world? The Minister of Trade and Commerce has been intensely interested in the monetary system; but the conference met and nothing was done. No opinion was pronounced on the question of international debts; nothing was done to devise a scheme to standardize currency within the British Empire. On these two major points, therefore, the conference cannot be given credit for any constructive thought or work or conclusion. The third question, the question of tariff barriers which are stifling the trade of the world, we did hope was going to be dealt with in a satisfactory way. We did hope the tariff barriers within the empire would be lowered although we were not looking forward to Lord Beaverbrook's idea of empire free trade coming into effect over-night. We did hope that the duties within the empire against British merchandise would not be put up to the level to which they have been put. We felt that if we wanted the British workman to buy our wheat and the British carpenter to saw and nail our lumber we should give at least the British textile worker some chance to sell us some of his wares. I do not want to ruin the textile industry in Canada, far from it, but I do not think it would be a sacrifice to Canada to give the British people a fair share of our market.
A few years ago we were importing probably twenty-five or thirty per cent of our manufactured goods but we were exporting a like amount; the sum total of goods manufactured in Canada was equal to the sum total of manufactured goods consumed in Canada because we exported just as much as we imported. That was really a better situ-
316	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
ation than to keep the Canadian market to ourselves and shut out our goods from foreign markets by high protection.
The conference has not solved the monetary problem; it has not offered a suggestion on international debts; tariff walls within our own economic unit have not been lowered to the extent that we can approach other economic units in the world and say that we have set our own house in order. As far as Canadian purchases from the British Empire are concerned, I am afraid we have maintained our previously selfish attitude.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I am afraid the hon. member is running beyond his time.


James Malcolm: Might I have five
minutes, with the consent of the house?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


James Malcolm: I do not want to delay the house and I appreciate the great courtesy shown to me in giving me an extra moment. I might say that I have no desire to be provocative in any of my remarks.
I have one or two thoughts to express in conclusion. Far be it from me to say to the Prime Minister of Canada that he is not mindful of his obligations to this dominion, and far be it from me to suggest anything to him upon which he has not expressed an opinion but to which he may have given a great deal of thought. I am firmly convinced that the greatest trouble facing the world today is the result of a narrow spirit of selfishness, the constant thinking of monetary interests. In every dispute which arises, in every debate, economics are being placed ahead of humanity. We have in this country an economic problem but we have another problem more important, the human problem. In 1914, in order to fight, a physical conflict outside of the Dominion of Canada, this parliament voted unanimously the credit of the country to the extent of $2,000,000,000. During this conflict the lives of 50,000 of our best citizens were lost, while 250,000 men were crippled. Can we not pledge some of this country's credit to fight an economic conflict within the dominion?
The Prime Minister has my complete approval in his scheme to create work by building landing fields across the dominion to provide for the future of aviation. But he should go beyond that. If we in this dominion cannot bank upon the future of this country being great, then it matters not, but if we believe in the future then we should

pledge our credit to provide our citizens with constructive work. I do not hold that we should be unmindful of the balance in the treasury but if in dealing with this economic conflict we take only the part of money, then we will not be doing our duty as good parents to a troubled nation.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, before I commence my remarks may I say that I am quite willing to yield the floor to any hon. gentleman opposite. I should like to call the attention of the country to a remarkable situation. We have had a debate on the address but during its course hon. gentlemen opposite have refrained from taking part. We are now entering a more serious debate, a debate upon a matter so important that the government was compelled to summon a special session of parliament; this is the gravest matter which has engaged the attention of parliament for a number of years, but it seems that we are not to be favoured with an expression of views by hon. gentlemen opposite. Surely the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) should give us his views. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman) attended the conference and the house should have an opportunity of hearing him. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) appealed to the electors of South Huron on the grounds of the results of this conference; surely he should take part in this debate.


Robert James Manion: Perhaps he will.


Ernest Lapointe: I am willing to yield the floor in order that he may answer the former Minister	of	Trade	and	Commerce	(Mr. Malcolm).


Robert James Manion: I was not prepared to answer him, but I may answer my hon. friend.


Ernest Lapointe: I wonder if it is a case of having no argument to offer or of being too proud to fight.
At the risk of being called unpatriotic I am ready to accept the challenge of the Minister	of	Trade	and	Commerce	(Mr. Stevens) and rise in this house to oppose this treaty. The Prime Minister has built up a patriotic myth around this treaty but I am prepared to indulge in some blasting of my own. I am prepared to blast the myth of this treaty being a sort of national and sacrosanct agreement, a kind of ark of the covenant at which no one can look without fear or respect. This is purely a political matter- the tariff is not out of politics. The tariff will be a political question in the future as it

United Kingdom
has been in the past. Elections will be fought both in Canada and in Great Britain upon the tariff, and I do not consider it to be unpatriotic to attack the stand taken by this government upon this political question.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) himself has made it a political question. At the conference held in 1930 he said: "I speak for the Conservative party of Canada." Even here, when he introduced this resolution before the house, he claimed credit for his party for anything that may be advantageous in these agreements. Surely he or his party must suffer discredit for anything which is not of advantage.
May I say that no greater opportunity was offered to the statesmen who gathered in Ottawa at this conference in July last. An atmosphere was created which was favourable to good work and understanding. Nobody criticized, and I think it is rather ungracious on the part of the right lion, gentleman to say that some people and more particularly my right hon. leader put obstacles in the way of the conference. The ground was clear for action. The country was prepared. Any change would be good after the two years of disillusionment which we had had in this country. Yes, the policies of this government have intensified the world crisis; they have sapped the strength of the nation and have forced tens, aye, hundreds of thousands of proud Canadians to eat the bread of charity. The whole structure of the administration has led to disaster. Any change, I said, would be welcome and was welcome. Well, prayers were offered everywhere. I myself prayed for the success of the conference. I see my hon. friends opposite are laughing. They are entitled to laugh because I did not get much result from my prayers.


Mr. SPOTTON:: The hon. member lacked faith.


Ernest Lapointe: No, I had good faith, but the actions were not mine; they were those of this government. There is of course danger in bad times that we will accept bad remedies, and I am afraid that the remedy that is offered now to the Canadian people is a bad one and is not a forward but a backward step. Of course the immediate and direct effect of the work of this conference and of these agreements is rather small. Even those who participated state that it is small. It cannot be otherwise. They claimed that they rather laid the foundation upon which future things will be built. This, naturally, is true of the evil as well as of the good consequences which might result from the agreements. What is
more important is the foundation, as they say, the principle of a new conception of imperial trade, as to which I have some arguments to offer.
I wish to consider this matter from three different points of view: First, from the point of view of this new conception of imperial relations as a result of this economic pact; second, from the point of view of the effects upon Canadian affairs from the practical results that may come to Canada, and, third, from the point of view of international trade, of the trade of Canada throughout the world, and more particularly on the eve of the international economic conference which is supposed to meet in December next.
As regards the new conception of imperialism I have many times expressed my views in this house, and I wish to repeat them today. The British commonwealth of nations is a free association of countries, based on freedom and liberty. They are united by the link of an allegiance to the same crown. But the best guarantee of the maintenance of the association is the complete and perfect freedom on the part of every portion of the commonwealth to devise, shape and carry on their policies, whether economic, political, defence or any other sort of policy, in the way that best suits their needs and wishes. The commonwealth is an idea, a soul, and this idea, this soul, is a stronger bond than any mercenary foundation. I dissent absolutely and profoundly from the view that the gain instinct is a good link for the purpose of maintaining the relations of the empire. When people consider their interests, when they are actuated by the gain they may derive from certain actions, there is some danger for the other social, political and other institutions. In this regard I desire to register a protest against certain words which have been uttered in the old country by some of the delegates . to the last Imperial conference. Mr. Neville Chamberlain, speaking at the Conservative convention in the old country a week ago, said that when he came to Ottawa he noticed that the bonds of empire had weakened and that something new must be devised for the conservation of those bonds. Lord Hailsham, even in Canada, said that new links of empire had to be created. I wonder where Mr. Chamberlain found in Canada any weakening of our bonds with the British Empire. What justification had he to say in the old country, or, indeed, anywhere, that Canada's loyalty had diminished in any way, shape or form?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Did he say that Canada's loyalty had diminished?
,	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


Ernest Lapointe: No, he said that he had noticed a weakening of the bonds-


Hugh Guthrie: He did not say on the
part of Canadians.


Ernest Lapointe: -and that something new had to be devised. Well, Mr. Speaker, you know, we all know, it is not true that the loyalty of Canadians has diminished or that the bonds of Canada with the old country have been impaired. Yet, they make this the foundation stone, the mainspring of the advocacy of this treaty. It is not true, and as a Canadian I protest against the statement which has been made about the feelings of Canadians. Let me tell those gentlemen who used those arguments, whether in Britain or in Canada; O ye Tory loyalists, is that the limit of your imperial devotion? Are quotas, embargoes, dumping duties, the inspiration of your faith? Is a preference on bacon, butter, wheat or copper the price of your devotion to the empire? No, Mr. Speaker;
I believe that instead of being a link of empire the agreement before us contains within itself seeds of dissension for the future.
May I oppose to those opinions the views of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald as he expressed them two years ago; I am speaking of the Ramsay MacDonald before last year. During the conference of 1930, at a dinner given to dominions delegates at the Middle Temple hall he made a statement which appeared in the London Times as follows:
The Prime Minister said that his task at the conference had very frequently been to remind his colleagues that the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland had a dominion status and that they must be looked upon with the same respect as we showed in looking upon them. The United Kingdom would continue to have the equal status of a dominion in the commonwealth of British nations.
In these somewhat degenerate and materialistic days, when cash counted for a little too much, the commonwealth was sometimes regarded as something that could be founded purely upon materialistic considerations. He profoundly disagreed with that view. The hall in which they were met that night was not merely beautiful on account of its oak and its proportions. It had got a life of its own and a tradition and reverence of its own, and it had derived these from great events which had taken place within it. Those walls brought back to them the pageantry of our history and the dignity and romance of the service which had become the common inheritance of the British race. They embodied the achievements and the genius of our people.
By bringing the delegates to their hall the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple had shown them those flexible and intangible bonds which must never be broken if the commonwealth of the empire was to endure. Within the scope of those bonds there was ample room
[Mr. Cuthrie.1
for individual liberty and national development. Only in so far as they understood each other would they discover the mystical secret of an abiding unity against the rest of the world.
These are words which I would willingly make mine. I believe the bonds described there are stronger than those based on dollars and cents, on dumping duties or on those little animals called embargoes. Tariff controversies always lead to conflicts and frictions; everybody knows that. To make the dominions suffer disadvantages for the sake of Britain or to make her suffer disadvantages for the sake of the dominions is not the way to cement the empire. The suggestion may be made that none will suffer; it is enough for the purpose of my argument however, to indicate that empire tariffs are debatable and debated. Ministers of the crown have resigned because they could not accept those agreements, stating that they were not advantageous to their own country.
The dominions are becoming pawns in the political game of Great Britain. In my mind the most pernicious, the most damnable point in the matter is that in a way we are forced to take sides in the political conflicts of other countries in the empire. So much is that so that supporters of the right hon. gentleman opposite claim he has been instrumental in forcing Great Britain to change its fiscal policy and adopt one of protection. I do not believe that is so, but we are meeting that statement everywhere. Is that a wholesome condition? Is it desirable that one part of the empire, one statesman, one public man should control or force other parts of the commonwealth to change their fiscal policy? Surely that is not desirable. As I said, such a condition is but sowing seeds of friction and dissension for the future. Everybody knows there is nothing as dangerous as family quarrels. As Mr. Ramsay Muir wrote the other day, ''When families begin to quarrel about money matters, then the unity of the family is in very great danger." We have the reports of newspaper men, who surely knew what was going on, which would lead us to believe that this is an agreement which, as Sir Arthur Salter said, is born of fear. We are told that that is not so, but those who were in Ottawa at the time should know. It may be that this agreement was made in order to avoid what no agreement at all would have meant for the empire in the eyes of the world. This agreement reduces the political concession of free association into a closed corporation whose existence must depend on the continuance of earnings and the payment of dividends.

United Kingdom
When bad times come these imperial tariffs and trade treaties will be held responsible, because we know that tariffs and trade matters are always blamed for bad times. My right hon. friend knows that very well, as evidenced by his reference to the tariff of the late administration during the election campaign of 1930. At that time he blamed a condition which had only begun and was the result of a world crisis on the tariff schedule of the day. We have been criticizing his tariff policy of the years 1931 and 1932. I myself believe those policies have intensified the crisis in Canada. I have so stated; I said it in South Huron, in Maisonneuve and elsewhere. Is it a good thing, is it desirable, that instead of being purely national and purely Canadian we associate the empire with bad prices, with bad times, and with difficulties in our various countries?
Surely hon. gentlemen opposite should not be blind to the lessons of history. A few days ago when introducing the resolution, my right hon. friend opposite tried to call Sir Wilfrid Laurier to his rescue. As my leader stated yesterday, when in 1902, following the South African war, duties had been imposed on wheat in England, Sir Wilfrid Laurier asked the British government of the day to exempt the dominions from such duty. That government was defeated by the electors of Great Britain, and when the conference of 1907 was called a Liberal government which had removed the duties was in office.
In order that this other myth may be dissipated, I think, out of respect to the memory of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, I should read his words as they appear at page 411 of the proceedings of the conference held in 1907:
First of all, I expressed my own views, and I think I expressed the views of all here assembled, that nothing could be more detrimental to the existence of the British Empire than to force upon any part of it, even for the general good, a system which would be detrimental locally, or might be believed to be detrimental locally. For my part, I would have no hesitation at all in resenting any attempt made to force upon the Canadian people anything which the Canadian people would not believe in even for the broad idea of doing good for the whole empire. I think the best way of serving the whole is, by allowing every part to serve and recognize its own immediate interests. So far as, and as long as, the interests of the British Empire depend upon this and recognize this principle-that every one of those communities which are allowed the privilege of administering their own affairs by their own parliaments-the best way is to leave each parliament to decide for itself, and for the people whom it represents, what is best for that community.
I would like to read the whole quotation, where he said that because those duties had been removed since 1902 it was for the people of Great Britain to decide as to what policy they should follow under the circumstances.
During the conference of 1911, Mr. Speaker, one of the most notable sayings of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's great career, was "I represent a country which has no grievances." What a difference from the words uttered by my right hon. friend in 1930, when he summoned them there and then to do something with regard to the fiscal policies of the empire. I have in my hand the last political speech delivered by Sir Wilfrid Laurier a few days before his death before the Eastern Ontario Liberal Association. I will quote only these words:
This is our record and, as I said a moment ago, it was done in spite of all the opposition of the Conservative party. And upon what ground was their objection based?
He is speaking of the preference.
Simply upon the ground that we should have exacted preference for preference, that if we gave a preference to the goods of Great Britain, that country should give us a preference for our goods. That was not our policy. We said. "No, we are not going to bargain with the mother country upon matters of that kind."
Will the hon. gentlemen opposite leave the memory of Sir Wilfrid Laurier alone? They are strangers to his spirit, they fought him to the very last minute of his life, and we, who were his followers and his disciples will not allow them to use his great figure in support of their reactionary policies. Laurier was a Liberal of the English school, of the school of Gladstone and Asquith and Lord Grey and and others, and this agreement, whether in this country or in Great Britain will create doubt as to whether we adhere to the views of Gladstone, Asquith and Lord Grey or to the views of Chamberlain and the Prime Minister of Canada. The Prime Minister did not conceal his views on that matter. At the last session of the conference he made the closing speech, and I direct the attention of the house to these words, which you will find on page 157 of the report of the conference. The Prime Minister said:
It was forty-one years ago last January, when I was a very much younger man than I am now, that I participated in an election for my then professor, the Dean of Dalhousie Law School at Halifax. I recall, as vividly as though it were this moment, an extract which I read from a speech of the late Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain. My mind has never wavered from the view that, in some form of economic unity would be found the true solution for many of the difficulties of our empire, and I do regard it as a matter of great satis-
320	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
faction that I have been privileged, under Providence, to see these agreements executed today; for they constitute a definite advance towards closer empire economic association.
Further he refers to a general empire tariff plan. Then he says:
The Canadian government has therefore succeeded through reciprocal concessions in manifesting the principle that protection as we see it in this country can be used as an instrument of national policy to secure an equalization of benefits as between natural and manufactured products.
And he goes on, saying that this:
-is but a beginning-we have only laid the foundation-and that if this scheme of closer empire association is to endure and bring to each one of us the benefits we hope for, further action must be taken at a not-to-distant date.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, my hon. friends jeer, they are welcome to those jeers, this is good regular Tory doctrine. But surely they do not expect us to support it. We belong to another school, not to the school of Joseph Chamberlain or the Prime Minister of Canada, and because we belong to a different school I for one am opposed to this treaty and to the agreements which are now tabled in this house. I stand as Sir Wilfrid Laurier stood in this matter; if Great Britain accepts the principle of protection, if the electors of Great Britain willingly accept that fiscal policy, I believe we are entitled to a preference. But it is for them to decide freely, and I say that interference from any part of the empire in the fiscal or other domestic policies of the United Kingdom is a vicious principle and should not be approved. There is nothing for unification in that. It is merely disintegration which may come out of such a treaty.
As to the effects on Canadian trade, I am afraid time will not permit me to say much. I will reserve my remarks on that aspect to the time when the house reaches the committee stage on the resolution. Certainly there are some benefits; the undertaking by Canada not to alter the tariff from day to day by order in council, as has been done for the last two years, must be supported by us. But was it necessary to gather delegates from the antipodes to find that that was a vicious principle? We have been stating it in this house at every session for the last two years. Another benefit which I find in the agreement is the adoption to some extent of the principle of investigation, comparison of costs, and publicity when those things come before the tariff board. But unfortunately this is riddled with so many qualifications and conditions

