1932-10-17

NEW MEMBER

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that the clerk of the house
has received from the chief electoral officer certificate of the election and return of William Henry Golding, Esquire, for the electoral district of South Huron.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour):: I desire to lay on the table of the house copies of orders in council passed under the provisions of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act of 1932 and the Relief Act of 1932, all relating to the payment of money.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: 1.	What was the revenue, per annum, for the years 1929-1930-1931, of the customs office at Anyox, British Columbia?
2.	What were the salary, allowances, and other expenses, paid, per annum, to the customs collector at this point for the same years?


Mr. RYCKMAN:: 1.
Fiscal year	Revenue
1928-	29	
$32,037	721929-	30	
29,504	721930-	31	
13,921	80
2.
Fiscal year	Salary
1928-	29	
$1,710	001929-	30	
1,740	001930-	31	
1,450	00
Contingent
Fiscal 3'ear	Overtime expenses
1928-	29	
$298	50	$673	051929-	30	
375	50	526	001930-	31	
393	75	787	90


NATIONAL REVENUE OFFICES, MONTREAL
Mr. BARRETTE:: 1. Was the late Mr. Leroux who was employed at the National Revenue offices, Montreal, as assistant to Mr. McCaffrey, and who died in the course of the year 1931, replaced?
2.	If so, was he replaced by an English or French Canadian?
3.	On whose recommendation?


Mr. RYCKMAN:: 1.	Replaced by promotion.
2. The next two in seniority being Mr. A. H. Rowland and Mr. R. Joubert they were each promoted to the next senior position.
3.	Commissioner of Income Tax.
Questions


MONTREAL DIRECT RELIEF PAYMENTS
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 
Wesley Ashton Gordon: Return attached hereto.
City of Montreal
Unemployment Relief Act, 1930
Direct Relief	Public Works
Date cheque	Dominion	Date cheque	Dominionmailed	payment	mailed	paymentApril 12, 1932.. ..	
$ 2,437 39	May 25, 1932	$ 79,821 46Unemployment and Farm Relief Act,	1931, and Continuance Act, 1932	Direct Relief	Public Works	Date cheque	Dominion	Date cheque	Dominionmailed	payment	mailed	paymentApril 5, 1932	
S 99,172 07	Oct. 12, 1932	$126,356 70April 18, 1932	
157,500 00	April 26, 1932	
43,333 33	May 25, 1932	
69,750 00	June 10, 1932	
87,287 50	July 8, 1932	
30,904 38	July 25, 1932	
72,583 33	S560.530 61	$126,356 70Total-Direct relief.	
$562,968 00	Total-Public works	$206,178 16Direct relief	$562 968 00	Public works	
208,178 16	Grand total


AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	What quantities of butter and cheese were produced by the province of Alberta during the years 1931 and 1932?
2.	Did said province export abroad butter and cheese during said period?
3.	If so, in what quantities and to what countries?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Referring to questions 13, 15, 16 and probably 18, it seems to me they are questions the answers to which could be found in the statistical records and I think hon. members, before putting such questions on the order paper, should endeavour to get the information from those sources. There is no reason why a minister should do the research work for a member.


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Alberta-
Production of butter, calendar year,
Lbs.
Creamery butter	 22,957,922
Dairy butter	 11,900,000*
Total	 34,857,922
* Estimated.
tMr. Ryckman.l
Production of cheese, calendar year,
1931	Lbs.
Factory cheese.. .	1,040,588
Home-made cheese		169,000*
Total.. ..	1,209,588
* Estimated.	
Production of creamery butter, January to September, 1932,		Lbs. 17,753,220
Information not yet available regarding the production of dairy butter in 1932,
No statistics yet available of the production of cheese in 1932.


Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	What quantities of butter and cheese were produced by the province of Manitoba, during the years 1931 and 1932?
2.	What was the quantity of eggs produced by said province in 1931 and 1932?
3.	What quantities of poultry, beef, pork and lamb were produced by said province in 1931 and 1932?

Questions


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Manitoba-
Production of butter, calendar year, 1931
Lbs.
Creamery butter	 21,078,073
Dairy butter	 8,500,000*
Total	 29,578,073
* Estimated.
Production of cheese, calendar year,
Lbs.
Factory cheese	 454,351
Home-made cheese	 164,000*
Total	 618,351
* Estimated.
Lbs.
Production of creamery butter, January to September, 1932	 16,052,525
Information not yet available regarding the production of dairy butter in 1932.
No statistics yet available of the production of cheese in 1932.
2.	Eggs produced-
1931	 21,887,145 dozen.
1932	 Not available until 1933.
3.	Information not available.


Mr. DESLAURIERS:: What was the total production of the dairy industry in Saskatchewan during the years 1931 and 1932?


Mr. STEVENS:: Saskatchewan-
Total dairy production in the calendar year 1931 Lbs. $		
Creamery butter.. ..	18,960,352	4,025,100Dairy butter	21,200,000	3,180,000Factory Cheese	320,305	39,200Home-made cheese. .. Miscellaneous factory	130,000	16,000products	
Milk consumed fresh	Gals.	490,771or otherwise used..	45,063,400	6,760,000Total	
Production of creamery butter, January to Sep-	14,511,071 Lbs.tember, 1932.. *	. .. 15,019,237	
Information regarding other dairy products in Saskatchewan in 1932, not yet available.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-QUEBEC GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Is there a general superintendent of the Canadian National Railways at Quebec?
2.	If so, what is (a) his name; (b) the duties he has to perform, and (c) his salary?
3.	Has he the use of a special car?
4.	If so, what is (a) the initial cost of said car; (b) the amount paid for repairs; (c) the annual cost of keeping car, including the salary of the cook or butler in charge and the cost of food, delicacies, cigars, cigarettes, mineral water, soft drinks and liquors, etc.; (d) how many days has it been used during the last three years on official business and on other business ?
5.	Has he any sons who have worked or who are still working in his office or around it?
6.	If so, what are their names, their age, experience, occupation and salary, by whom were they recommended and what is the total amount paid to date to each one of them?
7.	How many employees working in or around his office have been set back since 1930?


Mr. BENNETT:: With respect to this question and other similar questions on the order paper, notably No. 22, it will be observed that the government is being asked questions regarding the internal operation of a railway which it does not in any sense control for the purpose of offering answers to questions such as are asked. This question obviously, from the very language of it, would in any event have to stand as an order for return and the same might be said with regard to question 22. It is quite clear that to ask the government questions regarding matters that are under the control of the railways, for instance in regard to the facilities that are offered to their own servants to discharge their duties, is something that in my judgment cannot be fairly asked and the only answer that could be made would be: The government has no information. With that answer the hon. member will have to be content with respect to questions such as Nos. 19 and 22.