that it will be possible for either party to climb out of their obligations in that respect. May I say too that it is queer that the British manufacturers should be given rights which the Canadian consumers have been refused.
About this tariff board, much of course will depend on the personnel of the board. In the United States-and as far as protection is concerned this government has taken many lessons from the United States-they have safeguarded it somewhat. The president appoints the members of the board, with the consent of the Senate, and he has to take half of them -from the political party which is not his own. There is some safeguard there. Here in Canada we have nothing of the sort. My right hon. friend will say that he will appoint impartial men, who will not be partisan. He said that when we accepted the radio bill last year; he gave the pledge that political considerations would not enter into the appointment of the members of that commission. Sir, the man who has been appointed to represent that portion of the Canadian community of which I am a member was a political organizer for the party opposite at the last election; indeed, he has been a Tory organizer in my province for both federal and provincial elections. What does he know about radio? He knows nothing at all. He spoke over the radio, abusing the Liberal party. I have nothing against him; I know him socially and he is a nice fellow, but he is a Tory organizer. They say he is a journalist, and of course journalists are qualified for almost anything. He had some interest in the foundation of a newspaper, but I do not think he ever wrote anything for it. He is a journalist as much as an organ blower is a musical artist. As I say, I have nothing against that gentleman personally, but his appointment is a challenge to public opinion in my province, and we cannot rely on any declarations that may be made as to who will be members of this tariff board which will make such important decisions in regard to the framing of our tariff. With regard to the preference on wheat, Sir Arthur Salter said it is a sham, and I agree with him.
My right hon. friend has tried very hard to establish an embargo against some countries. We have an article in the agreement which can be interpreted in two ways, and which has been interpreted in both ways. I do know that since that time Great Britain has extended credit to the Soviet for their trade in the old country, and Canada has seen Soviet oil come to this country. My right hon. friend seems satisfied with this article, but I do not



IS, 1932

[Stage Direction]
United, Kingdom
think it represents what he wanted. He went there as a lion but he came out as a lamb. May I remind him of what Mr. William Har-court said to Lord Salisbury: "If you are to come out as a lamb it is better not to begin operations roaring and lashing your tail as a lion."
Another apparent benefit contained in the treaty is the provision that Canadian surcharges will be removed when financial conditions permit. When we consider the loss of revenue that has resulted from the tariff policies of this government, this provision is really a joke.
I am afraid my time is passing rapidly, but I should like to say a word with regard to the effect of this treaty on international trade. As we all know, unemployment is raging throughout the country. Millions of people have no work. Production in all countries has decreased by half or by a very large percentage at least. Ships are idle in world ports. Railway transportation is suffering, as we all know in this country. National budgets are being brought in showing heavy deficits. Fourteen nations in the world have defaulted the payment of interest on their bonds, and economists everywhere attribute this condition to the barriers that have been put in the way of trade between the nations of the world.
Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, this debate has been extremely interesting so far. As between the two parties I feel quite cool and disinterested, may I be permitted to pay my highest compliments to the two leaders on their masterful addresses?
Last night the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) intimated that the Prime Minister had made it impossible for the Liberal party to support these agreements because he, the Prime Minister, had stated that they were founded on Conservative policies; upon which the leader of the opposition retorted that the principles and doctrines followed by his party in the past precluded the Liberals from giving their approval. I do not want to be disagreeable, but perhaps it would be more prudent on the part of the right hon. gentleman not to speak too much of principles and doctrines in matters of tariff. I have had close connections with the Liberal party for many years past, and the conclusion is forced upon me that the only fiscal policy to which that party has adhered during the last forty years is to 53719-21
advocate free trade when in opposition and [DOT]to practise protection when in power.
Fortunately the right hon. gentleman has found a much safer and more clearly defined ground on which to base his opposition to these agreements, and in this respect I largely sympathize with his views, as well as with those expressed so eloquently and wittily this afternoon by my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). I am sorry I missed the speech of the ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm), which I am told was also very good. I am not surprised at that; because when the hon. gentleman decides to speak as a Liberal he is generally very eloquent.
Now, from my small, narrow platform as a purely independent member, I propose to look shortly at these agreements from three points of view: first, as instruments of trade in themselves, that is, with regard to their intrinsic value as trade treaties; second, at their consequences upon our inter-imperial relations, and third, at their effect upon our world trade and foreign relations.
On the first point, I want to clear my mind once more of one objection to the policy of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition, not only as enunciated yesterday, but also as it was exemplified in the so-called Dunning budget. I hope he will allow me, as an old man, to tell him that there is something childish in his constant reiteration that there should be no bargaining between Canada and Great Britain. Surely my hon. friend has a sufficient knowledge of British and Canadian history, and of world history, to realize that all arrangements between governments, whether they are dealt with by treaties or by independent tariff changes in each individual parliament, are the results of bargaining or negotiations. You cannot have a bargain unless you negotiate, and you do not negotiate unless you mean to strike a bargain. Of course, the spirit in which the bargain is entered into is a different matter. Again, my knowledge of British history, as well as my hon. friend's knowledge, gained from his own family history, should teach us that to strike a good bargain with the British you have sometimes to talk pretty loudly. I am not, therefore, prepared to blame the Prime Minister for having somewhat bullied the delegation from the United Kingdom in these negotiations. Perhaps he carried it a little too far. It was well illustrated by the manner in which the negotiations were depicted by two members of the British delegation, not official members-at least not ministers of the crown-but two

322	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements ,
gentlemen who accompanied that delegation. One was a high official of the British government who appeared before the conference to discuss certain matters connected with trade returns. He had the audacity to challenge the figures presented to the conference by the Prime Minister of Canada, whereupon the right hon. gentleman pounced upon him to make him understand that no mere paid official of the British government ought dare to contradict the Prime Minister of Canada. Nevertheless, that gentleman, well informed as these English high officials usually are, reiterated that the figures presented by the Canadian Prime Minister were wrong and that, therefore, his conclusions were unwarranted. When he stepped out, someone thought it necessary, in the interests of Canadian courtesy, to apologize for the language which had been used by the Prime Minister. "It doesn't matter, I assure you," replied the Englishman; "indeed, I took it as a high compliment. The right hon. gentleman spoke to me as though I were one of his ministers." But perhaps the best illustration was given by another member of the English delegation. After the conference he went to Calgary, where he paid a visit to the Prince of Wales's ranch. There a splendid shorthorn bull was shown him, a prize winner, an admirable animal. With a feeling of "Canada First" pride, the attendants displayed this bull; but the sight of the Englishman, probably wearing a red necktie, and looking at the bull through his monocle, roused the animal's ire. At any rate, he came bellowing, fuming and foaming, and one of the gentlemen who were taking the English visitor through the ranch suggested that they had better leave. "No", said the Englishman, "I am not afraid; but there you have the very picture of Mr. Bennett leading the conference"; which shows that the diplomatic language of the Prime Minister was very effective, or at least quite notorious.
At the opening of the conference Mr. Baldwin had expressed the hope, and even suggested, that all arrangements should be made on the basis of lower tariffs. Now, as a matter of fact, and as pointed out by the leader of the opposition, out of 233 items in the tariff which are to be changed to make good the agreement, there is an actual increase in duty on 139 of these articles; which shows that the high protectionist government of Canada had the better of the Englishman, at least at first sight. But Mr. Stanley Baldwin, in spite of his modesty, in spite of his democratic pipe, is no fool. I believe he had already, two years ago, taken the measure of Canadian exigencies

and Canadian temperament as represented by its present Prime Minister or dictator. He well realized that the best way in which to strike a bargain-perhaps equally good to Canada and Great Britain-was to give ample satisfaction in the opening articles to Canadian vanity, and then take back quietly in subsequent articles what was necessary to safeguard British interests. And that was done. Articles 2 and 3 would lead1 us to believe that Canada controls the tariff of Great Britain, and that without the permission of our Mussolini the British parliament shall not alter its duties on imported goods. That is splendid. When the leader of the opposition, perhaps working up some fake indignation, reproached the Prime Minister with having forced the issue upon the British and therefore opened the way to inter-imperial differences, you could see that the right hon. gentleman felt quite highly complimented at the idea that he was ruling the empire. Well, if the Prime Minister goes toi the world conference with the idea that he is going to bully the world in that manner, he had better change his mind. Another man, not his equal, of course, but a man of some standing, Woodrow Wilson, tried that game at Paris in 1919; and for about a fortnight it appeared as though he was going to settle the affairs of the world. But with Clemenceau on one side, Lloyd George on the other, and Orlando in the background, he was soon foiled, and he came back to the United States a brokenhearted man, having lost the confidence of his own country as well as that of Europe. Why? Because in his American vanity he had conceived more than he could accomplish. In Canada, as well as in the other British dominions, we have acquired, I think, especially in Canada, a little too much cif American sufficiency; and although these methods may produce some results in our dealings with other British dominions, for a short time and on a limited scale, they will not help us in our dealings with other countries.
As regards inter-imperial relations, I will not pose as an apostle of imperialism. I must say that my heart did not bleed as I listened to the lamentations of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition or to the eloquent expostulations of the ex-Minister of Justice, in their dread of seeing the British Empire fall to pieces. The British Empire is a pretty big institution and one of fairly long standing, and I have more than once expressed in this house the opinion that when our statesmen and rulers cease concerning themselves with the

United Kingdom
late of the empire, the empire will get along just as well. Perhaps if our statesmen in Canada concerned themselves more exclusively with affairs that are vital to this country, the empire would be better off.


Ernest Lapointe: Will my hon. friend permit me? My words were only by way of answer to the argument that this treaty is a new link of empire. I don't believe it.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I know my hon. friend
does not believe it, and so I hope he will not make too much of a cry about the empire being disrupted. I have neither faith, hope nor love for the empire as it has been conceived in the last fifty years. I have strong faith and, in spite of the destructive jingoism of Tory policies, firm hope in the maintenance of the association of British nations on the basis of absolute freedom in matters of trade, in matters of policy and in matters of civil and military organization as well.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is Liberalism.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: No, it is not Liberalism
as practised in Canada in many instances. My first break with that party was brought about in 1899, because, for the first time in the history of Canada, it pledged the blood and money of the people for the cause of imperialism, and that by an order in council passed fifteen days before the calling of parliament. When there is less talk of the principles of Liberalism in defence of Canadian nationality in the past, when there is an effort made to make the future better than the past, then will that party regain the confidence of all true Canadians.
I don't believe in the so-called imperial economic unit. A man nearly as intelligent, a man as powerful as either Mr. Baldwin or the Prime Minister, Joseph Chamberlain, tried to make it true. A Canadian parvenu, now living in England, Lord Beaver-brook, is again trying to recast the British Empire into an economic unit. But he will fail, as anyone would fail even though he had the genius of a Bismarck and the iron hand of a Mussolini. Every endeavour of man against the laws of nature is bound to fail. The British association of nations-I hate the word empire-will last for some time provided it is given elasticity; but once an attempt is made to unify it, whether in matters of trade or policy, its existence is threatened. Why? The reason has been given or suggested by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps):	it is too
broad and scattered. Time and time again the Prime Minister has stated that the British 53719-21 i
Empire covers one-fourth the area and includes one-fourth the population of the world. Apparently he is willing to rule that one-quarter of the races of the world, but he will not; no king, emperor or dictator can do it, either in the matter of tariffs or otherwise.
We hear of imperial policies in connection with tariffs; but does the house think that the
450,000,000 of people in India, who count for something in the 645,000,000, are going to accept this policy of imperial unity? No, they will not. Gandhi may be kept in prison, but he remains a moral force, an economic force also. Should he disappear, matters would be much worse than they are now. The house knows that neither Gandhi, nor any party or group in India, will submit to the idea of economic unity. The house knows that the Irish Free State will never submit to that, nor will the Union of South Africa.
What has been accomplished is not an imperial policy, or the creation, or even the beginning of an imperial tariff; it is simply the making of trade agreements between Great Britain and certain of the dominions, the result of which will tend to make London once more the distributing centre of the empire. It is an attempt to give back to the London banker, to the London broker and to the English manufacturer the lead and control they had fifty years ago. Sir John Macdonald and Sir Charles Tupper were most energetically opposed to and most efficiently instrumental in breaking up this control when they asserted and effected the complete freedom of Canada in matters of fiscal economy.
Let us take as an example the treaty with France. This treaty has been denounced, perhaps rightly so as it may not have been a good treaty, but I do not intend to discuss that phase. Figures were given out from Ottawa indicating the amount of trade with France while the official figures given out by the French consulate indicated that France had imported more Canadian goods than our figures showed as being sold. Why this difference? A large proportion of the goods shipped to France from Canada were shipped through England and appeared in our trade returns as exports to that country. They were purchased by the English in brokerage and sent to France; the English broker or merchant made his profit, and we lost out so much in our trade relations under the treaty. The same thing applies to Belgium, to Holland, to Germany.
Likewise, the British preference works against this country the other way. Some
324	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
years ago I related to the house an instance told to me by a friend who had visited a factory in Belgium, I think. This factory was manufacturing goods for shipment to Canada which were being marked " made in England The Belgian manufacturer divided with the British trader the benefit of the preference so foolishly given by the Liberal government to so-called British-made goods. Actually we were giving a preference to goods made in Belgium, sent to England where about ten per cent was added to their value by finishing, covering, etc.; and then shipped by English traders to Canada where they benefited to the extent of thirty-three and a third per cent rebate of duty under the British preference. Because of the underhand arrangement made between the Belgium manufacturer and the English trader, this country was losing about twenty-five per cent in duty. The English labourer did not benefit while we lost the additional revenue. Once again we were the gullible victims of our old colonial subserviency. For these reasons I cannot accept the so-called preferential policy of the Liberal party any more than the imperial tariff policy of the Conservative party.
Some years ago, when my hon. friends to my left were sitting, as I did, on the other side, they proposed an increase in the British preference. It was properly refused by the then Prime Minister who now, as leader of the opposition, declares himself in favour of that policy. I then pointed out, and I repeat today, that an imperial preference, far from being an instrument in the lowering of tariffs, is in fact one of the most practical means by [DOT]which a high protective tariff is maintained. From a purely fiscal point of view, from a Canadian point of view and from the point of view of the maintenance of good relations between Great Britain and Canada-, I aim opposed to both policies.
In concluding these extemporaneous remarks I shall refer to the third aspect-the international aspect. When the motion just referred to was brought up by my hon. friends, then sitting across the house, they invoked the argument of better world trade relations. I reminded them that in 1926 some of the leading business men, economists and statesmen-not ministers-had memorialized the League of Nations on economic reforms. This memorial was prepared by no less an authority than Sir George Paish, a man in whom I have the greatest confidence. He was perhaps the only man who saw clearly the trend of events before the world reached its present state. During the days of orgy he had the courage to tell us that we were fast reaching the shoals of a very great crisis. Well, Sir
JMr. Bourassa.]
George Paish prepared the memorandum, and in that document as well as in other memoranda that have been presented, it was stated that high tariffs were among the greatest obstacles to the establishment of permanent peace in the world. But what did the French and Italian delegates point out before giving their assent to that assertion? Very rightly did they point out that the maintenance of preferences as between countries politically united-they did not name us, but of course they were designating us-was perhaps worse than the maintenance of high tariffs; because it was a concealed means to an end; it was the means through which a protectionist country, wanting to satisfy some of its consumers, made an appearance of lowering its tariff while, by maintaining and strengthening a preference, it was simply giving a weapon to the upholders of protection to maintain a high tariff as against the rest of the world. So, whether I take these agreements from the Conservative point of view or from the Liberal point of view, whether I take them in the light of our past relations or in the light of our future relations, I cannot accept them. I am not saying that I cannot accept them because they are bad bargains. I do not know. They may be far better than the leader of the opposition thinks. I am inclined to think they cannot have the good results which the Prime Minister and his friends anticipate. But that is not the main aspect. If they were merely individual bargains between this country and Great Britain, between this country and South Africa, they could be ended, either by negotiation before the five years, or at the end of the five years. But I am opposed to them and I dread their consequences because of the effect they will have upon our relations with the outside world.
The Prime Minister was extremely unfortunate in uttering those words which were quoted last night by the leader of the opposition, namely, that the result of these agreements would be to force foreigners to pay tribute to the British Empire. Of course, uttered only by the Prime Minister of Canada, important as Canada may be, big as the Prime Minister of Canada may be and even as big as he may think himself, those words would not go far. If radiated only within a certain distance from Regina or Calgary or Ottawa, they would amount to nothing. Even if reproduced in a few English papers, they would not go very far. But being given out to the world as a definition and an explanation of this policy, and as the initiation of a new program to be set up, maintained and