Mr. POULIOT:: I sent my question to the Minister of Railways for his own information, and if it is impossible for the government to get the information I shall not insist on it, but if the government can get the information I shall ask them to be kind enough to give it to me.


TEMISCOUATA RAILWAY MAIL SERVICE
Mr. POULIOT:: 1. What subsidies have been paid by the government to the Temiscouata railway for the transport of mail: (a) from January 1, 1930, to December 31 of the same year; (b) from January 1, 1931, to December 31 of the same year; (c) from January 1, 1932, to September 30, 1932?
Questions

2.	According to the agreement between the government and the Temiseouata railway, was the latter obliged to transport each day, except on Sundays, the mail to the intermediate stations between Edmundston and Riviere du Loup, and between Riviere du Loup and Edmundston?
3.	If so, has the Temiseouata railway fulfilled the agreement made with the government of Canada and which was in force in 1930, 1931. and 1932?
4.	Were the agreements made between the government and the Temiseouata railway during the first half-year of 1930, altered?
5.	If so, on what dates?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Payments for mail service:
(a) $10,652.31.
Ob) $8,723.73.
(c) $6,945.44.
2.	No. The Post Office Department does not control the frequency of train service.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4 and 5. No, but the train service has been altered as follows:
July 20, 1931. Frequency between Connor and Riviere du Loup reduced to tri-weekly each way.
November 30, 1931. Daily except Sunday each way frequency restored between Connor and Riviere du Loup.
May 23, 1932. Frequency reduced to triweekly each way between Edmundston and Connor.
August 23, 1932. Frequency increased to daily except Sunday each way between Edmundston and Connor, and reduced to triweekly each way between Edmundston and Riviere du Loup.


NEW WESTMINSTER, B.C., ARMOURY
Mr. REID:: 1.	What was the contract price for the contract let to reshingle the roof of the armouries building, New Westminster, British Columbia?
2.	What was the name of the contractor who was given the contract?
3.	What were the contract amounts to be paid the workmen as set out in the original contract?
4.	Was the work subsequently sub-let by the first contractor?
5.	Who supervised the work on behalf of the government?
6.	Had the government or any of its officials any knowledge as to the contract being sub-let, either before or during the time the work was in progress?
7.	What steps were taken to ensure that the minimum rates of pay as set out in the contract were paid?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	$1,080.
2.	Geo. Nuttall & Sons.

3.	Wood shingles-$1.50 per M. or 60 cents per hr. (S hr. day).
4.	No.
5.	Resident architect.
6 and 7. A report was received by the resident architect that work was being sublet at 75 cents per M, but on investigation it was found that the contractor was doing the work by day's work and paying only 75 cents per M instead of $1.50 as included in the labour schedule. The resident architect stopped work and called the contractor and the men together and showed them the wage schedule and was assured by the contractors that the minimum rate would be paid. The resident architect holds receipts from all the men but one that they have been so paid. The man not paid broke some windows accidentally and the contractor is now trying to collect the costs from him.


WAR PENSIONS
Mr. SPEAKMAN:: In how many cases have war pensions been reduced from an assessment of 5 per cent or over, to an assessment of less than 5 per cent during the period between March 31, 1931, and September 1, 1932?


Mr. MacLAREN:: Figures are from April 1, 1931, to September 30, 1932, inclusive:
Pensions discontinued owing to disappearance of disability.. 292 Gratuities paid	 105


CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaVERGNE:
Will the government in the near future appoint the members of the Civil Service Commission ?
Pierre Édouard Blondin: It seems to me that questions 27, 29 and part of 30, ought more properly to be asked of the government on the orders of the day and not put on the order paper. In any event they refer to matters of policy and perhaps are not proper questions.
Question stands.
MR. a. C. ANDERSON


Jean-François Pouliot: Does Mr. G. C. Anderson, Acting Deputy Minister of the Post Office Department, write and speak fluently English and French?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The answer to this question would obviously be a matter of opinion

Motions jor Papers
as to whether a man writes and speaks English and French fluently, and for that reason I do not think it is a proper question. It should be dropped.


SALES OP THREE CENT STAMPS
Jean-François Pouliot: How many three cent stamps were sold by the Post Office Department since August 1, 1931?


Mr. SAUVE:: The department has no record of the number of three cent stamps sold in any given period, as it does not keep separate records of denominations sold.
The three cent stamps issued to postmasters in the period mentioned are shown
below:
August and September, 1931	$ 77,245,800
December quarter, 1931	 123,918,800
March quarter, 1932	 92,590,800
June quarter, 1932	 108,693,400
September quarter, 1932	 89,843,300
Total	$492,292,100


NOTRE DAME DU LAC POSTMASTER
Jean-François Pouliot: What percentage in points did the inspector of the post office allow Mr. Thomas Voisine, postmaster of Notre Dame du Lac:	(a)
previous to March 24, 1932; (b) after said date?


Arthur Sauvé: (a)	90 per cent.
(b)	90 per cent.


MONTREAL POST OFFICE OFFICIALS
Mr. BARRETTE:: 1.	Have the officials of the post office in Montreal automobiles at their disposal?
2.	If so, are they allowed to use them for trips outside of Montreal?
3.	What are the names of the chauffeurs?
4.	What are their salaries?
5.	What was the total amount for up-keep of these automobiles during the last twelve months, including complete details of gasoline purchases, repairs, and garage in Montreal or elsewhere?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes-official trips of inspection.
3.	Louis Joseph A. Monette; Emile Quin-tin.
4.	Monette, $1,380; Quintin, $1,740.
5.
Gasoline, oil and grease. ..$1,236 63
Garage	
110	00Repairs, parts, washing.. ..	524	11Total	$1,870 74


POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP INQUIRIES
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Were inquiries regarding political partisanship discontinued previous to August 24, 1931, in the province of Quebec?
2.	If so:	(a) how many; (b) on whose
request; (c) how many were continued after said date; (d) on whose request?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just what is meant by
this question it is difficult to understand. The first question is not susceptible of an answer yes or no. As regards the second question, whenever charges are made, inquiries are held.


Jean-François Pouliot: August 24, 1931, was the
date of the provincial election in Quebec, and during the time of that election those inquiries were discontinued at the request of several Conservative members.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If the hon. member has
the information, there is no point in asking the question.
Question dropped.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURN


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: 1.	What amount of money has the federal government given to British Columbia under the Farm Relief and Unemployment Act during the years 1930-31-32: (a) for relief work; (b) for direct relief; (c) loan?
2.	What amount of this was paid for: (a) labour; (b) camps and equipment; (c) administration purposes?


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: Return tabled
forthwith.


RELIEF PAYMENTS
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	What amounts were paid by the Dominion government as direct aid to the cities of Vancouver, Calgary, Regina, Toronto and Quebec, through the intermediary of their respective governments, from March 1 to date?
2.	On what dates were said payments made?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all contracts signed by the government and the Temiscouata Railway Company for the transport of mail from January 1, 1925.



SULLY, TEMISCOUATA, POSTMASTERSHIP

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams. reports and other documents, exchanged between the Post Office Department at Ottawa, and the Quebec postal district
Transportation Commission

administrator and all other persons, in connection with the position of postmaster of Sully, county of Temiseouata, since May 24, 1932.



NOTRE DAME DU LAC, QUE.-POSTMASTERSHIP

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of a report, and applications for the position of postmaster of Notre Dame du Lae, said report being returned by Mr. E. J. Underwood, of the Post Office Department, to the superintendent of the Quebec postal district, on March 24, 1932.



ST. DAMASE, QUE.-POSTMASTERSHIP

Mr. FAFARD:: For a copy of all reports, telegrams, correspondence and other documents, in connection with the postmaster of St. Damase, county of L'Islet, Quebec, since January 1, 1931, to date.



ST. JOSEPH D'ALMA, QUE.-POSTMASTERSHIP

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of the Quebec postal district superintendent's answer to the letter of the Secretary of the Civil Service Commission, dated January 18, 1932, P.O. 34985, page 5 of the order of the house No. 112, tabled April 22, 1932, in connection with the application of Joseph Arthur Morin, a veteran of the great war, for the position of postmaster of St. Joseph d'Alma, Quebec.
For a copy of the letter of Mr. Coolican, Post Office Department, to Dr. L. Duguay, M.P., dated October 26, 1931, in connection with the post office of St. Joseph d'Alma, which letter does not appear in file No. 112, tabled on April 22, 1932.
For a copy of the letter of Dr. L. Duguay, M.P.. to the Postmaster General, dated May 26, 1931, in connection with the inquiry at St. Joseph d'Alma.



POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP INQUIRIES-LAKE ST. JOHN COUNTY, QUE.

Jean-François Pouliot: For a complete copy of the letter of Mr. Arthur Lalonde, secretary of the executive of the Post Office Department, to Dr. L. Duguay, M.P., dated September 1, 1931, in connection with the inquiries regarding political partisanship in the county of Lake St. John.



NOTRE DAME DU LAC, QUE.-POSTMASTERSHIP

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of the second page of the application of Mr. Thomas Voisine for the position of postmaster at Notre Dame du Lac.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it seems that part of a letter should not be ordered to be produced, it must be the whole of it. If the language of the order is changed, striking out "of the second page'' it would be quite satisfactory.


Jean-François Pouliot: The first page is on the file, the second page is not there.
[Mr. Pouliot.J


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member knows more about the department than the officials 1
Motion as amended agreed to.



TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if the evidence taken by the transportation commission has been printed, either in whole or in part, and if it will be made available to hon. members of the house either in printed form or otherwise and either in whole or in part.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My information at the moment is that it has not been printed, nor is it intended to print it. The information was gathered by the commission travelling from one end of the country to the other and receiving statements; some of them were not taken down verbatim but merely received for the purpose of enabling the commission to make their own notes. These statements have not been printed, and, as far as I know at the moment there was no intention of printing them. The notes that were taken are voluminous, some of them consisting largely of statements. I will look into the matter and try to give a fuller explanation of the situation to-morrow. If I had received notice that such a question was to be asked; I would have informed myself more fully.


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: May I ask the Prime Minister or the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) when we may expect legislation based on the Duff report? There are certain persons in the city who would like to scrutinize the measure before making representations to the government with respect to it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I intimated to the house the ether day that we had sought to frame a measure giving effect to every recommendation made by the commission, and that we had thought it desirable that such a measure should be submitted to the house, not as recommendations of the government but as the recommendations of the commission, inasmuch as it is a measure that is not in any sense a party measure, so far as the report of the commission is concerned. I said then that the temper of the house would determine the view of the government as to whether or not it is desirable to proceed with it before or

Judge Stubbs-Inquiry into Conduct
after adjournment. In view of the present discussions in connection with the trade agreements and the address we do not contemplate taking action immediately, or until such time at least as more progress has been made in connection with those matters. Then the government will determine whether or not it is desirable to submit the proposed measure to the house, not as a government measure in the narrow sense, because it is a private bill, but for the purpose of placing before the house what in the belief of the drafting committee expresses in concrete form the recommendations of the commission. I might add that the government have further under consideration the question as to whether or not the measure might not with more propriety be introduced in the first instance, into the second chamber of this parliament in order that a dispassionate review of the situation might be had by that chamber before it reaches this house.



JUDGE STUBBS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: May I ask the Minister of Justice, in view of many and strong statements which have appeared in the press, whether it is true that an investigation has been ordered to be held against His Honour Judge Stubbs of the county court of Manitoba with respect to certain statements made by him, and if so, what is the nature of the investigation, and is the investigation being proceeded with?