United Kingdom
developed, what is the result? It is that unless this definition is repudiated publicly and definitely by Mr. Baldwin and other representatives of the British Empire, the Prime Minister of Canada will have this other plume in his helmet:-he will, in appearance, have given the lead to the British Empire, but he will have compromised very seriously the position of Great Britain and of various parts of the British community towards the rest of the world. If he goes to the world economic conference with those ideas in his mind; if he is not prepared to retract that definition, in spite of his proclaiming the will and the power of one-quarter of the population of the globe, at his 'beckoning, upon his command, to force tribute on the rest of the world, there are still a few puny nations called the United States, Germany, France, Italy, Russia, China, Japan, Argentina, Brazil, who may not be quite as obedient and who may not be prepared to pay that tribute at the beck of the Prime Minister of Canada. What will be the result? It will be that the British Empire will have to step back and eat humble pie, or some of the other countries of the world will find, in their economic position, in their political and international associations, means strong enough to demonstrate to the Anglo-Saxon world that it is not the whole world.
I repeat; I am not a worshipper of any form of imperialism. I have combated English imperialism all my life. 1 have combated German imperialism all I could. I have opposed French imperialism when it took advantage of the great war to enlist my own compatriots on the side of France. Were these my last days in this parliament of Canada I would utter the same sentiments I expressed, thirty-three years ago, when a Liberal government launched us out on our first imperial venture, and I will state: Liberally-minded England, England the mother of political and economic liberty, England who has upheld, in spite of many crimes and misdemeanours, the great principle of social and political liberty, I love, I admire, and I am prepared to stand by. But England led by tories, by jingoes, by imperialists, who try, with the weapons of other nations, with the blood of other peoples, with the genius and money of their own people, to dominate the world, this I shall never countenance, either as a humble Canadian or as a citizen of that great community which has been remodelled on principles of liberty and free association, but which thank heaven-cannot succeed either in dominating the world or even in imposing upon its own sons and citizens tenets that could have
suited the slaves of Rome or the corporals of Prussianized Germany, but which cannot for any length of time suit free British subjects, whether they speak French or English, whether they worship God in a Catholic church or in a Protestant temple, who are united in a common sentiment, and that is attachment either by blood or by reason to those great principles of liberty and autonomy which I have served all my life and for which I hope to give the last days that remain to me of service to my country.


Mr. H. A. MULLINS (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened for some days to statements made from the other side of the house. I have listened to the learned speech of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bour-assa), to the speech of the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) and to the speech of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). As an agriculturist, who comes from western Canada, I wonder whether these speeches are not tainted with politics. They have found fault with the tariff. We have had a tariff since the days of confederation. I have lived under every prime minister from the days of confederation to the present, and there has been a tariff all that time. It seems t.o me that as regards the ins and the outs, it is the outs that have a great deal to say about the tariff.
There are men on this side just as well as men on the opposite side who realize the condition of agriculture in western Canada. There is no one over there who knows better than I do the appalling situation of agriculture, there is no one on this side of the house to blame for this situation. We accepted the situation when we came into parliament at a time when conditions were on the toboggan slide. I am not going to find fault with everything my hon. friends opposite did during the years they were in office. But when I listened to the leader of the opposition and noted how he evaded the question of the embargo against Canadian cattle, I felt I ought to say something. I would not be on my feet today were it not for the way hon. gentlemen opposite have side-stepped that matter. I wonder why the right hon. gentleman did not read the report which has been distributed concerning the importation into the United Kingdom of Canadian store cattle. I wonder why he did not read some of it to the house; why did he side-step it so effectively? He went all around it, knowing all the time that it represented the completion of over thirty years of work, thirty years of my life. One of the important missions I have had has been the lifting of the embargo, and I have
326	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
lived to see it. I am satisfied. I am in this house for one principal reason-to see the finish of that embargo.
I wonder if the right hon. gentleman has read this report to which I have made reference. I wonder if he understands the significance of it. If this government had done nothing else, it should be credited, through their action in this respect, with making millions of dollars for the farmers of western Canada. The right hon. leader of the opposition gives Mr. Larkin credit for lifting the embargo in the year 1922. That is not fair, because Mr. Larkin did not come to England until March. I happened to be there at the time. The embargo was removed on December 15.
In 1915 Sir Robert Borden was crossing to England, and before he left I wrote him a letter asking him to take up the question of the removal of the cattle embargo so that Canadian cattle might gain entrance to the British Isles. I have before me a document, somewhat worn with use, which was sent to me by Mr. Bailie Watson, of Glasgow. It is as follows:
Mr. Bailie Watson introduced the deputation to Sir Robert Borden. He apologized for the large number present and said that their presence was an indication of the great interest taken in the subject. They represented between eighty and ninety municipalities throughout the country, as well as a large number of cooperative societies who were desirous of furnishing wholesome and copious meat supplies. They had been making strenuous efforts to have the embargo removed. They disputed the existence of disease in Canada, and they believed that for twenty years-the_ period during which the embargo had been imposed-there had been no disease. Speaking from the point of view of the Scottish farmers, he urged that they would during the coming season meet with great difficulty in finding store cattle to eat the plenteous crops that are being produced during the present season.
That was written in 1915.
Previous to that, in September of 1892, a boat named the Huronia arrived in Dundee. Upon that steamer was one animal which was unfairly taken away and condemned for disease. As a result, since the year 1892 there has been an embargo against Canadian cattle. Today, I am pleased to see the entire lifting of that embargo brought about by the agreement made by this government.
No noticS of this document seems to have been taken. I do not know why the cattle trade receives so little attention in the house, because in my view it is the most important branch of agriculture. In western Canada no man can succeed in selling his coarse grains if he does not drive them to market on four [DOT]Mr. Mullins.]
feet. It is not possible to do otherwise. He has to sell his grains with the aid of livestock. After thirty-two years the cattle trade is being accorded some help; there is now a market for the Canadian cow. Our cattle may enter the British market without restrictions. Previous to the year 1892 from 1,000 to 2,000 Canadian cows were sold each week in the Liverpool market. Today that market is again open to us, and it has been made available through the efforts of the government now in office in this House of Commons. They have brought about that favourable condition, and I believe they should be given credit. Why treat the matter lightly, as did the right hon. gentleman opposite?
I should like to remind the house of an experience I had while in England. On February 7, 1922, the Union of London Retail Meat Traders Incorporated-a very wealthy corporation in London-sent me the following invitation:
I am instructed by my president, Mr. John Edwards, to give you an invitation to the annual meeting of this union, which will be held at the Central hall, Westminster, on Monday the 20th instant, in the afternoon.
Our principal speaker will be Sir James Allen, of the New Zealand government, but Mr. Edwards thought that you would be willing to address the members on the "Embargo on Canadian store cattle" with special reference to its effect on the Canadian cattle industry, and also of the bearing which the United States tariff has upon the situation.
_ Sir James Allen is due to speak at four o'clock.
Trusting to reecive a favourable reply.
That was on February 7, 1922. I attended the meeting and spoke. Then, on March 9, I had the following communication from Northumberland concerning the Canadian cattle embargo:
I am requested by the committee to write and express their thanks to you for attending the recent meeting on this question in Newcastle, and supporting the resolution and for so kindly assisting by speaking and thereby contributing so much to the success of the meeting.
Then there is a further communication from Frank Devaney and Company of Birkenhead, England, thanking me for my activities in connection with the removal of the cattle embargo. We had the embargo removed because we had in England at that time a gentleman very active concerning our cattle markets. In that connection I shall read an article appearing in the Winnipeg Tribune of April 6, 1923. It is as follows:
A shipment of Canadian cattle, the first to arrive at Glasgow since the embargo was lifted, was unloaded yesterday. Canadian government officials were on hand. As a gallery play, a

United, Kingdom
red tape was stretched across the gang plank, and the first steer to come up breasted the tape and broke it. This was to signalize, in the conception of some official not overburdened with brains, that Canadian cattle were breaking down the barrier of governmental red tape that had kept them out of Great Britain for thirty years. The _ leading steer showed more sense than the officials. It balked, and when prodded, stampeded, and not only broke the tape but bowled over several of the officials. Canadian cattle were not kept out of England by governmental red tape. They were kept out by the vigorous opposition of British agricultural interests to their entry. The embargo put in effect thirty years ago would still be in effect had it not been that during the war a binding promise that it would be lifted was secured from the British government. For that promise Canada has Hon. Robert Rogers to thank.
That is correct. The promise secured by the Hon. Robert Rogers, was the cause of the removal of the embargo. Had he not obtained that from those sitting at the war conference in 1917 Canadian cattle never would have got into the British market.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that is all I want to say in reference to the embargo. I have done my duty, I have lived through this thirty odd years, I have seen completed the bargain I made with Edward Watson on the dock in Dundee, that as long as I lived in Canada I would fight that question on this side, while he fought it on that side. Now through the efforts of this government it has become an accomplished fact. I am not playing politics, I am not speaking or looking to get back into this house. I have seen that for which I fought for a lifetime, nearly forty years, become an accomplished fact, and I thank the government for what it did in getting us into the British market on the same footing as Ireland.	.
Some one in Ireland writes to the W inni-peg Free Press and threatens Canada if she interferes in this industry. Well, we have just as much right to be in the British market with that product as Ireland has. It is a valuable department of farming operations, just as valuable as grain-growing. Today I would rather have a good bunch of cattle than 28 cent wheat. A few days ago I was in the stockyards and saw some cars of cattle belonging to an hon. gentleman who occupied a seat on .that side of the house; he asked me sdbout. them, I said, " What are you bid? He said, " Five and a quarter. What is wrong?" I said, " Just this, that you are finishing where I would start." That is what is wrong. The system, and the mistakes made in the handling of cattle in this country, are causing most of the troubles on the farm. I recall the days around Guelph and Elmira and the western counties, the district of the
hon. member sitting here to my left; I think of that country, how it was rich with well-bred cattle. Canada was rich, the prairies were rich and we had prosperity. But what happened? There came along new men with new doctrines and new ideas. We raised good crops of wheat where we had mixed farming, we fertilized the land, gave them rich land. But new men came with new ideas. Cooperation, yes, I believe in it, but I do not believe in cooperation where you put a man at the head of it with putty under his hat instead of brains. You cannot have success in cooperation, Mr. Speaker, where you have not got ability at the head of it. They came along and asked the farmer to ship his cattle through new channels. " Oh yes, ship your cattle to me, I will send you back the money when I get through with them." He takes his pound of flesh, takes his charges, and when the returns come in there is very little for the farmer. I want to see the old days back, when the cattle buyer came into the field and said to the farmer, "What do you ask for that bunch of cattle?" The farmer put his price on them, they made a bargain, closed the deal and the buyer paid for them and took them away. I do not want to see the farmer sending a bunch of cattle to some incompetent salesman to be sold in the stockyards at a ridiculously low figure. Neither do I want to see him ship his grain as he ships now. The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) came to me when he was promoting the pool, I felt it was a good thing and might help the farmer, and I did my duty in this house towards the farmer and towards the pool. But, God help them, they got men at the head of it that did not know much about wheat, not very good business men, and it went to pieces. And the same thing has happened in respect to cattle as in respect of grain, you have had all these new schemes and new ideas, they have been tried out; now let us have back the old days, the old conditions that we had years ago, and ship our grain and do our business through the right channel; do not have the initiative taken away from you either in your cattle or in your grain. The farmer does not need a guardian. My observation of the farmer is that he is just as clever as any man if given a chance. But he is led by spell-binders who travel over the country-I was going to say lightning-rod agents, but I did not like to say it for I thought of one who occupies a seat in the legislature in Manitoba, sits on the treasury benches, who travelled all over my constituency getting the farmer into various pools and various methods of marketing his
328	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
grain, but when he saw danger ahead he slipped into a front bench seat, and is probably in a better position by having done so.
There is no country in the world as rich as the western prairie provinces. I love your little Ontario farms too, but my heart bleeds when I see the struggles taking place on the prairie at the present time, see conditions such as are found there today. Speculation? Yes, they have speculated, it has ruined a good many farmers, and I am sorry for some of them. They went wrong through speculation, buying stock on margin. Think of it, farmers trusting to those manipulators to sell them stocks, the illegitimate children c*f bonds and preferred securities of corporations, and they loaded the farmer up. I am sorry that there are so many in my constituency in that position. Some of them gave me documents to bring down here to find if there was any value to them, when I got them here I found they were worthless.
Many hon. members on the opposite side of the house claim to be champions of the farmer and seem to think there is no one on this side who knows anything about the condition of agriculture. But we realize it, I realize the condition of the farmers in Canada. I can assure this house, Mr. Speaker, that every morning when I get up I try to think of something I can do that day to aid agriculture and the men struggling on the farms. This government with which I have been associated has done more to aid agriculture than was done by hon. gentlemen opposite who preceded us. I am reminded of the effort made to put pure bred sires out through the country;
I am reminded that this government restored that policy, and I remember the day when my hon. friend from Melville (Mr. Motherwell) hit live stock in western Canada a crushing blow by cancelling that policy. I told him to put back all the pure bred sires he could get, and to weed out all the scrubs throughout the country; I told him to get the farmers into mixed farming and to assist them to get new markets, but he did not do so. Then I am reminded of the time when the Liberal government made it appear in the press that they were going to get the farmer cheaper freight rates. I have before me a document showing that I paid the Canadian Government Merchant Marine $25 a head to ship cattle to Dundee. Today this government has made it possible for a farmer to ship cattle at $10 per head. I know there are some good, honest men opposite; why do they not say something has been done, and give some credit to this government? The British market has been opened to our cattle, and I believe that fact 
should be made clear. Even the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) did not mention it last night; of course his time was limited, but I was waiting for him to come to this point. When he did not do so I felt it my duty to let the country know that we have the freedom of the British market, secured through the efforts of this government.
We have been told that conditions have been getting worse since we took office. The toboggan was starting down the slide then, and ever since we came into power we have been bending every effort to improve conditions. I have heard all about the gold standard; I have tried to study that problem but I will not take up the time of the house to discuss it. I do not want to start a printing press and run off a lot of money unless we can get out of debt in New York. I do not want to see a premium of fifteen per cent to twenty per cent paid on our bond coupons;
I want to see our conditions improved by practising economy and working hard, and if I can do anything here the question of politics will not enter into it at all. I do not care whether I occupy this seat another minute. I paid all the expenses of my campaign out of my own pocket.


An hon. MEMBER:: What was the cost?