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: While I have not the file before me I think I can speak from memory in reply to the question. As my hon. friend is aware, for some time back complaints have been received in the Department of Justice in regard to the conduct of Judge Stubbs, who for some time occupied not only the position of judge of the county court in the province of Manitoba, but also judge of the surrogate court of that province. I find on the file, before this government came into office, that complaints reached the department, but that no action apparently was taken in regard to them. Shortly after I became Minister of Justice a complaint was received from the attorney general of the province of Manitoba, who is the head of the administration of law in that province. If my memory serves me aright, that was in January, 1931. When the complaint was received from such a responsible authority in the province I felt it my duty to
consult Judge Stubbs in regard to the charges which were made. A letter was sent to him and I received a reply from him to the effect that he had been misreported in the Winnipeg newspapers, and that any remarks of his did not bear the interpretation which the newspapers placed upon them. No action was taken in regard to that complaint.
Subsequently another complaint was received, I think signed by all or nearly all the members of the superior court of the province of Manitoba, in regard to certain language which had been used by Judge Stubbs seriously reflecting upon the judges of the court of appeal of that province. In regard to that complaint Judge Stubbs took the objection that in anything he had said on the bench he was speaking merely as a judge of the surrogate court of the province of Manitoba and that as judges of the surrogate courts of the various provinces are appointed, not by this government, but by provincial governments, he contended that this department had no right to make any inquiry or offer any objection to anything which he might have said as judge of the surrogate court of the province of Manitoba, although I am free to admit to the house that the language of Judge Stubbs in that particular instance was somewhat extreme and very condemnatory of the superior court judges of the province of Manitoba. No action, therefore, was taken with regard to that complaint.
More recently, within the last month or six weeks, a further complaint and a very definite one was made by the attorney general of the province of Manitoba, stating that the language and the conduct of Judge Stubbs was bringing the administration of justice in the province of Manitoba into disrepute. Upon receipt of so formidable a protest from the constituted authorities in the province of Manitoba I thought it was my duty to order an investigation, and accordingly I recommended that a commission should issue for the purpose of inquiring into the conduct of Judge Stubbs. A commission was subsequently issued and the Hon. Mr. Justice Ford of the court of appeal of the province of Alberta was appointed commissioner. I believe that the commissioner will proceed with the investigation. Counsel has been appointed to assist the commissioner by bringing all the evidence before him, and express instructions have been given to counsel that he is to act in his capacity as assistant to the commissioner for the purpose of submitting evidence, not in any sense of the word as a prosecuting attorney, but to see that all the evidence is submitted, and for that pur-
256	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
pose he has been instructed to consult also with Judge Stubbs and to see that any evidence which Judge Stubbs has to offer may be fairly placed before the commissioner.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on the order
paper of Friday, under the heading Introduction of Bills there appeared in my name a bill entitled An Act to amend the Criminal Code (unlawful associations). That bill was not called on Friday, and to-day I notice that it has been dropped from the order paper. It may be that the government considers that the resolution under which the house is now operating precludes my proceeding with that bill. I notice that the motion reads that government notices of motion and government orders shall have precedence over all other business except questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers; but no mention is made there of bills. The government may take the ground that government bills shall have precedence, because certainly government bills have been introduced and proceeded with. Other government bills appear on the order paper today, to be introduced by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman). It seems to me-very strange that my bill should have been removed. Last year a similar bill was refused a first reading, by the Prime Minister's desire. It would seem now that somebody is going still further and is refusing a private member the right to have his bill placed on the order paper. Even though it might be argued that my bill cannot be proceeded with at the present time I can see no reason whatever why it cannot be placed on the order paper and remain there. I would point out that notices of motion by members, although they are not being proceeded with, still appear on the order paper, and I should like to ask, Mr. Speaker, by whose authority and under what rule or order of this house my bill has been removed.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Under the resolution
passed by the house, under which the house is now operating, public and private bills cannot be introduced until government business is disposed of. It was not with any ulterior motive that the hon. member's bill was dropped from the order paper. It was dropped simply because it could not be profMr. Guthrie.]
ceeded with at the present time, and it will be restored in due course. There was no attempt to be unfair to labour or to anyone else, and again I assure the hon. member that his bill will be restored to the order paper in due course.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But, as I have
pointed out, Mr. Speaker, the notices of motion, although they too cannot be proceeded with at the present time, still appear on the order paper, and I think I have the right to ask that this bill, even though it cannot be proceeded with at the present time, appear on the order paper in the same way as notices of motion.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The notices of motion
will not have precedence at all.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But they are on
the order paper.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: But are not being proceeded with.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that my bill be placed on the order paper, even though it cannot be proceeded with at the present time.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It may possibly be
restored.



IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, October 12, 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 thereto.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
the motion which is before the house reads as follows:
That it is expedient that parliament do approve 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, and that this house do approve of the same, subject to the legislation required in order to give effect to the fiscal changes consequent thereto.
The agreement will be found in the supplementary volume, which is annex V. tabled a day or two ago by the right hon. the Prime

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
Minister. The agreement itself covers three pages of the report, pages 50 to 52 inclusive, and the schedule setting forth the proposed changes in the customs tariff occupies pages 53 to 67 inclusive. The agreement should be read, I think, in the light of the speech made by the right hon. the Prime Minister at the time of presenting to the house the motion for its approval.
The agreement is one intended to increase trade between Canada and Great Britain, and to do so by means of imperial preferences. The preferences being the main feature of the agreement it might be advisable to say a word or two at the cutset as to the history of the imperial preference, so called.
As is known, the imperial preference, or as it was first called, the British preference, had its origin in a resolution and action by this parliament of Canada. That I am sure should foe a source of pride to Canadians wholly irrespective of the party to which they may belcng. It is a source of especial pride to the Liberal party that the resolution respecting the British preference was introduced into this parliament at the instance of the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the leader of a Liberal administration, and his illustrious Minister of Finance of that day, Right Hon. W. S. Fielding. The preference, in a word, as it relates to the customs tariff, is simply a means whereby there is given to the country to which the preference is accorded, the right to have its commodities enter the country according the preference at a rate of duty lesser than that imposed against countries generally. The British preference as introduced in 1897 provided that goods coming from Great Britain should enter this country at a rate of 124 per cent lower than that prevailing generally. In the following year the 124 per cent was increased to 25 per cent, and in the year 1900 the British preference reached 33-j per cent.
From that period on, with the exception of a time during the war, when, on one occasion, there was some decrease in the preference, there have been changes made to effect increases in the British preference. From time to time an increasing number of commodities have been placed on the free list, and under the preference with respect to a very considerable number there has been accorded further increases. The most important changes in the British preference of recent years were prior to the time the present administration took office. They were made in the year 1930. At that time the changes became effective under what has come to be termed the Dunning budget, a
budget introduced in this house by the Hon. Charles Dunning, the then Minister of Finance. That budget made provision for considerable increases in the British preference. At that time a very large number of additional commodities were placed upon the free list, and on others the preference in favour of Great Britain was made very much greater than it had been at any previous time.
I should mention at this point that within two years after the late Liberal administration came into office, we took another step which still further increased the preference in favour of Great Britain. In 1923 we secured an enactment whereby a discount of ten per cent on preference rates was given where goods were brought into Canada through Canadian ports. It was ascertained at the time that 99 per cent of the goods coming from British countries into Canada came through Canadian ports, with the additional ten per cent practically all goods came into Canada in that way.
In these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt in the mind of any one as to where the official opposition or, to put it in another way, the Liberal party in Canada, stands on the matter of British preference. We were the originators of the British preference; we have maintained it against the opposition of hon. gentlemen opposite, and we have done more than all other parties combined to make the British preference a success.
In speaking a few days ago, my right hon. friend sought to have the house believe that in the matter of his so-called imperial preferences he was following in the footsteps of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and that what he now claims to have accomplished is something which Sir Wilfrid Laurier failed to accomplish, although he had made an attempt so to do. My right hon. friend made a similar statement last year. How he can so assert, in the face of the facts, is more than I can understand. At this time I believe it my duty to make clear to the house the grounds upon which he seeks to base his assertion. Perhaps I should do my right hon. friend most justice if I read his statement as presented to this house a few days ago. He said:
In addressing the house on April 26 last I placed on Hansard extracts from the memorandum submitted by Sir Wilfrid Laurier to the British government at the Colonial conference of 1902. It was at that time, you will recall, that Sir Wilfrid Laurier, ceasing



Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
to agree with his delegate colleagues, took a very definite stand with respect to imperial preference. Let me requote from the memorandum this paragraph so apposite to the discussions on this subject today:
The quotation is as follows:
The Canadian ministers stated that if they could be assured that the Imperial government would accept the principle of preferential trade generally, and particularly grant to the tood products of Canada in the United Kingdom exemption from duties now levied, or hereafter imposed, they, the Canadian ministers, would be prepared to go further into the subject and endeavour to give to the British manufacturer some increased advantage over his foreign competitors in the markets of Canada.
Then the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) continues:
I now only ask, and I sincerely hope that the parliament of Canada, now seeing accomplished the task which was attempted by that distinguished leader of the party which now sits to the left of the Speaker, can with one voice, approve the agreements which nothing but mutual trust and confidence, mutual hope and the common appreciation of the fundamental principles on which empire business should be conducted, could have brought about.
What are the facts as to the circumstances to which the paragraph quoted owed its origin? After the South African war additional expenditures had to be met by the government of Great Britain, and to meet those expenditures, a slight tax on wheat from all countries was imposed by the British government for revenue purposes. The tax was a duty of three pence per hundred weight on wheat imported from all sources. That tax appeared in the budget of 1902, the year of the conference in England. I ask the house to take note of the fact that the British government had imposed a tax for revenue purposes before the conference met, a duty was in effect at the time the Canadian ministers were meeting in London. Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Canadian ministers asked that the duty, in so far as it applied to Canada, should be reduced or removed. I repeat; they asked that the duty should be reduced or removed. When my right hon. friend went to England in 1930, he did not ask that duties should be reduced or removed, he asked that the British government should change entirely its fiscal policy and impose duties where no duties formerly existed. He asked that Great Britain should impose duties in order that a preference might thereby be granted. That is a wholly different course of procedure and a preference of an entirely different kind.
May I say that up until the time the present Prime Minister of Canada made his demand in 1930 on the British government- rvhich, as I have already described was, to all intents and purposes, a demand that the British government should change its fiscal policy, should become a protectionist administration, should impose protective tariffs in order to grant preferences-until that time no one of whom I am aware in any parliament of the British Empire ever formally suggested that a preference should be given by way of increasing tariffs rather than decreasing them. So that there is the fundamental difference which must be kept in mind when we compare the action of the recent Imperial economic conference at Ottawa, and any action previously taken concerning preferences. The difference is one founded on the different points of view of the great political parties with respect to trade policies generally.
The Liberal party has always advocated greater freedom of trade. When it has advocated a tariff, it has been a tariff for revenue, protection being only incidental. The Liberal party has never advocated protection. Hon. gentlemen opposite have always advocated a policy of protection,

of course, I am speaking of the recent past. Their policy with respect to trade matters has been wholly protectionist, and the difference between the two parties on tariff questions lies .in their different points of view as to what they believe to be in the interests of the country, so far as trade and fiscal matters are concerned. The preferences of the present Conservative party have been given in the main by increasing tariffs and thereby applying the policy of protection, whereas the Liberal preferences have always been along the lines of reducing rather than increasing duties. On all occasions Sir Wilfrid Laurier made it very clear that the last thing he would ever think of in seeking a preference from another country of the British Empire would be to interfere in the domestic affairs of that country or to ask its government to alter its fiscal policy, let alone seek to compel it so to do. Therein lies the fundamental difference between the methods which have been adopted by hon. gentlemen opposite to bring about the agreement we now have before us, and anything that has hitherto prevailed in British history with respect to the granting of a preference to or by the mother country. Let me read what the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said in this House of Commons on March 27, 1907, which makes wholly clear what his view was with regard to any preference which a government might seek to obtain from the

United Kingdom
British government by compelling it to alter its fiscal policy. I read from page 5538 of Hansard for 1907:
We would not accept the idea that the British public should force upon us their own fiscal views and no more would they tolerate the idea that we should force upon them our own fiscal views, and therefore the only way in which the British Empire can be maintained upon its present foundation is by allowing to every nation composing it the measure of liberty that it has and also the free choice of the fiscal policy which it is to maintain.
That was not a view taken by Sir Wilfrid Laurier only; it has been adopted by every prime minister of Canada, with the exception of my right hon. friend. The Right Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald took that view very strongly at the beginning of his great political career in Canada; this is the view that was taken by Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden during the time he was in office, and this is the view to which Right Hon. Arthur Meighen adhered while in office in any legislation which came before the house on the subject of preferences. Let me give hon. gentlemen opposite Sir John A. Macdonald's view with regard to this question of seeking to effect a preference by compelling another part of the empire to alter its tariffs. Conditions have changed very considerably since those early days. The difficulty then was not with the young dominions trying to force the hand of the mother country; it arose through the attempt on the part of the mother country to restrain the dominions in the matter of their freedom. Even prior to confederation Sir John A. Macdonald, who headed the administration in office at the time, instructed * Sir Alexander Galt, his then Minister of Finance, to inform the British ministry by means of an official despatch of what was the position of the Conservative party in Canada and of Canada itself with respect to matters of the kind. Here is a part of the communication which was sent in 1859 by Sir Alexander Galt to His Grace the Duke of Newcastle, who at that time was Colonial Secretary:
Respect to the Imperial government must always dictate the desire to satisfy them that the policy of this country is neither hastily nor unwisely formed; and that due regard is had to the interests of the mother country as well as of the province. But the government of Canada, acting for its legislature and people, cannot, through those feelings of deference which they owe to the Imperial authorities. in any manner waive or diminish the right of the people of Canada to decide for themselves both as to the mode and extent to which taxation shall be imposed. Self government would be utterly annihilated if the view