Henry Alfred Mullins: I will not tell the amount. Certain things have been mentioned by hon. gentlemen opposite, and I just wanted to mention that fact. Every dollar of my election expenses was paid by myself from my own money.
Now I must conclude, Mr. Speaker. We are losing confidence in each other, and when we get back that confidence and learn to trust each other I think this old Canada of ours will get back on her feet. I have been through many depressions in this country; we came out of them without very much trouble, though I will admit that this depression is lasting longer than any other depression in my memory. That is not due to the tariff.
I do not see why, when we are making an honest endeavour to build up the empire, hon. gentlemen opposite find fault with us.
I cannot help thinking that their opposition is tainted with party politics; I cannot believe it is prompted by any honest desire to help Canada. If conditions were reversed no party politics would hold me from standing up and voting for agreements such as these.
There is one matter to which I should like to refer before taking my seat. The statement was made that the farmers of western Ontario were snubbed when they came to Ottawa to see the Prime Minister. I happened

United Kingdom
to be here at the time; I have before me the correspondence that passed between the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) and Mr. Morrison, and I say emphatically that the farmers were not snubbed but were treated by the Prime Minister as fairly as any man could treat them. It is true that they came here and asked the Prime Minister to meet them at the coliseum, but the delegates to the Imperial conference were arriving and the Prime Minister was extremely busy. I do know that he agreed to meet a committee of that delegation and waited for an hour or more, but they did not come, so I do not see how the charge can be made that they were snubbed.
I am not going to take up more of the time of the house, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by saying that I want to see agriculture on its feet again, and it can only come back through the production of live stock and by having farming conducted in a proper way.


Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Mr. Speaker, in introducing the resolution now before the house the Prime Minister expressed the hope that it would not be opposed from this side because, he said, these agreements were drawn up in the interests of Canada and of the empire. He hoped that we would forget party feelings and not do anything to harm Canada or the empire. Let me answer the Prime Minister in his own words. We have studied these agreements; we are still studying them, and we have come to the honest conclusion that if they are carried into effect these agreements will not work to the benefit of Canada or of the empire but will be injurious to the trade of Canada, the trade of the empire and the trade of the world. I appeal to the Prime Minister, in his own words, not to force these agreements through the house because we are opposing them from this side in the interests of Canada. I ask him to forget the fact that these agreements originated in his own party and in his own head, to forget that they are his own pet children, and to think not of his party advantage but of the interests of Canada and of the empire. I ask him to think of the recovery of Canada and of the empire from the depression in which we are at the present time, and not to force these agreements through the house. Everyone is agreed that the trouble in the world today is that the channels of trade have been blocked. The Prime Minister himself has used words to that effect, and the test that we must apply to these treaties is this: Will they or will they not remove the obstacles to world trade that now exist? Will they or will they not open up the channels that are now
blocked, as the Prime Minister himself has said, and allow trade to flow and prosperity to return to the world? If these agreements will have the effect of lessening the barriers to trade that now exist, then we should support them. If, on the other hand, the effect will be to increase those barriers, then I say we have only one duty on this side and that is to oppose them.


An hon. MEMBER:: On both sides.


Edward James Young: Yes, on both sides. We are told in the Prime Minister's speech that in the agreements there are some eighty-four reductions in the tariff and one hundred and thirty-nine increases. On the surface that does not look much like a removal of trade barriers. We intend to examine these eighty-four reductions to find out exactly what they amount to. From the study that we have given them so far, we are of the opinion that many of them are merely nominal reductions, and others that appear to be drastic reductions are on articles that will not come in. We intend to examine the increases and to find out what the effect will be on trade.
The government talks about diverting trade that now flows to other parts of the world into empire channels. Well, how can you divert trade? What do you do when you undertake to divert trade? Let us see. A certain country outside the empire is shipping a certain line of goods to Canada. We are not getting these goods within the empire-Why are we not getting them in the empire? For one reason and one reason only, namely, that we can get them cheaper or more satisfactorily from some other source. Now the government undertakes to divert that trade and it says to the people of Canada, "You must not buy these goods where you are now buying them even if you get them cheaper or to better advantage. We will force you to buy them within the empire." How can they do that? Either by making us pay a higher price for the things that are coming from the outside, or by enabling the producers within the empire to reduce their costs of production. Now, nothing in these agreements will assist in the smallest degree in reducing costs of production within the empire. Many things in these agreements will make us pay, and are deliberately designed to make us pay more for goods outside the empire than we could get the same goods for at the present time. What is the result? It simply means placing more barriers in the way of trade. Will this encourage world trade? The Prime Minister, in his speech, said that as a result of these agreements countries outside the empire will
j	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
not be allowed to trade with countries within the empire unless they pay a tribute for so doing. Is that not an added obstacle in the way of trade?
The trouble is that the government went into the conference with an entirely wrong mental attitude. They went in on the assumption that when you buy anything from anyone you are doing yourself an injury, and that when you sell anything to anyone you are doing yourself a benefit and the other party an injury. Surely that benighted attitude is out of date. Surely the government in this enlightened or so-called enlightened twentieth century knows better than to believe that to every transaction in trade there are two parties, winner and loser. Trade is mutual exchange for mutual benefit. As my right hon. leader said the other day, if both parties did not benefit there would be no trade. But the government went into the conference on the assumption that if we allow Britain or any other country to sell anything in this market we are making a sacrifice on the other party's behalf. That attitude was responsible for the wrecking of many trade treaties years ago. Away back in the days of Gladstone, treaties were attempted on that basis and they always failed until Gladstone adopted a new policy. Let us see what he said:
The only reason why we have not made bargains similar to the present in former years was simply because we could not make them. It was not for want of trying. For four or five years this was almost the chief business of one or more departments of the state, and yet no progress could be made. Why? Because we then set out upon a false principle-we argued the matter as if the concession which each party made to the other were not a benefit, but an injury to itself. We have not now proceeded upon that principle. We have never pretended to France that we were going to inflict injury upon ourselves. We have simply offered France our best aid in breaking down ber own vicious prohibitory system. In doing so, we may have given a greater benefit to France than to ourselves. I shall not attempt to measure the comparative good to be reaped as between one side and the other. What we have done is good-nay, doubly good; good for ourselves if France had done nothing at all, doubly good because France had done a great deal.
That was the attitude of Mr. Gladstone towards trade treaties, and that is the proper attitude to be taken today. When the British delegates come here and say they want to supply our people with the things they need and are willing to supply at prices at which we cannot produce them ourselves, they are offering a service, and it is benighted folly on our part to refuse such service. After all, what is production for? It is to supply

the people with the necessities of life, and when the government steps in and says that our people must do without things because someone else wants to supply them, can you imagine a more antiquated policy? Can you imagine the government saying, "we are doing this for the benefit of Canada; we are going to make the people of Canada pay more for their clothing, their boots and shoes, more for their machinery and for everything else they require, in order to enrich them and to bring prosperity to the country." Every time you increase the price of a commodity that comes into this country you decrease by that amount the price of wheat that goes out of the country, as well as the prices of copper, nickel, newsprint, pulpwood and all the things that we export. For exports must be paid for by imports, and when you shut out imports you merely make us take a lower price for our exports.
I have been at a little pains to state in a few plain, simple sentences exactly what the various clauses of the agreement mean as I understand them. Being a plain ordinary man myself, I have tried to put the meaning of these clauses into simple language which the man on the street can understand. In the first place, England agrees not to impose any duty on Canadian poultry and dairy products for three years. Well, she has not been doing so in the past. She says that for the next three years she will not impose any duty on Canadian poultry, butter or dairy products, and in return therefor Canada agrees that if at the end of three years Britain sees fit to impose duties on Canadian dairy products, she, Canada, will not protest. Not a very momentous decision that, is it? If Britain decided that she wanted to protect her farmers, and she thought such a thing could be done by putting a duty on poultry and dairy products, then, had the agreements not been drawn up, we might be able without losing our face to go there and make representations. But according to this agreement nothing of the sort will happen. They will say: "Why, you agreed to this, here it is in black and white; here is your name to it."
Great Britain agrees to impose duties on the following goods from the outside world:
Wheat, in grain Butter Cheese Apples, raw Pears, raw Apples, canned Dried fruits Eggs in shell
Condensed milk, whole, sweet milk Copper.

United Kingdom
This section contains the following clause:
-of entry free of duty into the United Kingdom of goods consigned from any part of the British Empire and grown, produced or manufactured in Canada-
In order to obtain free access to the British market goods will have to be grown or produced in Canada and shipped from some port within the empire. I should like to ask the government a question which I hope will be answered before the conclusion of this debate. What will happen to wheat grown in Canada and shipped through American ports? Will [DOT]such wheat be admitted to the British market without payment of the six-cent duty, or will it have to pay? If it has to pay, then it will be a serious matter to the Canadian farmer. I hope the government will give us a definite pronouncement upon this matter before these agreements go through.
Great Britain agrees not to lower the duties on timber, fish, both fresh and canned, asbestos, zinc and lead, but Canada agrees to supply all the United Kingdom's requirements of wheat, copper, zinc and lead at world prices. All through our history our wheat has commanded a premium over world prices upon the British market, but under this agreement what is to happen to that premium? The agreement states that our wheat must be sold on the British market at the same price as the wheat from Europe, South America, Australia or any other country. We are throwing away the opportunity of receiving a premium on our wheat which has always been paid in the past.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Edward James Young: 
Ernest Lapointe: It works well with his followers.


Edward James Young: But it does not with the outside world. From whatever viewpoint we contemplate this agreement it seems to me it is bound to result in further restriction of trade. I appeal to the Prime Minister, as he appealed to us, not to force these agreements through the house, because we are opposing them in the interests of Canada, in the interests of the empire, in the interests of the world.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my
hon. friend who, has just taken his seat (Mr. Young) will forgive me if I do not spend too much time arguing with him as to the merits of free trade. The hon. gentleman is a direct descendant, politically, of Michael Clark who was here some fifteen years ago when I first came into this house, and who spent his time, as my hon. friend does, advocating free trade as a quack remedy-


Edward James Young: Not quack, genuine.


Robert James Manion: for every disease of the human family. My hon. friend will listen perhaps to a story that they are telling on him out through the west, and that I heard when I was out there. It is about a funeral that he attended; the clergyman had failed to. arrive, and my hon. friend being a public speaker, someone asked if he would say a few words. Well, he said he did not know anything about the dead man, but he would like to give them a little address on the pernicious influence of protective tariffs!
The only objection I have to the free trade doctrine is that its supporters always take the attitude that they want to buy in the cheapest market no matter whence the goods come. On this side of the house we believe, and I think a great many hon. members on the other side of the house who are as good protectionists in a general way as we are, believe that as far
as possible we should buy Canadian goods, not foreign goods, when we can get as good a line in Canada at as cheap a price.
One other matter that strikes me when I hear the free trade fraternity speaking is their smug self-assurance-I do not say it offensively-and positiveness in all their statements.


Edward James Young: That is because we are right.


Robert James Manion: Of course. My hon. friend decides what is right and then fights for it.
But, Mr. Speaker, I had not intended saying anything this evening at all, except for the speech of the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe). My hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Mullins) made an excellent speech dealing with cattle, but outside of that I did not think any of the ministers needed to speak; because after the brilliant presentation by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and after the very able, clear, and graphic reply of my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) last night, who in forty minutes said more than-I am sorry to say-the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) did in three and a half hours-I say that after both of those speeches I did not feel it was the duty of any minister to get up in his place. But my hon. friend from Quebec East was really hurt because none of us was getting up. He insisted that some of us must do so. He said he was anxious to hear us, and I suppose the reason was that his leader had so confused him in three and a half hours yesterday that he wanted to get some light on the subject. If he confused him as much as he confused the rest of the house, then I do not blame the hon. member for Quebec East.
One attitude the hon. gentleman took that I do not think was quite just, was that in Which he manifested such great fervour and passion as to quotations from Sir Wilfrid Laurier. We all have a deep love and affection for the memory of that great man, and I think it is rather unfair to say that because he is quoted it is some reflection upon him. In fact I think that most of the statesmen who are no longer of this world, whether they have been on that side of the house or on this, would turn in their graves if they were not sometimes quoted. So I think my hon. friend should not feel hurt when Sir Wilfrid Laurier is quoted.
My hon. friend said that it is for Great Britain to decide these matters of trade. Certainly it is, and they did decide. My right hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, took the same position; he said we werr
336	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
coercing Great Britain. I would like to know when the British ever permitted themselves to be coerced.
I have here a speech-I think the hon. member for Quebec East quoted it also- delivered by Mr. Chamberlain. This is what he said in the British House of Commons, according to today's press:
The first test that must be applied to the Ottawa agreements was: What was going to be their effect upon the future course of Imperial relations? "The conference," replied Mr. Chamberlain to his own question, "resulted in a better understanding all around and in the determination to continue the task begun at Ottawa. The delegates returned with a sense of new strength and greater security. A new note of hope and confidence was struck. The helm of the ship was put over and the vessels of the Empire were directed to a common course."
That is not bad, coming from one of the group who were coerced. Then a little further on the report continues:
The chancellor stressed that in pursuance of the terms of the Anglo-Canadian agreements the government of the United Kingdom had taken steps to renounce the British trade agreement with Russia.
That is not a bad move as an early result of the conference, because Russia is one of our greatest competitors in the British market in regard to lumber, salmon, wheat and various other commodities. The hon. gentleman also said that his leader had helped the conference, and he went on to say that he had personally prayed for the success of the conference. Well, as I listened to my hon. friend speak of having prayed for the success of the conference; as I realized the success it has attained, knowing that he and I both pray in the same way, I decided that in the future I will pray more for material things than I have done in the past.
The hon. gentleman said his leader had helped the conference, but he did it, if at all, in a left-handed sort of way. For instance, he went to South Huron during the by-election there and was horrified at the fact that some of the members of this government had mentioned the conference during the course of that by-election. That was some time after the conference, yet a month or so before the conference opened the right hon. gentleman went down to the constituency of Royal, where a by-election was in progress. I have before me the speech he made there, but like most of his speeches, unfortunately, it is too long to read. During the course of his remarks, however, he spent at least half an hour telling the people of Royal that if they voted

for the Prime Minister without a doubt he would wreck this conference as he had wrecked the conference of 1930. So I do not know that he gave any particular assistance to the conference, but I mention that reference just in passing.
The hon. member for North Bruce, the exMinister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) took the attitude that the results of the conference were too protectionist. I should say the hon. member is rather a good judge of what is protectionist, because he was a . pretty fair protectionist himself, as he admitted this afternoon, during the latter years he was in office. The commodity which he produced enjoys a duty of about 42 per cent. I do not make that remark in any critical sense at all, because I have the utmost respect for the hon. member, but I mention it in passing because it shows that he is a good judge of what is protectionist. The hon. member also pointed out that after these agreements were adopted we would be unable to make trade agreements with foreign countries, and my understanding of his reason, as given in the course of what I thought was a very good speech, was that we could not make these other agreements because we had raised the duties under the intermediate tariff to the levels of those under the general tariff. Later on I counted the items concerned, and I found that in the schedules as brought down there are 132 items out of 240, where the intermediate duties are lower than the general duties. That is an average of about 60 per cent which is a very good proportion. It is true that some intermediate duties were raised to the general level, but in 132 cases the intermediate duty was made lower than the general duty. It is also worth pointing out that in my rather hurried count I found that 136 preferred duties had 'been lowered, made free in most cases, to Great Britain whereas 139 duties have been raised as against foreign countries. That would seem to make it about fifty-fifty, and I really believe-and I say this with all sincerity-that the tariff as a whole as dealt with in these agreements is lowered rather than raised. Especially is that true in view of the undertaking we have given Great Britain that they may appeal to the tariff board we are about to appoint if they are dissatisfied with any particular line of protection.
Take the French treaty which was put through by hon. gentlemen opposite. Canada obtained the lowest French duties, but France could increase those duties and did so on