S3719-17J

[Stage Direction]
of the Imperial government were to be preferred to those of the people of Canada. It is, therefore, the duty of the present government distinctly to affirm the right of the Canadian legislature to adjust the taxation of the people in the way they deem best, even if it should unfortunately happen to meet with the disapproval of the Imperial ministry.
That statement was made by Sir John A. Macdonald's government as long ago as 1859. As to the views of Sir Robert Borden, let me quote very briefly from a statement which appears in the London Times of August 1, 1918, in reference to a statement made by Sir Robert at the Savoy hotel, London, on July 31, 1918:
As Canada claimed and exercised the right absolutely to control her own fiscal policy, Sir Robert said, so the representatives of the dominions necessarily refrained from attempting any interference in the fiscal policy of the United Kingdom.
Moreover, the people of Canada would not desire the people of the United Kingdom to shape or modify their fiscal policy solely to give a preference to the products of Canada, especially if such change should involve any supposed injustice, or should be regarded as unfair or oppressive by a considerable portion of the people of the United Kingdom.
In view of what we already know as to the manner in which the agreement is being received by a considerable portion of the people of the United Kingdom, Mr. Speaker, I think I should repeat that paragraph for the careful consideration of hon. members of the house:
Moreover, the people of Canada would not desire the people of the United Kingdom to shape or modify their fiscal policy solely to give a preference to the products of Canada, especially if such change should involve any supposed injustice, or should be regarded as unfair or oppressive by a considerable portion of the people of the United Kingdom.
On his return to Canada, Sir Robert is reported in the Toronto Globe of September 3, 1918, as having said:
We hold ourselves free to work out the problem of preference according to Canadian needs and conditions. For the same reason Canada must avoid any attempt at interference with the domestic policy of Great Britain.
Those views were held consistently, as I have said, by all prime ministers and I think by all political parties in this country until my right hon. friend took the opposite attitude at the conference of 1930. There have been other economic conferences, and at each one those who represented Canada have taken a position in accordance with the policies that I have indicated in the extracts I have read.
May I say that there is everything to be said in favour of conferences between the heads of the governments of the different parts
260	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
of the British Empire. It is well that those who represent the different parts of the empire should meet together periodically and discuss matters of mutual and common interest. Out of discussions of that kind, which help to acquaint each part with the difficulties experienced in other parts, and which help indicate lines that can be followed in order to further mutual interests, there is bound to come to the respective governments the line which can be followed with the greatest certainty of achieving not only in the short run but in the long run as well the object that is to be attained.
In 1923 there were two conferences in London held simultaneously, one the Imperial conference, so-called, and the other the Imperial economic conference. At the Imperial economic conference Canada was represented by the late Sir Lomer Gouin and the Right Hon. George P. Graham, and as the one holding the office of Prime Minister at the time, I was also present at both conferences and participated in the proceedings though more particularly in those of the Imperial conference. At the economic conference in London we were asked by the British government whether we desired to have preferences granted by means of the raising of the British tariff. A Conservative government was in office in Great Britain, headed by the Right Hen. Stanley Baldwin, and the Right Hon. Neville Chamberlain was Chancellor of the Exchequer, while the Right Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister was minister of one of the departments at the time.
Richard Bedford Bennett: President of the Board
of Trade.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. These
gentlemen were most prominent in the affairs of the conference on the British side so far as economic questions were concerned. As I say, we were asked whether Canada desired preferences to be given by an increase in the tariff in Great Britain against other countries in such a manner as would permit of such preferences being granted to us. Our reply was that while Canada would always appreciate any preference which the mother country might wish to extend in the rate of duties on commodities going from this country into the old land, it was for Great Britain herself to decide what her own fiscal policy should be. We said that we would not undertake to say to Britain that she must change her fiscal policy; we would not make a demand on her that she should place duties on the food of the people as a means of reciprocating what Canada had done. We claimed that what Canada

had done with respect to preferences had been done for the sake of this country quite as well as for the sake of the empire. Hon. gentlemen opposite seem to forget that. They talk about concessions; but after all what was the governing principle with respect to preferences when they were granted? Were the preferential rates introduced and maintained by the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and afterwards maintained by the government of Sir Robert Borden, and, later, by that of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, simply for the purpose of helping the mother country? Undoubtedly it was hoped that the preferences granted would help the mother country; but above all it was believed that they would be of special benefit to this country, and it was for that reason that the preference was initiated and maintained. There was mutual benefit. Hon. gentlemen opposite talk as though trade were a matter of war, in which one side must be victor and the other vanquished. As a matter of fact, there would be no trade at all unless there were mutual advantage as a result thereof; because people would not join even for exchange except upon that principle.
Now, the benefit, so far as Canada is concerned, has been great to the large body of her consumers; it has afforded reasonable competition, and has helped to keep down the cost of living in the necessaries of life as well as in many other important articles. But there is another benefit, and it is an allimportant one so far as Canada as a whole is concerned, and that is the benefit which accrues from a decrease in the cost of production, particularly as affecting those engaged in the great basic industries of mining, lumbering, fishing and agriculture in this vast land. Unless costs of production are kept down, how are our great basic industries going to compete successfully in the markets of the world that lie beyond our own shores? It has been for these reasons, therefore, that the preference has been granted in the past, and for this further reason. It has been and must be apparent that no country can go on trading all the time in one direction; it must be Obvious that transportation costs alone, which enter so largely into what we buy and what we can sell, will be kept down only as vessels are kept carrying goods in both directions. But in a larger way still, it must be apparent that sooner or later exports must be paid for by imports. In this regard, I am glad to see that the right hon. the Prime Minister the other day went so far as to admit that fact. For the first time, I think, it has