United Kingdom
many occasions. As I say, we were given their lowest duties, but those low duties could be raised so as practically to prohibit imports from Canada, and in the end we had to cancel that agreement. On the other hand the former Minister of Justice, who signed that agreement together with the late Mr. Fielding, helped give France fixed duties in the Canadian market, a most obnoxious form of agreement. So I think hon. gentlemen opposite should hesitate before criticizing the agreements we have made with Great Britain and the other portions of the British Empire.
After all, Mr. Speaker, there are two sides to each agreement. My hon. friend from North Bruce, as well as my hon. friend who has just taken his seat, dealt almost entirely with the case of importations into Canada, as though that was the only side to the agreement, but that is only half the agreement and from our standpoint I think the less important half. I think the object we had in view, and the object before all the dominions, was to sell more of our own goods in the empire markets, and it may be that we got a little the better of the bargain. I do not say we did; I think it was a victory for the whole empire, and I do not think any part should claim a particular victory over another because I do not think agreements of that kind are the best agreements to have. But if perchance we got a little the better of the bargain I do not know that we should particularly quarrel with ourselves. The hon. member for North Bruce said that the only result of these agreements would be to divert some of the trade, that our total trade would not be increased. I do not quarrel with that statement, but if we can divert some of our trade to Canada from the United States or Russia or Denmark surely that is good for Canada, and that is what we were aiming at. I think fair minded Canadians throughout this country-and I believe my hon. friends opposite will learn this before they oppose these agreements to anything like the extent that is spoken of in the corridors-admit the success of this conference, and they want the government and parliament of this country to give the agreements a fair trial.
The right hon. leader of the opposition made what seemed to me a number of rather queer statements during his long address. For example, he said that no one knows what these agreements are all about. Certainly I do not think they would know much more after he spoke for three and a half hours on them. Then my right hon. friend said, 53719-22
"We are not in a position to vote on these questions," and I suppose the reason in that case was the same. Finally the right hon. gentleman moved a hypothetic amendment, and I suppose he will give a hypothetic vote in favour of it when the time comes. After all, the object of the conference was to promote trade between the different portions of the British commonwealth of nations and what we accomplished at the conference was this:	We brought about some twelve bipartite treaties and laid the foundation for an edifice of trade and commerce which will become great if we continue in the spirit in which these agreements were signed. We brought about a victory for the whole empire, not for any one part of the empire, and when I say "we" I mean those who were there representing the different parts of the British Empire. After all, the United Kingdom is the greatest importer in the world and the dominions are among the greatest exporters. The result from the standpoint of Canada has been magnificent, and probably the same is true from the standpoint of the other dominions as well, though I speak for Canada only. Yet the leader of the opposition opposes all the agreements, together with those of his followers who have spoken so far.
The right hon. gentleman spoke for three and a half hours; time and again with negative statements he cancelled positive statements made earlier in his remarks. He contradicted himself so much that although I do not like the idea of reading another man's speech I had the thought of going over his address and placing the contradictions side by side. I am sure if that were done practically the whole speech would be cancelled.
The right hon. gentleman did as he has done so often in opposition. He fought for the freedom and liberty of the people and for the constitution not only of Canada but of the empire as well. If I may say so without disrespect-and I certainly mean none- my right hon. friend has a sort of constitutional obsession while in opposition, a sort of opposition madness as far as constitutional matters are concerned; but this time he has gone beyond the constitution of Canada and has undertaken to look after the constitution of Great Britain. In effect he has said that we must protect the constitution of Great Britain as well, forgetting for the moment that Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Chamberlain and a few others were here to see that we wicked Tories did not impose upon their constitutional rights.



Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
Then my right hon. friend asked where was the freedom of parliament in connection with these agreements. The house can throw them out if it is not satisfied with them, and I am sure that the many hon. members on thi3 side who represent agricultural constituencies are as anxious to protect their rights as are any hon. members opposite.
And then he makes another statement- I am dealing briefly with a few of them-to the effect that the colonies must do so and so. He played upon words again and again in that regard. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that there is no "must," no compulsion, so far as what the colonies are going to do. Let me read the clause. Article 8 provides that:
His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom will invite the governments of the non-self-governing colonies and protectorates to accord to Canada any preference which may for the time being be accorded to any other part of the British Empire. . . .
I submit that an invitation does not constitute coercion, nor does it justify the word "must." In other words, the right hon. gentleman was juggling with words during a good portion of the speech he made. He apparently believes in the old French maxim that language was given us in order that we might conceal our thoughts. The other day he made a statement with reference to myself in another address which he delivered. He said that I was sometimes inaccurate. Well, I admit the charge; but I presume that most speakers are also occasionally inaccurate, some more than others. May I point out, however, that the right hon. gentleman was not only inaccurate in his statement with respect to the matter now under discussion, but that he misrepresented the clauses right after reading them.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Robert James Manion: I do not say that he did
so intentionally; I do not make that statement for the purpose of being offensive. Certainly, however, he surpassed himself in self-contradiction, in putting up straw men for the pleasure of knocking them down, and in constitutional shadow boxing. As someone observed this afternoon, he talks free trade when out of power and practises protection when in power. But how can he help it when sitting to his left is the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), beside him the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm), both staunch protectionists, and to the right of him the hon. member for West Edmonton, who rang the death knell of protection and

yet voted against free trade every time the opportunity presented itself. And accompanying him is the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) who takes the same attitude, and the leader of the opposition took whatever was the attitude of the section of the country in which he was speaking during election campaigns, before the radio came into existence.
The right hon. gentleman said that we need world markets. Well, did he get world markets when he was in power?


An hon. MEMBER:: Sure.


Robert James Manion: No; he lost world markets for us when he was in power; he was losing them throughout the whole period he was in office.


An hon. MEMBER:: Take the trade
figures.


Robert James Manion: Yes I will take the trade figures. Let us take the United States, for example. In July, 1920, that country bought agricultural products from us to the amount of over $6,000,000, and in July, 1931, their purchases in that direction had diminished to less than 81,000,000. Barriers were being put up in that country against Canadian exports throughout the right hon. gentleman's regime. Throughout the time he was Prime Minister of this country the United States were putting up barriers against us, and what was his attitude? His attitude was that we must not provoke the United States by retaliation. In trade matters they kicked us around like a rag doll and he simply sat by and allowed them to take our trade away from us.
Yesterday the right hon. gentleman took the attitude that we were being most unjust to the British people because, as he said, we were riveting food taxes upon them; he said that we were going to make them pay more for their foodstuffs. But later on he pointed out that by these agreements we were going to lower the prices of agricultural products to our Canadian farmers. I do not know how the right hon. gentleman can expect to have it both ways.
One question he asked was this: How can Liberals support these agreements? May I suggest that it is not hard for them to support these agreements; all they have to do is to preach in opposition what they have practised while in power. Let them be consistent to that extent and they will have no difficulty in supporting the agreements.
The leader of the opposition quoted Salter approvingly with reference to the conference.

United. Kingdom
Incidentally, Salter has said in the same quotation that it was better for the empire that the conference has been a success; yet the right hon. gentleman turned round, after quoting that opinion, and flatly condemned the conference. He condemned it in toto. No wonder he said that no one could vote intelligently on the question.
Let me repeat that there are two sides to all these agreements; there is the side of importations into Canada and there is the side of exportations from Canada, and I respectfully submit that importations into Canada are not as important from our point of view as the question of selling our goods outside. I know, of course, that someone will immediately remind me that you must buy if you expect to sell, but you may sell to other countries. The fact is, however, that we have, through these agreements, obtained an entry into the markets of other parts of the empire, important markets, and that is one of the greatest preferences that any section of the empire has ever obtained.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend laughs,
the same vacant laugh-


Charles A. Stewart: I will
attend to both you and your friend.


Robert James Manion: If that is the case, in
anticipation of such attention from the hon. gentleman, perhaps I had better attend to him at once.


Charles A. Stewart: The very
same kind of statements; go ahead.	.


Robert James Manion: The Minister of Trade
and Commerce might have said, " The loud laugh that speaks the vacant mind."


Charles A. Stewart: Speak for
yourself this time.


Robert James Manion: Very well; speaking for
myself, I will apply those words.


Charles A. Stewart: I shall have
an opportunity of replying.


Robert James Manion: May I point out, Mr. Speaker, .that with respect to hundreds of articles going into the United Kingdom we have obtained a preference of from 10 to 33| per cent. The Prime Minister, in his statement the other day, enumerated many of them. I have the list here and it includes such articles as paperboard, cereal foods, wooden-ware, wrapping paper, rubber goods, hardware, boots and shoes, toilet preparations, soaps, electrical appliances for houses, typewriters, 53719-22 J
chemicals of many different kinds, nickel manufactures, copper manufactures, and a long list of other manufactures.
But, the advantages I find accrue largely, not to the manufacturers, but to the producers of natural products. We have obtained advantages for the timber producer, for timber and lumber of various sorts, amounting to 10 per cent. Mr. Chamberlain, in the statement he has made with respect to Russian treatment, emphasizes the importance of these concessions to us. There is an advantage to producers in the fishing industry. With regard to mineral products, we have obtained an advantage of 4 cents per pound on copper, a very important advantage in view of the fact that the United States has quite recently put up a barrier of 4 cents a pound on our copper entering that market. So that we shall have an opportunity of getting from the United Kingdom the market we lost in that connection. On asbestos, lead, zinc and other minerals we have obtained 10 per cent. We have also secured an advantage in connection with bacon and hams, and I may observe in passing that it is surprising that my hon friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Young), coming as he does from an agricultural constituency, should have minimized and laughed at the advantage that accrues to us in regard to these products.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert James Manion: It is a matter for surprise that hon. gentlemen should take that attitude. I do not pretend to be an authority on agriculture, but certainly I would draw the conclusion that in view of past importations of the United Kingdom of bacon and hams, amounting in 1931 to $180,000,000, there should undoubtedly be an excellent market in that, direction for the Canadian producer. In 1926 we sold to the United Kingdom $28,000,000 worth of baoon and hams, and last year $2,000,000. Surely it is obvious that the quota which they have allowed us of 2,500,000 cwt. into their market, if the product is sent in decent quality, is a considerable advantage to the producers in this country. And in regard to cattle, the restrictions have been removed. In 1931 the United Kingdom imported $60,000,000 worth, and we sent them $2,000,000 worth; as to dairy products, of concentrated milk they imported $20,000,000, and we have been given a preference in that regard. Their imports of butter amounted to $225,000,000; of cheese, $15,000,000, besides eggs, honey, and so forth. Their tobacco imports amounted to 236,000,000 pounds in 1930, of which quantity only 3,000,000 pounds came from Canada.
340	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
There is a great opportunity in that direction for the tobacco producer of Canada, and I am informed that Canadian, tobacco is standing up very well at the present time as against tobaoeos imported from other countries. In regard to fruits-apples, pears, plums, fresh, canned or dried-we have obtained an advantage, as also in regard to tomatoes, ketchup, hops, wheat and wheat flour. Last year the imports of wheat and wheat flour into Britain amounted to $250,000,000, and we have secured a preference in the British market for a proportion of our wheat crop.
Certainly these are very considerable advantages to the people of this country; they are advantages which we shall have to take into consideration in the future, because, along with those advantages, responsibilities are entailed. In other words, the people of this country, in order to take advantage of the concessions which we have received from the United Kingdom and other parts of the British Empire, will have to see to it that a steady supply of Canadian products of excellent quality is kept up, adequate attention being paid to proper packing, appearance and so forth. Surely these are great advantages for the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. MacLEAN:: We always had those advantages.


Robert James Manion: It is said we always have had that advantage, but we have not. A free market in competition with the whole world is of no advantage at all to the Dominion of Canada.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: That is, what we are getting now.


Robert James Manion: No, we are getting a free market in the United Kingdom without restrictions against us, but restrictions against foreign countries.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Will my hon. friend state upon his word of honour as a member of this house that Canada will get a preferred market for foodstuffs?


Robert James Manion: We are getting a preferred market on many foodstuffs.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: To be sold at world prices.


Robert James Manion: The agreements which have been made with other parts of the empire also are favourable to Canada. I repeat, they are favourable to both sides; this has been a victory for the whole empire.
We will have greater markets for Canadian products than ever before, and yet the leader of the opposition condemns these agreements. Every class of producer will obtain favours
[Mi. Manion.]
through these agreements. The grain farmer, the dairy farmer, the fruit farmer and the live stock farmer will obtain preferences in the British market. The fisherman will obtain preferences for his products as well as the miner for his copper, lead and zinc. Preference is being given to the lumberman on his lumber and timber, and to the manufacturer on many items of manufactured products. All classes are favoured by these agreements, and yet the right hon. gentleman and his party are taking the attitude of opposing them. According to what I read in the press, Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Thomas, Sir Philip Cunliffe-Tdster and the other British representatives are all satisfied with the agreements. Everybody is satisfied but the right hon. leader of the opposition and his party. I suppose they are living up to the old idea that the duty of the opposition is to oppose.
The right hon. leader of the opposition stated that if put back into power he would make a fifty per cent cut in the tariff on goods coming in from the United Kingdom. I have no doubt he would give almost anything to get back into power, but why did he not do these things during the nine years he was in power?
Since 1898 we have been giving preferences to the United Kingdom, but until very recently we received none in return. I repeat, free markets in competition with the whole world are of no advantage to the people of Canada. The leader of the opposition wishes to continue that system whereby we gave preferences without having any in return. Our attitude is that there should be mutual preferences, and at the conference of 1930 my right hon. leader (Mr. Bennett) frankly said so. That is all he said, and I can see no just complaint as to his attitude at that time. The results obtained at the 1932 conference were based upon the mutuality of favours, reciprocity of tariffs, and the realization that sentiment must be helped by trade if the British commonwealth of nations is to hold together.
To a large extent these agreements are based upon the good faith of all those who participated in the conference, because without good faith they could not be carried -out. I believe in the good faith, not only of Great Britain, but of the other dominions. I believe in the good faith of whichever government may happen to be in power in Canada in the carrying cut of agreements once made.
When speaking in Royal the leader of the opposition referred to the preferences which he said were going to be wiped out on November 15 because of the attitude taken by the

United Kingdom
Prime Minister at the 1930 conference, an attitude which he prophesied would be continued at the 1932 conference. The fact is that even before these agreements have come into force this country is being 'benefited by the tariffs placed upon various goods by the British government. My hon. friend and desk-mate, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) has handed me some figures showing the increase in exports. In September, 1931, we exported to the United Kingdom $15,187,000 worth of goods, while in September, 1932, our exports were valued at $19,492,000. Even in a time of world depression our trade with the United Kingdom is improving. It is true that this is a diversion of trade, but, I repeat, we are for any diversion of trade if the diversion is to our own country. Due to the treaties with Australia and New Zealand which were negotiated largely by the Minister of Trade and Commerce on behalf of Canada, our trade with these countries shows a substantial increase. Our exports to Australia in September, 1931, were valued at $427,800, while in September, 1932, they had risen to $646,600. The figures for New Zealand are $299,000 and $410,000 respectively. I submit that these figures demonstrate that the treaties and agreements negotiated by this government are of benefit to the trade of this dominion.
I shall close my remarks by quoting from a speech of Viscount Hailsham delivered to the Canadian Bar Association at Calgary on August 31.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert James Manion: I do not know why my
hon. friends should laugh when the name of Lord Hailsham is mentioned. That gentleman is one of the most distinguished jurists and parliamentarians that England has produced. I quote as follows:
I hope and believe that, although it may be said that Ottawa is only a beginning, although it may be said that we have only laid the foundations, yet the empire builders of the future will be able to fashion on the foundations which we have laid a British commonwealth of nations, greater than any the world has yet seen. I believe that they will be able to use the principles which have guided us to achieve a prosperity and a happiness for all our peoples which has never been dreamed of in the history of the world up to now. It will take time. It may take longer than many of us will live to see, but I at least shall be satisfied if I can believe that prosperity when it looks back to Ottawa will be able to say of those who took part in these gatherings that whatever their shortcomings, whatever their
mistakes, whatever their lack of vision, or loss of opportunity, they built, they laid the foundations on sound lines, and that in what we did we budded better than we knew.
That is the verdict of a great Britisher, and I think it is the fairminded verdict of most of the Canadian people.


Mr. M. F. HEPBURN (West Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I always listen with amusement when the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) floats along on the floodtide of his own verbosity, invective and sarcasm. He has a propensity for cussing everybody and everything. I recall his national broadcast during the campaign of 1930. He spoke in my home town of St. Thomas and I think the fact that my majority was increased by 800 per cent was due in a large measure to the wonderful assistance he rendered me upon that occasion.


Robert James Manion: It did not help the rest of the party quite so much.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Along with other sarcastic remarks he accused my hon. leader of misrepresentation. I think he can speak feelingly upon that subject because if any government held office by misrepresentation and deception it is the government of which he is a member. His capacity for invective always reminds me of Huckleberry Finn's father. It was reported that on every occasion possible he used to cuss everybody in his own household. He would then go on to cuss the town council, then the state representatives, the state governor, and would finally get into the larger field and cuss the members of the federal house, the members of the Senate, and, last but not least, the president himself. Then, in case he had overlooked anyone, he would start with the president and come right back to his own household. The Minister of Railways and Canals has shown his usual zeal tonight. He spoke of that great former leader of the Liberal party, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He should speak reverently of that great gentleman because he was a follower of his in 1911, but later on, when offered a portfolio in a Tory government, he turned his nose in that direction, and one would think that he was thinking of the tinkling of a minister's salary. That might be called economic determinism. He showed tonight that he had a distorted view of matters pertaining to world trade.
Personally, I intend to vote against this measure and I will state my reasons why. Economists of the world are begging statesmen to remove trade restrictions which they claim stand in the way of the restoration of
342	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
world prosperity. I believe they are right. That is the general consensus of opinion held by statesmen and economists-not by politicians. In the light of that fact, we are in this parliament asked to do what? to make this empire of ours enter into an economic entity which will set the world up against us, and provoke another trade war between the British Empire and the rest of the world and possibly bring about a worse condition than we have at the present time. Do not let hon. gentlemen opposite be disillusioned for a moment into believing that they have pulled the wool over the eyes of the Canadian people again. The people have, it is true, been propagandized; they have been hypnotized, but they are not subscribing to the policies as they are being enunciated by our hon. friends opposite. As a matter of fact, when I am speaking about getting one's eyes opened, the thought just strikes me that the Prime Minister has a great capacity for opening people's eyes. He opened the eyes of the Canadian people with his many promises in 1930. He opened the eyes of the British statesmen at the Imperial conference in 1930. He opened the eyes of his followers by his own autocracy. Indeed, he might be known from now on as the "Calgary Eye Opener."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: That is the usual contribution some hon. members opposite make during the whole session, and then they go home and tell their constituents how hard they have been working. When their leader goes into their constituencies to appeal for support in the course of an election, he has to tell their constituents what great men they were on committees.
We have to approach this matter by studying the simple economic problem. Let us examine the position in which Great Britain is at the moment. Is it possible for a country like Britain to increase the price of her raw material without subsequently increasing the price of her finished product? Britain has achieved her position in world trade how? Because she has kept down the cost of production. Bearing that in mind, dio hon. gentlemen think British statesmen would be foolish enough to come over to Canada in order to bind the British manufacturer by a deal whereby he would have to increase his cost of production? That would mean a loss of the world market.
Many farmers throughout the country were deluded into believing that they might secure a higher price for their wheat as a result of the conference. I do not know how much

wheat Britain requires for re-export in the way of flour, but if she ever intends to mill wheat into flour and export it, she cannot pay more than the world price for wheat because if she does, she will have to charge more for flour, and Germany and other flour exporting countries will undersell her.
As regards copper, do hon. members think it is possible for the British manufacturer of metals to pay more for his raw material than Germany does? He cannot, because if he does, he will have to do it at the expense of his export market. As regards lumber, the British manufacturer of furniture cannot pay more for Canadian lumber than for lumber from other parts of the world. The British manufacturer must buy the cheapest lumber or let his export trade go to foreign manufacturers of furniture. That is simple economics. The British shipbuilder must buy the cheaper Russian lumber or else he will not be able to build ships in competition with German shipbuilders. If he cannot build ships in competition with German shipbuilders, he will have to lay off his men and that will aggravate the condition of unemployment in Great Britain.
I want to ask the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman), the head of the Dunlop Rubber Company, a question.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: No.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: 
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: He will
put his foot in it if he does.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Yes, he will put his
foot in it.
That is why we are facing such grave agricultural problems in Canada, May I refer to some other commodities, dealing first with barbed wire. Of that commodity we import only eight per cent from England, the bulk being imported from other countries. In that connection hon. gentlemen opposite had a

United Kingdom
chance to mislead the people when they showed that in the revision of the tariff schedules barbed wire from England was to be placed on the free list. England is not classified as a great producer of barbed wire, but other countries do export to us large quantities. Now, however, the Canadian fanner will have to pay a ten per cent toll to the special privileged interests manufacturing barbed wire.
On my farm in Elgin county 1 have about twelve miles of fence, the replacement cost of which would be over $2,000. Naturally with the present reduced income from agricultural products one patches up his fences, and we patch with barbed wire. I think during the past two years I have bought enough to hold back the whole German army; other farmers have done the same thing. Now, however, we will have to tell the farmers they must pay ten per cent more for their wire because a Tory government has so changed the tariff on barbed wire that the price must go up. This may be a joke to hon. members opposite, but I know farmers whose fences are broken down and who cannot replace them but would be content to patch them up with barbed wire, who will not treat it as a joke.
Then, there is an increase in the tariff on electrical equipment. We know something about the huge profits the General Electric Company has made in the past. The Prime Minister should know, because at one time he was a director of that company. He knows further, that it does not need and does not deserve any increase in tariff protection. Then there is another point to be considered. Consumption of hydro power in the province of Ontario is falling off tremendously. Why? Because there are fewer rural extensions. People in rural sections cannot afford to install hydro facilities, and the new regulations will make it more difficult for them. In the province of Ontario we are producing in our own plants more than we can consume. We have contracted for a million horse-power, and when the St. Lawrence development is completed and at our disposal there will be another million and a half horse-power available. In the province of Ontario we will have three and a half million horse-power of electrical energy with a market for only one million. On top of that this government is giving the General Electric Company an opportunity to exploit the consumers just a little more. If there is one thing more than another in a rural community which helps to improve the life of the farmer it is electrical energy. The farmer is able to grind his grain and turn his
separator and light his bam by the use of' electricity. The housewife is able to lighten her duties by using the electric washer, the electric stove, and the electric refrigerator. The people in the country will not take kindly to this change when they become thoroughly familiar with it.
I could go on and enumerate many more cases where the cost of production in the rural sections has been increased as a result of this pact that we are asked to endorse. But we have gone beyond that. We have again aggravated the condition of over-production in Canada and throughout the world. What is the matter today? Why are we completely out of gear in regard to supply and demand? Because policies similar to -that of this government have been put into effect in practically every country of the world. What did president Hoover, the great exponent of toryism and high protection in his country-


An hon. MEMBER:: What is he going to get?


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Yes, he will get it, and so will the hon. members opposite. He went up and down the country telling the fanners the same kind of story that the leader of the government told our own farmers in 1930:
" I will find ways of increasing production and still maintaining high price levels." He put up the tariff, stimulated production, but there was not a corresponding increase in consumptive demand. The thing was economically unsound, and farm prices in the United States could not be maintained even with the great power of financial backing of the United States government. Five hundred million dollars were spent in a vain and futile attempt to do something economically unsound. The farmer saw the prices of his product go to record low levels, and now he has to stand taxation to pay for this noble experiment, in other words, to pay for his own folly. Take any of the great major commodities of trade. Take sugar; there again there was false stimulation of production by tariff policy, without corresponding increase of consumption demand, and you have the greatest overproduction of sugar ever known. And what was done in this house. A motion was passed to subsidize' the production of beet sugar in markets already glutted. Another example off the same false economics. Take the case of rulbber. Rubber is down, I believe, to half a cent a pound, the lowest price ever known. Why? Because the British government tried to do something economically unsound-tried to tax the rest of the world1 to pay the British war debt; they imposed an excise tax and
;	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements_
temporarily increased the price. But this is a big world, we are going to find that out, too, before we are through with our silly tariff policy-


Mr. COTNAM:: I will stake my political
future against that of my hon. friend


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Let me tell my hon.
friend that he hasn't any political future. I saw his colleague from South Renfrew howled down at a non-political gathering m his own riding before a group of farmers-


Ira Delbert Cotnam: The hon. gentleman never was voted down in his own riding on any occasion.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: I think the hon. member will have a rather rough passage if he tries to explain-


Ira Delbert Cotnam: The hon. member voted
in this house to cancel the New Zealand agreement which six weeks previously he had supported in this house.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: My hon. friend knows
very little about the New Zealand trade treaty.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: You know less.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: It was not the abrogation of the treaty that interfered with the butter trade; it was the eight cent duty put into effect by himself and his leader.
Now let us see what is going to happen with regard to wheat. Why have we the lowest price ever known in the history of world trading? Because an attempt was made to do something economically unsound, to disregard the law of supply and demand. President Hoover in his zeal to fulfil some of his promises bought huge quantities of wheat and took them off the market. That stimulated the price of wheat, it is true, but they could not maintain the price, because when President Hoover had to sell that wheat he dumped it on the market and the consequence was to crash wheat prices to the lowest level ever known. But the high price stimulated other countries to increase their acreage and become competitors of ours. Every time we try to do something that is not economically sound, every time we try to disregard the law of supply and demand, we only create a worse condition than obtained before.
Now about the hog question-


An hon. MEMBER:: Now you are at
home!


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: 
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker,
after listening to the eloquent speeches this afternoon by the former Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) and the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), and to the able speech of the hon. member who has just taken his seat, (Mr. Hepburn) a speech characterized not only by sound common sense but also by that humour which is so conspicuously absent on the other side of the house, it is with some diffidence that I undertake to carry on this discussion. Still I feel, Mr. Speaker, that I would not be true to myself, to the people I represent or to the great mass of people in Manitoba who I believe hold views similar to those which have found expression from this side of the house if I did not say a word on behalf of my constituents and present to the house the views which I believe are held by a large majority of the people of the prairie provinces. I should like to compliment the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins) on breaking away from party control. We know now that there is at least one member on the other side of the house who is not going to submit to that limitation upon their freedom of speech to which most hon. members opposite evidently have calmly submitted.
In discussing this agreement, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to say that there are not some parts of it that are good. Probably it would be impossible for a number of men to meet together and decide upon an agreement of this kind which would not contain some things that might be commended, but I do say that in the main those things that are good might very well have been obtained by other means, without calling this conference at all. So far as duties have -been reduced and so far as this agreement leads to the reduction of the tariff on those things which we use in our daily life, of necessity we on this side must give our approval. But those who represented Canada at this conference did not have the point of view which has been held for many years by hon. members on this side. They approached the conference with the attitude that any reductions made on imports from Great Britain were made as a favour to the British people, while from -our point of view we consider that any reductions that might be made-reductions that we have been advocating in past years-should be -made not only for the benefit of the British people but for our own benefit as well. Therefore we do not consider it any great achievement on the part of the government that in a few cases duties may have been reduced.
So far as preferences have been given to the British people by the reduction of tariff generally we are in hearty accord. So far as preferences have been given by the increase of tariffs, that is a matter to which we will give very serious consideration when we take up the schedules. Speaking generally we are opposed to that method of giving preferences.
348	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
I had the satisfaction and pleasure of listening in to the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) in opening the conference, and to the succeeding speech by Right Hon. Stanley Baldwin. When he made the announcement that he came to Canada seeking preferences not by way of increased tariffs but by way of reduced tariffs I felt myself in hearty accord with the principle he enunciated, and so far as that principle has been embodied in this agreement I find myself in accord with it. But so far as that principle has been abandoned-and in a large number of instances it has been abandoned-then to that extent I find myself entirely opposed to the agreement.
It has been said that this agreement means the diversion of trade. I find no objection to the principle of diverting trade from those countries that have not been willing to trade with us to those countries that are willing to give us a fair deal. To some extent at least that principle was embodied in the Dunning budget, and we supported it during the election of 1930. But it is always possible to pay too much for a seeming advantage, and in my judgment that has been done in many cases in this agreement.
Speaking on the address in reply to the speech from the throne I indicated that there were two standards by which the success of this agreement could be judged. The first was: Did it give any promise of increasing inter-imperial trade, and of promoting harmony among the different parts of the empire? The second was: Did it give any promise of increasing trade generally throughout the world, and of promoting harmony among the nations of the world? Let us consider it from the first point of view, that of promoting better relations among the different parts of the empire. So far as it has a tendency to promote inter-imperial trade it will be all to the good, but just what will be the result in that direction can be judged only in the future. It is impossible to tell to what extent we may succeed in that direction. Then we come to the question of whether it has tended to promote better relations among the different parts of the empire, and I think even at this time it is quite evident that the effect has been rather in the other direction. We have had the resignation of several ministers from the British cabinet; we have had the resignation of a cabinet minister in Australia as well. It is true that one resigned because protection was too high and the other because protection was too low, but that does not matter. The significance of it is this, that these ministers have resigned by way of protest against the agreements that have been arrived at by

their representatives. Now it is all very well to say that there has been no compulsion. True, there has been no physical compulsion; no definite attempt has been made by any physical means to impose certain conditions upon the British people. But surely there is such a thing as moral compulsion, and when the Prime Minister went to England, as he-did in 1930, and insisted that the British people must change their fiscal policy, under the threat or promise or statement only, if you like, that if this were not done then there was a possibility of the breaking-up of the empire-perhaps he did not make the statement as categorically as that, but the fact is that such statements were made both in Canada and in England-that, I say, was a moral compulsion which must, of necessity,, have had its effect upon the people of Great Britain. Is that likely to produce a condition of harmony among the component parts of the-empire? I have always felt, and have expressed the thought again and again, that there was very grave danger in trying to build up a united empire by means of protective tariffs.
What about international trade? Is there anything in this agreement which is calculated to break down tariff barriers in the world generally? Absolutely nothing, I know that the Prime Minister asserted, in the course of his remarks, that there was a possibility of its having that effect, but as we look over the agreement, as we analyse the different articles in that agreement, and as we view them in tl e light of the statements that are made by the Prime Minister and his supporters, we cannot but come to the conclusion that these different agreements have done absolutely nothing to break down international barriers and to remove those restrictions on trade which are the fundamental cause of the world's ills today.
Speaking of statements Ithat have been made by the Prime Minister and his supporters, I listened with a good deal of amazement to the leader of the opposition when he quoted from the speech made by the Prime Minister at Calgary:
One thing was certain, however, that nations outside of the empire would be asked to pay some tribute for the privilege of trading within the empire.
I had rather hoped that, for the honour of Canada, for the sake of that peace and good will which I should like to see prevail among men, the Prime Minister would have denied making that statement. The fact that he has not denied it, the fact that.

United Kingdom
no denial has been made of it so far, must force me to the conclusion that the right hon. gentleman was correctly reported when he made the statement:
One thing was certain, however, that nations *outside of the empire would be asked to pay some tribute for the privilege of trading within the empire.
Is such a statement as that calculated to promote a good feeling among the nations of the world? I shall not attempt the flight of eloquence attained by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) when he discussed that statement, but I am going to deal with it in a plain blunt manner, in such a manner as the Prime Minister sometimes deals with facts. I have no hesitation in saying that a statement of that kind is fraught with danger to the peace of the world. Before the election of 1930 we questioned as to who was to represent Canada at the Imperial conference. We had some misgivings as to how Canada would be represented at the conference in London. Subsequently we were not satisfied with the sort of representation we obtained in 1930. We hoped that the Prime Minister would learn from the experience of the past to modify somewhat the views that he had expressed. Are we not justified in having some misgivings now as to who shall represent us at the coming world economic conference, when the Prime Minister will give utterance to a statement such as I have quoted? I have no hesitation in saying that if that represents the opinions and the attitude of the right hon. gentleman, then he is too dangerous a man to be longer entrusted with the destinies of the people of Canada and to take part in *discussions with other nations. In the time of Theodore Roosevelt an expression came into common use-shirtsleeve diplomacy. Shirtsleeve diplomacy Theodore Roosevelt knew nothing about in comparison with the Prime Minister of Canada.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce undertook to reproach the leader of the opposition for stirring up agitation in England. Well, we need not think that the Liberals of England were so benighted as to require the defects of a treaty of this kind to be pointed out to them by any person in Canada. They Wire quite competent to form their own opinions, and they did so. But why should it be considered an offence for any man in this country to seek to give some comfort to those in England who stand for the principles which we ourselves hold? It may not be considered wise on all occasions
to intervene in the political discussions that are going on in the old country, but it certainly does not lie with hon. gentlemen opposite to condemn anyone on this side of the house for expressing views that are held by a large number of people in the old country. What are those principles? Summed up, they are simply this principle, that each dominion should be permitted, without interference from any other dominion, to decide its own fiscal policy. I say, it should not be considered offensive for any Liberal in Canada to give expression to the same principles as are being advocated by Liberals in the old country. Away back in the years when Joseph Chamberlain's policies were under discussion, the United Farmers of Manitoba, then known as the Grain Growers' Association, passed a resolution in which they repudiated the idea that the farmers of Canada were seeking preferences in the old country market. They declared in that resolution that they were not seeking any advantage at the expense of the British consumer. They declared further that the loyalty of Canada to the British Empire did not depend in any degree upon the giving of such preferences, and to these principles they hold today. There has been no demand by the producers of agricultural products in western Canada that they should have these preferences in the British market, and there has been no indication that the loyalty of Canada was in any degree endangered by the failure to give such preferences.
The principles which have been advocated both in England and in Canada and which have found expression on this side of the house are the only principles upon which unity can be ultimately based. We might very well ask: When did Tory principles ever contribute to the promotion of unity? It has always been the reverse. The natural effect of their doctrines and policies has been in the direction of disrupting empires and creating discord. That has been the case all through history. Such principles brought about the civil war in the time of Cromwell, they brought about the revolution of 1688, and they caused the loss of the American colonies. They occasioned the trouble in 1837 when both the grandfather of the leader of the opposition and my grandfather were somewhat implicated. They brought about the rebellion in the northwest; all through history these have been the inevitable results of Tory policies. Had Tory policies prevailed there would have been no self-government granted to South Africa and the whole course of history would