United Kingdom
been admitted by hon. gentlemen opposite. This is what the right hon. gentleman said: For we must commonly agree that there can be no continued sale without purchase; that if we expect to market our goods in the United Kingdom we must expect to purchase goods from the United Kingdom.
There at last we have a straightforward admission from the government that exports are paid for by imports. And what is true of trade between the United Kingdom and Canada is equally true of trade between other parts of the world and this country.
It has been on that basis that in the past this country has favoured the British preference in the manner I have described. It was a means of increasing trade, and if hon. gentlemen opposite want any assurances as to how successfully it worked, particularly when administered by a Liberal administration,
I ask them to look at the record of trade under the government of the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier and under the recent Liberal administration in Canada. They will see just what the figures are.
But to return to the conference of 1923. As I have said, when the British ministers inquired whether we wished to have duties imposed, and we replied it was for the British government itself to decide what duties it might wish to impose, we were met next with the question: Will you give us a list of the articles on which it would be most helpful to Canada to have an increase in the event of our deciding for ourselves to place duties against other countries with respect to certain commodities? In other words, they were adopting the method which one would hope would always be adapted at imperial conferences, namely, of seeking to ascertain from all sides what was going to be of the greatest benefit all round. I need not discuss the answer that was made to that question. There was tabled in this house in 1924 sessional paper No. Ill, which contains the correspondence which took place between myself and members of the British government with respect to the preference; and the Right Hon. Mr. Graham made a statement in this house in 1924 in which he reviewed at considerable length the action taken by Canada's ministers at the economic conference of the previous year.
We gave to the British ministry a list of the commodities on which we believed it would be to Canada's advantage to have a preference in the manner suggested provided Great Britain, on her own account, decided to alter her fiscal system, and to impose duties. We pointed out the particular articles on which
in our opinion it would be of special advantage to Canada, in that event, to have a preference granted. The result was that before the conference was over the British ministry presented to the conference a statement to the effect that they intended to invite His Majesty's government to impose duties with respect to a number of commodities which we had mentioned to them, and which were on the list we had submitted. I have in my hand a summary of the conclusions of the Imperial economic conference of 1923, and I find on page 4 the following:
Further, as regards imperial preference under the United Kingdom customs tariff to empire goods. His Majesty's government intimated that they intended to submit to parliament the following proposals:
I will not read the proposals, but they referred to dried fruit, currants, other dried fruit, other preserved fruits, sugar, tobacco, wine, raw apples, canned salmon and canned lobster, crayfish, and crabs, honey, lime, lemon and other fruit juices. There was a considerable number of commodities on which the British government itself undertook at that conference to grant a preference, provided the parliament of Great Britain were prepared to implement their action in that regard. If hon. gentlemen opposite will compare this list with what has been presented to us in the report tabled by my right hon. friend, they will find that the preferences which have been granted at this time are in very considerable part the same or similar to what was obtained voluntarily in 1923.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Obtained?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend says "obtained". I am glad he has thus interrupted me. Yes, obtained, so far as the conference is concerned, and that is all my right hon. friend can now say with regard to the conference of 1932. I want the house to take very careful note of this, because it again touches something that is a matter of fundamental difference between my right hon. friend and myself. My right hon. friend would have us believe that because the British people at an election held subsequently to the conference refused to endorse a protectionist policy in Britain, Canada in 1923 failed to obtain what she has now, without any opportunity being afforded the British people to say whether or not they approve of what it is alleged has been obtained. I submit there is a difference that reaches to the very roots of all that pertains to the maintenance of friendly relations between different governments of the empire. Only as a government acts in accordance with the will of its parlia-
262	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
ment, as that will is representative of the will of the people, can it be said that any agreement that is arrived at between two parts of the empire is on a basis which is either worth while or likely to prove enduring. The conference of 1923 obtained, as I have said, the particular concessions, if you wish to refer to the matter in that way, voluntarily from the British government; but after the conference was over, Mr. Baldwin and his government decided to appeal to the people and they appealed in part on this protectionist program. What was the result? The result was that the electorate of Britain swept Mr. Baldwin and his administration out of office and returned another government. Fortunately there could be no unfavourable reaction so far as Canada was concerned. There had been no compulsion on our part; no attempt to compel the British government to accept any protectionist proposal of ours. The British government did what it did of its own volition, did it in a way it believed was going to be helpful, but in accordance with protectionist policies which were not acceptable to the people of Britain. When Mr. Ramsay MacDonald's government was returned, Mr. MacDonald assumed a very broad attitude on the matter in parliament, notwithstanding the fact that he had come into office in part in opposition to what had been put forward by the Conservative government of the day with respect to what had been done at the Imperial economic conference. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald said: I will present to parliament this undertaking in so far as it relates to what was promised with respect to the increase of duties at the Imperial conference, and I will allow members to vote as they please on the general items. I shall not expect my followers to support them or to oppose them. Every member of the house is free to vote as he pleases. The vote was taken and was against putting into effect those increased duties upon the food of the people of Great Britain. There the matter rested. If hon. gentlemen opposite are going to claim that they have won something that was not won in 1923, because in 1923 the people were allowed a voice as to whether or not they should be taxed on their food, whereas the matter to-day is being put through in a way which will prevent anything of that kind, then they are taking a course that is very dangerous not only for this country and for the old country, but for the future of the British Empire as a whole. It is on that ground, above every other, that I say to my right hon. friend at this moment, that before tariff schedules are changed in a manner which is going to impose increased duties

generally on the people of Canada, and increased duties in the way of taxes on food upon the people of Great Britain, the people of Canada and Great Britain should have a right to express their views with regard to the matter.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Who is telling Great
Britain now what she should do?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hon. gentlemen opposite hoot at the idea of allowing the people to have a say as to whether or not they shall be taxed. That is typically Tory. I repeat that no executive has a right to bind a nation in any matter seriously affecting its fiscal policy without the consent of the people of that nation. I shall not take more time with reference to the conference of 1923.
Let me come now to the conference of 1930. Why was the conference of 1930 the failure it was? Hon. gentlemen opposite are beginning to say that the failure was deliberate, that the conference was intended so to be made by the Prime Minister and they are giving credit to the Prime Minister for his statesmanship in that regard. It was the failure that it was, because, as I said, for the first time in British history the Prime Minister of one of the dominions went to an Imperial conference and told the members of the British government that so far as his country was concerned there would be no negotiations with the British government unless they changed their fiscal policy; that only on the basis of the British government increasing duties in a manner which would enable preferences to be brought about through an increase in duties in the old land, would Canada be prepared to negotiate. Well, Britain was not at that time prepared to change her fiscal policy. The principle was fundamental in the minds of the Britishers of the day that above all they would be masters in their own household and would decide for themselves what fiscal policy they wished to have. It is true the fiscal policy of Britain has been changed since that date, but that does not alter the principle as to whether one part of the empire is to have the right to interfere in the affairs of another with a view to occasioning or actually forcing a change of fiscal policy. Well, to put the matter bluntly, hon. gentlemen opposite say that it is due to the Prime Minister of Canada that Britain's fiscal policy was changed in 1930. Some of them said so the other day, but on reflection they are a little quieter today than they were last week. If the Prime