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
have been altered had General Botha and General Smuts taken an opposite position, as undoubtedly they would have done had selfgovernment not been granted. The British Empire owes more than perhaps will ever be known to that magnificent act of faith in Liberal principles displayed by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. I do not contend that the empire has ever been in real danger. As I said the other day, I think a good deal of nonsense has been uttered on this point. I do not think that the empire was in danger of disruption either before or after the conference. In spite of the fact that the policies of hon. gentlemen opposite have a tendency in that direction, I do not think that any real difficulty will arise.
I have faith in the people of the empire and believe that they are held together by greater things than any of these lesser considerations. I am in full sympathy with the former Minister of Justice when he expresses resentment against Mr. Neville Chamberlain for coming to Canada and saying that he had found a weakening in the bonds of the empire. Our hon. friends talk about saving the empire. I am reminded of a story which I used to like to tell during the reciprocity campaign in 1911 when my hon. friends were boasting that they had saved Canada. A mother took her two little sons to the bathroom and left them there to enjoy themselves while she went downstairs. Shortly afterwards she heard the oldest boy crying: "Mother, mother!" and upon going upstairs she found the older boy holding the little fellow in the bath tub. He said: "Mother, I have saved him; the stopper came out and we were both going down." There is just about as much danger of the empire being disrupted because of anything that has happened in the past as there was that the two boys would go down the drain.
I should like to make a few references to the speeoh of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He criticized the emphasis of the leader of the opposition when he said that we should have world markets. He said: "Yes, of course, we should have world markets," and then went on to say that nothing had been done in regard to the matter and pointed out that which everybody knew to be true, that other nations had been raising higher and higher tariffs against the products of all countries, including Canada. We have always insisted that it was a mad, insane policy on the part of these nations to enforce these increasing restrictions upon trade. One of our main complaints against hon. gentlemen opfMr. Brnwn.l
posite is that they have put Canada into the same mad rush for higher and higher tariffs which tend to throttle trade. The very fact that trade increased by leaps and bounds under the policy of low tariffs is in itself a sufficient answer to the objection raised by the minister.
I shall now refer to another matter dealt with by the minister, the provisions of article 9 of the treaty. The minister is a (past master at evading the real point of issue during a discussion. He undertook to discuss the question of preserving a margin of preference. I did not understand that the leader of the opposition objected to the principle of preserving a margin of preference; what I understood him to object to was the practical situation in which this placed the people of Canada. That practical position is this: In many cases the adoption of this principle makes it impossible for us to lower the general tariff.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: The article says that they must maintain the preference.


John Livingstone Brown: The agreement says that the margin of preference must be maintained. The Minister of Trade and Commerce sought to explain the situation, or to get away from it, whichever you like, by referring to a clause in the French treaty which required that the margin between the intermediate and general tariffs should be preserved. That can be done only when you have actual rates with which to deal. Suppose we have a free British tariff, a thirty per cent intermediate and a forty per cent general tariff; the margin between the intermediate and general tariffs can be maintained by reducing each ten per cent, or according to the basis on which the margin is fixed. It may be that a ratio has to be preserved, but it dioes not matter; the argument holds good under any circumstances. However, you cannot preserve a margin between nothing and twenty-five per cent if at the same time you reduce the general tariff. The thing is mathematically impossible. One is almost ashamed to present an argument so simple, but evidently it would seem to be necessary because hon. gentlemen opposite loudly applauded the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he presented his statement of the case.
I wish to refer again in that connection to two items that have already been referred to a number of times, namely cream separators and barbed wire. They are two of the most outstanding necessities on the western farm today. How will the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) go through his constituency and justify a protection of twenty-five per cent on

United Kingdom
cream separators? How will the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins) like to go through his constituency with a cream can as he did last year and say: Here, this old method of cream can or milk can will have to be used now instead of cream separators, which cannot be bought because this government has placed a duty of twenty-five per cent on cream separators. Surely they will never undertake to justify before their constituents an action of that kind.
In regard to preserving the margin of preference, a matter which has already been referred to, one of the things which concerned me during the progress of the negotiations was whether we in Canada would be in any measure bound not to reduce our tariff, and the first thing I looked for when the agreement came into my hands was to see whether any limitation had been put upon our freedom in that direction. Let us refer again to the matter of wheat. It has already been dealt with, but of necssity it will be referred to again and again and we may be able to present the argument from different points of view. I shall not undertake to interpret article 4, which states:
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.
I do not know what that means; but there is one thing that is abundantly clear to me, and that is that it certainly does not increase the effectiveness of the preference; on the contrary it imposes a limitation of some kind upon its effectiveness. Without this clause, and thinking only of the preference as usually understood, there were grave doubts in the minds of those who were concerned in the matter whether a preference on "wheat could be given that would be of any use to the producers of wheat. We know it to be a fact that the general grain trade made representations of the Prime Minister against such a proposal. We know that the United Grain Growers, a large farmers' institution, also made a representation on their own behalf. We know that the pools also made a representation against the idea of a preference. Only one man prominent in the grain trade, so far as I have seen the statement publicly, approved the idea and that was Mr. J, R.
Murray of the Alberta Pacific Grain Company, former general manager of the United Grain Growers. Undoubtedly Mr. Murray is a man who is well qualified to discuss matters relating to trade in grain, but he is only one against the great majority. If there were doubts as to the effectiveness of a preference without any rider such as this, still greater are those doubts when this proviso is put into the agreement. Let us consider the situation. First let me say this that this article would seem to be based upon the assumption that there is some body of men somewhere in Canada competent to act for the Canadian people in this matter of placing our wheat upon the British market. Such a body simply does not exist. It would seem also to be based upon the assumption that it is possible by some agreement between Canada and other dominions to come to an arrangement as to the price at which wheat shall be placed upon the British market. Such an arrangement would seem to me to be absolutely out of the question.
But let us consider the situation that might arise. Suppose Britain takes the action that is provided for in article 21, and Russian wheat is excluded from Great Britain. What is the effect? It simply means that Russian wheat is placed on other markets, depressing the world market, and that world market is the price at which we undertake to sell wheat to Britain. It seems as plain as anything that has ever been brought before us that this preference, so-called, can be of no effect in giving an increased price to the producers of wheat, since it takes away with one hand what it gives with the other. Perhaps there never was a better illustration used than that of the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Hep-bum) when he said that it was like giving a whistle to a boy and telling him that he should not blow it. Even before this proviso was known to wheat producers, it was generally conceded that supposing we were able to sell an increased quantity of wheat in the British market, this would simply mean keener competition in other markets, and since we have to sell the great bulk of our wheat in other markets, the net results so far as the producers of wheat were concerned would be nil.
Articles 16 and 17 might perhaps be considered together. The hon. member for Wey-burn (Mr. Young) has dealt very effectively with those, but I should like to emphasize again a point to which he drew attention and
.	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
to which some of us drew attention in our discussion on the budget last year. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes), in presenting his budget then, made the statement that the revenue from customs tariff had been reduced and one of the causes that brought about that reduction, he said, was the putting into effect of the policies of this government in seeking to encourage Canadian production and trade and to discourage imports from other countries. He did not go into details, but he said in a general way that revenues were reduced because of the effectiveness of the policies of this government It ought to be as clear as daylight that if the government continues those policies revenues will be still further reduced. What then, is the use of putting into article 17 of this agreement the following words:
His Majesty's government in Canada undertake that all existing surcharges on imports from the United Kingdom shall be completely abolished as soon as the finances of Canada will allow.
That is another illustration of seeming to give something, yet giving absolutely nothing. As I have already pointed out, if the points enunciated in articles 16 and 17 are beneficial, they were possible without the operation of this agreement.
At this point I wish to protest against the action of this government in dealing with certain imports. The other day I had occasion to draw attention to the government's action in dealing with repairs to agricultural implements. Undertakings given to the house by the Minister of Finance were set aside by departmental officials, acting, undoubtedly, upon representations made to them by someone. An understanding given to this house by the Minister of Finance was set aside. We gained some satisfaction by knowing that two days after the matter was brought to the attention of the house the order was rescinded; the fact is however, it should never have been passed. That change from the original undertaking constituted one of the most vicious actions ever taken by any government. Contrast an action of that kind with the procedure follow'ed by the former government, under which such matters would have been brought before the tariff board and representations made in public so that the people could be properly informed. Contrast that mode of procedure with the ho!e-in-the-corner method adopted by the present government. The action was vicious, and there is not a single hon. member on the opposite side of the house who would undertake to defend it. It is satisfactory

to know, however, that so far as British importations are concerned the surcharges mentioned in article 17 will' be abandoned as soon as possible. But if the practice is vicious the relief should apply not only to British trade but also to trade with other countries.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I was in hopes that some of our Tory friends would get their tongues limbered up and let us see once more if they are able to talk. Hon. members will recall that when the address in reply was under discussion the government adopted a policy of strict silence. I thought they resembled an aggregation of political mummies attempting to qualify for the national museum situated at the end of Metcalfe street. I believe they would have been better qualified to take their places as mummies than as parliamentarians sent here to do the business of the country. It would seem that now they have departed from the mummy stage to the semi-talkative. This evening we have heard from one member of the government, and this afternoon one lone private member lifted his voice to speak on behalf of this wonderful agreement now before them.
All through the speech delivered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) the other day- and it was a good one of its kind, but in fact a mighty bad kind-hon. members will note he gave no credit to others for the preferences which had been in force for thirty-five years. According to the right hon. gentleman opposite, the first forward movement towards the promotion of empire trade by preferences was contained in these agreements. I wonder what we would have called that when we were boys at school; we would not have called it taradiddle, but would have given it a much shorter name. I wish to take exception, as did my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) to the views held by the Prime Minister. He made an outrageous misstatement of the facts as I see them, and there was more fiction than truth in his recital of the history of preferences. Preferences were born in the time of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. Fielding. It is true the Tories professed a desire for a preference, holding out the pretext that they wanted a reciprocal preference which could not be obtained owing to the free trade policy of Great Britain at that time: They pretended to want a preferential tariff, but in reality wanted to oppose

United Kingdom
the preference which we introduced because it meant lower tariff. May I observe that they never missed an opportunity to oppose it? Coldbloodedly and in broad daylight they are now claiming to be the authors and promoters of this great preferential policy. Down through the years, until Great Britain decided to change her fiscal policy, there was a preference on only one side. In the interests of Canada, however, we gave a preference to promote trade with the motherland. About nine or ten years ago our preferential system began to bear double fruit and Great Britain began to realize that reciprocal trade arrangements were of advantage to her. Tariffs were being imposed, one after another, by other countries; she found she could improve her economic strength by reciprocal trade with the dominions, and as a result, about nine years ago, began to adopt reciprocal tariffs with them.
I ask hon. members to read the document now before us in the form of this agreement. I do not wish to be disrespectful, but it is couched in language which would lead people to believe that the reciprocal preferences with Great Britain in the last nine years were promoted and secured at the conference held in Ottawa last summer. One has to read it carefully to learn otherwise.
The tobacco preference, if I remember correctly, was given nine years ago. A number of fruit preferences were given about the same time, and throughout the years following, under the Safeguarding of Industries Act in Great Britain, additions have been made to those preferences. So that the reciprocal nature of the preferences was increasing year after year, and not by fierce dog-fight agreements such as some one has described the recent conference to be. Preferences in the past were voluntary arrangements for the benefit of all parties concerned. By claiming all the credit hon. gentlemen opposite have demonstrated they are the champion political plagiarists of the day. They are attempting to swipe in broad daylight credit which everybody knows belongs to their opponents. I wonder if I can get any hon. members to their feet?


George Spotton: Yes, I think so.


William Richard Motherwell: I wish to thank the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Chamberlain, for at least, as far as I can estimate, about eighty per cent of the preferences embodied in these agreements. Those preferences were brought into force in March or April, and they have been in force ever since. The fruit preference was there; the lumber
preference was there; the butter preference was there, although not to as great an extent; the cheese preference was there, but if we had not known otherwise we	might	have	believed all these changes had come about because of the recent conference. So far as the prairies are concerned, we can see no material benefits derived from them. There was a ten per cent preference on butter. How many knew it was there? The price of butter this summer would indicate there had been no improvement;	butter	prices	were	the
worst they have been in a long time. Yet we are told that wonderful things will happen, although hon. members opposite know no improvement has been made despite the fact that the preferences I have mentioned have been in force for the past five or six months.
As a matter of	fact there are	only	fourmajor items that	I have	noted	in which
changes are made as a result of agreements concluded in Ottawa. The four commodities concerned are wheat, copper, lead and zinc. And the provisions covering them contain the fatal rider that they must be sold in sufficient quantities to meet the demand in the homeland and at world prices. Here we have the extraordinary kind of preference that does not prefer. There is something new about this, a preference that neither prefers by giving you any better price, nor does it prevent the price going lower, as we have seen by our butter this year. The hon. Minister of Railways read a part of the speech of the Right Hon. Neville Chamberlain this evening, but he stopped before he got to this-just to show you how delightfully provocative these bargains are and how they tempt some men to talk nonsense:
The chancellor repeated the statement he made at the Conservative party meeting recently at Blackpool. "The ties of the empire have been wearing dangerously thin."
I wonder where he got that nonsense. The same place that Mr. Thomas found the humbug! Then he goes on as if he thought he should modify it, thought it was a little too broad apparently. He illustrated that statement by citing the troubles in India. A lot of the poor Indians cannot read English so it is safer to pass the buck to them.
Canada has become to a great extent dependent upon United States finance-
That sounds like our hon. friends on the other side.
-and in the absence of any preferential arrangement with the United Kingdom she might have found it extremely difficult to refuse a new offer of reciprocity from her great neighbour to the south, which would

354	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
definitely link their fortunes together to such an extent as would cause a divergence between Canada and Great Britain, declared Mr. Chamberlain.
Where did he get that? Just the same sort of humbug.


Ernest Lapointe: Crazy, absolutely!


William Richard Motherwell: Nothing else. Is anybody going to challenge my statement as to where he got it? I am waiting for a challenge, I read it three times in this house last session, and I am ready to read it again, the authority for my statement that Mr. Chamberlain got this foolish impression because of the claptrap that the Prime Minister of Canada talked when overseas in 1930, particularly at Belfast. Nobody challenges me? Then I am not going to read it.


Mr. SMITH (Victoria):: May I ask the hon. gentleman: Does he oppose the preference being given on Canadian butter and cheese?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If the hon. member who has the floor will permit, the question may be asked, otherwise not.


William Richard Motherwell: I have not my
hearing apparatus on, so that I cannot hear what the hon. member says, but I do not think it makes much difference-it is a safe guess he is not saying anything worth while. If you will excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I cannot have my time taken up with these interruptions.
Now I am going to turn to some items-I am sorry I have almost the same items that former speakers have dealt with, but I will try to rotate them a little differently, and perhaps may have some different remarks to make on them. I will first read part of the Prime Minister's Belfast speech-which Mr. Chamberlain has apparently been also reading-because it works in with what I am going to say later. Here is what was said at Belfast after our Prime Minister was honoured, as he was worthy of being so honoured, with a degree at the University of Belfast:
While sentiment, he asserted, must always blaze a pathway, the ties that bound people to one another at the present day must be ties of material strands of economic strength.
Then he said that he was satisfied,-
-if we do not avail ourselves of the matchless opportunity that we have by reason of our far-flung empire, of our quarter of the world's people and its area, our fate will be the fate of the empires of the past.
On top of that was the parting shot that if he could not get what he wanted from Great Britain Canada would seek her economic strength elsewhere.

The ties that are to bind us now apparently are to be sales in hogs, tobacco, whisky and other merchandise. That is the tie that binds! Here we have the imagination of the Prime Minister running to all kinds of heights; he is afraid that the ordinary supply of bacon will not tie us tightly enough-in other words, won't hog-tie us-so he runs them to half a billion, as sqmething that we shall not attain to for many a day. Here is what he says:
Article 6. His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom declare that it is their intention to arrange as soon as possible after receiving the report of the commission now sitting on the reorganization of the pig industry in the United Kingdom for the quantitative regulation of the supplies of bacon and hams coming on to the United Kingdom market and undertake that in any legislation which they may submit to parliament for regulating the supplies of bacon and hams from all sources into the United Kingdom, provision will be made for free entry of Canadian bacon and hams of good quality up to a maximum of
2.500.000	cwt. per annum.
There never was a restriction before. We came within 10,000,000 of exporting this figure in 1919, and instead of widening our market this actually restricts it to a given amount, which we almost attained in one former year during the war. So there is a narrowing of the market, not a widening.
But not satisfied with getting a quota, or thinking they were getting a quota, here is a commission inquiring into the pig industry in Great Britain. Some time it is going to report, nobody knows what; yet we are told that we are getting something wonderful, although we do not know yet what it is. Whatever applies to the home pig grower is going to apply to the dominion pig grower, and it is going to restrict what we had no limit on before. We are going to get them into the British market free just as we have been doing, and will do, I hope.
Then the right hon. Prime Minister starts off with this warble:
Under favourable marketing conditions and with a price maintained continuously above the cost of production-
That is the condition that is to prevail before this comes about, and if it does not come about they can fall back upon this:
-Canada has potential possibilities for the production of 8,500,000 hogs by 1937,-
They haven't got 5,000,000 now. My hon. friends will be safe on the shelf before the five years is up, and this production of
8.500.000	hogs comes round!
-permitting of an export volume of 300,000,000 pounds of bacon and 10,000,000 hogs by 1942, permitting of an export volume of 500,000,000 pounds of bacon and hams.

United Kingdom
What ia the use of the Premier exerting his imagination as to how many hogs Canada will have in ten years, when the quota is only
2,500,000	hundredweight? You cannot ship Britain any more; where are you going to send the rest? But the Prime Minister was wanting to tell a nice fairy story, a product of his imagination, and he goes beyond the quota by
250,000,000 pounds. What are they going to do with the balance? And what will other countries be doing at the same time? We are not the only hog-producing country in the world; Poland and the Baltic states and Sweden are coming along rapidly. If economic conditions warrant our converting grain into bacon they will also warrant other countries doing it, and before we come to 500,000,000 pounds of bacon, the potential possibilities of this wonderful bargain, the whole world will be smothered in hogs and you will not be able to get even the 2\ to 3 cents a pound that the farmers are getting in the west at the present time. Great possibilities! The very thing we should not do. Have we not enough glut already in the wheat market without following it with this kind of thing in connection with hogs? Moreover there is nothing in it, there is no preference promised, nothing assured that we have not got now. I do not wish to be harsh in my criticism of the Minister of Agriculture; he has a fearful job in times like these. A lot of ignoramuses as far as agriculture is concerned sit around the council table with him, and the greatest expert in the world could not meet such a situation as that in which my hon. friend the minister finds himself. The rest of the cabinet know about as much about agriculture as a sucking turkey knows. I say my good friend the minister started out nobly, quite believing whatever it is he does believe, though it does not say just what that is. I think he must have had quite a tip from the commission as to what their report would be, though with this tremendous agitation overseas that has taken place recently they may renege on it. In any ease, with all kinds of faith in his relatively youthful mind he has gone ahead with a hog and bacon campaign bigger than we have had in years. He had very good men out in Saskatchewan doing that work; I do not know why they did not go into Alberta. But they started out in the face of hogs selling at about 2} cents a pound, trying to start a campaign to bring about greater production, based on something by way of restriction that may never materialize. It is stated by the Prime Minister that in ten years we will have a potential market for 500,000 hogs, but those same
potentialities extend to other countries. We would need to eat little but bacon and ham if we were to consume the products of a campaign such as this.
Then the Prime Minister says, "I wonder if the farmers of this country have a proper appreciation of just what is the value of this proposal". I know they have a proper appreciation. It is the greatest piece of nonsense that was ever promulgated, the greatest flim-flam ever attempted to be put over on a suffering people. There is no more comfort in it than there is in a block of ice in midwinter.
Then the Prime Minister says that the benefits under this article will become manifest-when? This is the safety first provision ; they are to become manifest "when confidence is established among farmers, through government policy to secure the necessary increase in production from year to year to make possible the objective in volume of product for export to the United Kingdom market". That is exactly what is lacking-confidence. The people do not forget the Prime Minister's election campaign over the radio, and in that connection I want to take off my hat to him. I never heard a radio campaigner more powerful than the Prime Minister. He could make black appear white and white no colour at all. I am afraid things have come to such a pass out on the prairies-I speak of the prairies because I know more about them-thait if by accident the Prime Minister should stumble on a really good agricultural policy the people would not accept it through lack of confidence in him. That is the position. They think of the many times they have already been stung since this government came into power.
Back in 1930, when conditions were really favourable, the Minister of Agriculture started out bravely to carry on a similar hog production campaign. I know everything looked quite favourable at that time. I took part in one during the war, and it got so that many farmers did not want to see government officials at all if they were going to talk about hogs. At all events, in 1930 hogs were worth about 10 or 11 cents a pound, and in Saskatchewan there was plenty of barley, rye, oats and other feeds, so what better policy could you enunciate than that of converting unsalable grain into salable bacon and ham? An older hand well may have been deceived into undertaking a campaign of that kind, though in all fairness I must say that the minister warned the farmers that they must be prepared to accept perhaps five cents per pound at the initial point of shipment. But they
;	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
did not get five cents; they got only slightly more than half that. So you see they the farmers-are not in a very good humour after having been stung by a similar campaign two years ago; they are not likely to bite again at the instance of the Prime Minister, who they think does not know a hog from a groundhog.	.
Let us pass on to the next point; for lack of time we cannot say any more now about hogs. I did not think there was an aggregation of men in the world, either inside or outside a mental hospital, who would promulgate such a nonsensical proposition as this hog proposal as set out in the agreement. Even if the scheme were successful it would smash the market even worse than it has been smashed. There are not enough meat eating people in the world to eat that quantity of ham and bacon if other countries joined in the production campaign, unless we all took to that diet and ate little else.
Now let us turn to wheat, the greatest fake of all in connection with this agreement. There is no question that this government and its supporters intended that the people should believe that they were to get six cents more for their wheat in English money, or five cents more in our money. There was nothing to the contrary announced that I saw during the conference; when any member of the government referred to the subject he was very careful to say nothing about the fatal rider that was attached to it. They knew where to stop when drawing the long bow; they knew too many members of this house would understand the meaning of that rider, but that mistaken idea has gone all through the west. I know that a lot of Tory workers out in Saskatchewan are working hard to leave the impression that here is another five or six cents a bushel given the farmers by the Bennett government, and you know it takes two men and a little boy to catch up with a well started lie. Sometimes you never catch up with it. People want to believe that statement, especially those who have been supporting this government and who have been looking for some excuse to continue doing so. The people want to believe it, but they will be disillusioned when they read the statement of the Prime Minister. It will not be widely advertised; there will be no headlines in the Tory press in connection with it. The people will have to find it out for themselves.
If I understood the Minister of Trade and Commerce aright he said that while this provision will not increase the price-and I am sure they make that admission reluctantly -it will increase the amount that will be sold. Why should that be so, if the price is the

same? Is it going to make our wheat better? Is there going to be a greater relative value attached to our wheat? Can anyone give any reason for the faith of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and his belief that more Canadian wheat will be sold in Britain because there will be a duty on foreign wheat? Do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that if it is greater quantity they want to sell they would have gotten a quota? Quota means share, and the government hope to have a larger share of our wheat go to Great Britain than formerly was the case, because it carries a non-operative preference. Apparently the government took the wrong course; they were offered a quota but they have obtained a preference that doesn't prefer. The word sounds a lot better than "quota". Hon, gentlemen opposite could tell their admiring friends in the country that it is almost one hundred years since we had such a preference. The word "preference ' always suggests the ability to prefer, and that means something better than is secured by the other fellow-something better by way of price. But we are told by the Prime Minister that this was not the intention, that he does not anticipate a better price but rather a larger volume to be sold. So, if the price is the same and the wheat is the same, what will induce the larger volume? If, before this debate concludes, any hon. member can advance reasons why our wheat should go to Britain in greater quantities when prices are the same, when the wheat is the same and when it is being imported by the same country, I should like to hear them.
I will not dwell 'longer on the question of wheat; this is so obviously a political trick. Whether or not it is correct I do not know, but according to press reports the experts from both sides of the Atlantic were against both quotas and preferences with the exception of one or two in Canada who were mentioned by the bon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown). Why should the Prime Minister disregard all his expert; advisers and act solely upon his ow'n judgment in this matter? Does he know more than all his experts put together? No doubt he knew more than they did from the political standpoint, but it will take a lot of explaining to show that there is not this 6 .cents hidden somewhere in this for the farmer, in spite of what the Prime Minister has candidly admitted. He admits that it is not there. What is it there for, Mr. Speaker? It will not mean any more to the farmers. I defy anyone to show how iit will make for larger exports to Great Britain when the demand will be the same, when it will be the same kind of wheat and when the price will apparently be the same. What would induce

United Kingdom
larger exports? Then if there is no more price, what is the advantage? Oh well, the government will be better able to spellbound the farmers; they will be able to sting them again with another bed-time story to lull them to sleep. What happens in this chamber, if it were only known to the electors, would make a lot of difference. But not much gets out to the men on the frontier, many of whom today cannot afford to get a newspaper. However, they will be told some fancy story over the radio and they will be led to believe,
" Here is the emancipator of the country come at last. It is true Mr. Bennett fell down in 1930 but he fell up this time."
We will pass from wheat now. It is a fine political dodge deliberately intended, I believe, to leave the impression that there was something there by way of better price that is not there, as is now admitted.
We come now to the cattle embargo. It is nearly ten years since it was largely removed. I notice that since the remnants have been taken off it has not started the shipment of cattle across the seas, and when the remnants were there it did not stop them going across either. There were some frills that should have been taken off but they were left on for a purpose. I suppose the fear was genuine that some of our animals might carry over contagious diseases; and with the persistent repetition of yarns overseas, it was only natural that some of them would stick. The quarantine of three days on this side has been removed, but it does not affect the west; as that time was taken during train travel. And then there was the regulation of marking the cattle on the jaw with the letter C, indicating that they came from Canada. That was a nuisance. Putting the cattle in a place suitable for branding takes time, and the discontinuance of that is all to the good. Then a veterinary accompanying each shipment is another matter which is being discontinued, but that will not put anything more in the farmer's pocket because he did not pay for it. With regard to the stuff going over, I do not know how much will go, but doubtless some will, and that will be all to the good. Anyhow, all these little vexatious provisoes that were left on for the purpose of trying out the new order of things, to see whether everything was all right and whether our cattle were as free from disease as we claimed they were, and as we have proven that they were, are to be removed. I would warn all hon. gentlemen on the other side, and particularly the Prime Minister, who takes as much pride as anyone else in the freedom of our animals
from disease-and I am sure the Minister of Agriculture is also greatly concerned in this regard-to bear in mind that if we lessen the quarantine on cattle from the old country coming here, then we run a greater risk of having foot and mouth disease in Canada, where we have never had it. I see by the correspondence of the Minister of Agriculture with the British Minister of Agriculture, Sir John Gilmour, with respect to this matter, that there is one proposal in regard to the London quarantine station which, during our administration at any rate, was never recognized as being in itself a safe quarantine. It was safe enough as far as it went, but we never regarded it as a safe enough place from which to take animals direct and send them to Canada. It is too long a story to go into, but we did not think it sufficiently safe at that time. It may be safer now; I do not know. At any rate, I would suggest that the government look carefully into that proposal and be sure that the American authorities recognize the same London quarantine station, because there is an agreement between Canada and the United States with regard to the importation of animals from abroad, from the point of view of disease, and it would be violating the arrangement with them if we took a step in which they were not prepared jointly to concur in the matter of animal importations and quarantine.
If I remember rightly, the second session I was down here I endeavoured to present my view with respect to the removal of the embargo, and I went out of my way to give credit to every man, Sir Robert Borden, the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers), Duncan Marshall, the Hon. Mr. Tolmie, and everyone else who had struck a blow in the direction of removing that embargo, from the time it was put on to the time it was largely removed in 1923. I took the view that they deserved their full share of credit. It is true it fell to our lot to strike the last blow, through the Hon. Peter Larkin. High Commissioner in London. The aggregate of all accomplished the end. It is one thing to take that fair position, however, and another thing for the Prime Minister to take the attitude that the first forward step towards the promotion of inter-empire trade was made in these agreements. Not at all; it was not the first step as already stated.
Just a word now about butter and cheese, quite familiar subjects; but before I come to that there is one point in connection with bacon which I overlooked. Perhaps you will recall the statement made by someone in 1930

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
that the Prime Minister did not bring home the baoon but that he spilled a lot of beans. He has not brought the bacon home yet but he has an imaginary potential market for Canada in ten years of 10,000,000 hogs and possibly 500,000,000 pounds of bacon and ham. Well, there are five provinces in the dominion that do not produce enough bacon and hams for themselves, and this stupendous potential market which he has predicted, will have to be supplied by Ontario and the three prairie provinces. British Columbia does not produce enough for itself, nor have the three maritime provinces for many years produced sufficient for their own requirements; and because of the enormous market in Montreal, Quebec has to rely upon Ontario and the western provinces for its supplementary supply. So that you can see the herculean task which the production of this prophesied half billion pounds of bacon in Canada in ten years will impose upon the prairie provinces and Ontario.
I come now to butter and cheese. We have heard much in regard to these products. The government have not expatiated very much on butter and cheese. I wonder why. If ever there was an election that was fought by despicable means on any one topic it was the last election, which was fought largely on this question of New Zealand butter. Canada was represented by the Tories as being subservient to and dependent on the Antipodes for butter. You would think it was a terrible thing. As a matter of fact, we have been getting butter from New Zealand for over forty years. In a coldish country like Canada we are continually running short of this product in the winter time, and it was the regular thing years ago to run short in the winter until we had adequate cold storage facilities to store it. My information is that some has come in already. I have been informed that seven hundred boxes have entered the country, and I do not think the Minister of Agriculture will deny that statement. The first consignment came to Vancouver and was consumed in that city. I should think a Tory would turn black in the face at the thought of swallowing an ounce of New Zealand or Australian butter. It was a terrible thing to buy anything from a sister dominion in the way of butter. Hard times makes a farmer strip his cows a little cleaner; he is willing to undertake further tasks, and there was a reversion to more butter production. The same thing took place to a lesser degree with hog production. How-' ever, it did not take long for things to slide back. We find we are now getting butter from the Antipodes in spite of the five-cent FMr. Motherwell.]
tariff and in spite of the fact that butter is now selling for twentj'' and twenty-one cents per pound wholesale in Montreal. The price would be still lower if we were on the export market. We are not only getting butter from New Zealand but Canadian butter is being shipped back from London. I think three consignments have been made. We are going to get a further preference on butter, but we had one all summer and there was the most miserable market for this product in Canada ever seen in this generation. If this is going to be the result with other preferences on farm products, why are hon. gentlemen opposite sitting on their beam ends and feeling so elated over it?


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


William Richard Motherwell: I had not finished but I suppose I shall have to conclude my remarks at another time.
On motion of Mr. Pouliot the debate was adjourned.



TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I should like to answer a question asked yesterday by the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) in connection with the records of the proceedings of the royal commission on railways and transportation. I find that the record so far as kept is contained in five large volumes totaling three thousand pages, or about 900,000 words. Certain of the evidence was not recorded, a great deal of information having been presented to the commission in the form of reports and statements, and this is not contained in the volumes to which I have referred. This information has not been printed in any part, nor was it proposed to incur the expense of doing so. If the house thought well I was going to suggest that these papers, appropriately bound, be lodged either in the library of parliament, which would seem to be the suitable place in which to keep them, or with this house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion made by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) is a very reasonable one and would be most acceptable. It will be quite satisfactory as long as the documents are placed where they will be accessible to members of the house.

Questions


Richard Bedford Bennett: This would be subject to their being completed, gathered together and properly bound. I think they had better be placed in the library.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think so.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Wednesday, October 19, 1932