United Kingdom
Minister of Canada is responsible for Great Britain introducing protectionist policies, I hope those of his followers who come from rural constituencies and who support the Prime Minister will give a little consideration to what may be the fate of the farmers in this country when the farmers of the old country begin to demand protection against the dominions as well as foreign countries in respect to their products, in virtue of a protectionist policy having been put into force in Great Britain.
Let me contrast what was done in 1930 as to method and as to proposals with what was done as the last act of the late Liberal administration. The act of the late Liberal administration in preparing for the conference in 1930 was to make it apparent to the people of Great Britain that we wished and were prepared to trade with them by giving them a very liberal increase in British preference; that in order to further trade within the Empire we were prepared to divert to Great Britain trade from those countries that were not prepared to trade on equally favourable terms with us, and that we were prepared to do all this first of all because we believed it was in our interest to do it, 'but also because we believed it would be in the interest of Great Britain and of the British Empire as well. There can be no question as to where the Liberal party stands in its desire to trade with the countries of the British Empire and the United Kingdom in particular. All that the Liberal party has to do is to point to its record. It has a record that has never been surpassed by any government with respect to what it evidences of a desire to further inter-imperial trade. More than that, we sought to make it perfectly clear that in what we were doing we were respecting above all else the fiscal autonomy of all parts of the empire. We were making it clear to Great Britain, as the Right Hon. Stanley Baldwin sought to make it clear in this chamber in his first speech at the recent conference, that after all it was a great thing to have the goodwill of the mother country, to have the great market which she was giving us free from customs duties; that that was something which Canada had been receiving, and about which there had not been any bargaining. We equally were seeking to make clear our belief that on the basis of goodwill and common interest we were likely to get much further than on any bargaining basis. There is just that difference in the two methods. The one method found expression in what was said by Mr. Dunning at the conclusion of his budget speech. I will read his
words and by way of contrast with the other method quote the words of another, one highly thought of throughout the Empire, who has given his estimate of what bargaining means. Hon. Mr. Dunning, speaking in this house, May 1, 1930, said:
These tariff favours to those who favour our products are not the result of any bargain with any other country but of an attitude in international relations which we believe to be mutually beneficial and are an expression of the spirit in which Canada will approach the Imperial economic conference in a few months' time. In other words we do not intend to meet the other countries of the British commonwealth of nations in a spirit of petty bargaining but rather in the broad spirit of willingness to become in ever-increasing measure good customers to those who treat us in like manner. This is the spirit in which we desire to meet all nations, but we believe that within the British community of nations lies the greatest measure of opportunity for mutual development of trade because of our common heritage, kindred institutions and a common patriotism.
We had a visit last year from Sir Josiah Stamp, and we were told from more quarters than one that Sir Josiah Stamp's opinion on imperial questions was one to which heed should be given.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Economic questions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me read the words given to the Canadian people at the time Sir Josiah Stamp was here:
Instead of uniting the different parts of the empire, the bargaining process, bound up as it is with methods of blasting and blockading, will serve to disrupt and dismember the enipire as nothing which has occurred since its inception.
There, Mr. Speaker, you have what may be said of the two methods, the one of voluntary concession arrived at as the result of negotiation, aiming to discover what is of mutual interest and mutual benefit, and which makes its appeal to all that is highest and best in human nature; and the other the method of blasting and blockading, the essence of the bargaining method, appealing as it does to the hardest instincts in human nature.
In order that there may be no mistake as to where the Liberal party stands on the matter of the preference, may I repeat here what I said in South Huron, and what I have said repeatedly at other times and in other localities, that the policy of the Liberal party with respect to trade is to encourage greater freedom of trade, to remove restrictions and barriers rather than to increase them, and that if as a party we were returned to office our first objective would be to bring the tariff of Canada back to where it was ait the time we went out of office.
264	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
May I go a step further and say in connection with that, so that there can be no mistake as to where we stand in the matter of British trade, and the British preference, that we would undertake to give to the trade of the United Kingdom, where goods are imported through Canadian ports, a British preference averaging fifty per cent of our general tariff. If there is anything in this particular agreement that is comparable to that of advantage to ourselves and to British peoples in trade, I hope we will find it out before this discussion is over.
I say that in an attitude of that kind which favours the free flow of trade, without restrictions or barriers, in known and definite channels, subject to known and definite rates of duty, there is an opportunity for a country to build up its business and to go ahead in its relations with other parts of the empire. But under the bargaining business, under agreements such as have been arrived at here, what do we get? First we get locked agreements which are difficult to administer, which are very hard to understand, which can only be understood after they are interpreted; and which when interpreted depend for adherence to the interpretation given on those who are entrusted with their administration. If trade between one part of the empire and another is of any advantage in itself, why should not that trade flow in free and unchecked channels instead of being transferred by the terms of locked agreements which tend to impede its course all along the way? It is a more costly method, the locked agreement method; it is more uncertain, it begets disagreements and gives rise to feelings of distrust and discord which happily the other method wholly and successfully avoids.
Having said what I have with respect to the position of the Liberal party on the matter of imperial preference, may I say just a word to my right hon. friend about the attitude of the Liberal party towards himself and his government since he has come into office and in particular towards the recent economic conference. I did not expect my right hon. friend to be either gracious or chivalrous in his attitude towards me and towards the Liberal party, but I hardly expected him to go the length he went the other day in his remarks, when referring to myself, he said to this house:
There was nothing he could do to injure that conference that he did not do before it was held. There was no platform upon which he appeared that he did not endeavour in some way to make it more difficult for the government of his country to represent Canada at that conference.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hon. gentlemen opposite are only following their leader in saying "hear, hear", But may I say, and I speak now in view of the people of Canada as a whole, that if any government in the world was ever given a free hand by an opposition from the time it came into office until the present, hon. gentlemen opposite have had that free hand. If there has been any exception taken to the course now adopted by some of my own supporters, it has been that I have refrained so completely between sessions from going from one end of the country to the other attacking the present administration. May I say that prior to the conference of 1930, in the short session that was held here, the government were allowed the right of wray in the legislation the.v brought in, without any opposition at all. All their tariff changes were put through without any pretence at criticism on the part of hon. gentlemen on this side. When my right hon. friend was at the Imperial conference, in London in 1930, great as was the temptation to have the British people feel that his course certainly was not representative of Canada's methods, I said nothing, I remained silent, and when, in the other sessions we have had here, dealing with the question of unemployment and the like, while we have had to register our disapproval of his methods and policies, it cannot be said that we have sought to embarrass the Prime Minister. And particularly with regard to this recent Imperial conference may I say that, if hon. gentlemen opposite will read what I said in this house before the conference took place, they will find that it corresponds in all particulars with what I am saying to-day. I pointed out what I feared would be the inevitable consequence of a certain course of procedure in many particulars that have since become so evident. Outside of this parliament I made no speech in respect to the conference except where it was absolutely necessary for me to do so as a result of action of hon. gentlemen opposite. In the by-election of Royal I had to speak in reference to the conference because it was made by hon. gentlemen opposite a subject of discussion there. But the line that I took was very moderate.
I sought to have the people there pronounce on whether they favoured a lower tariff in a way that might serve as a guide to the government when the conference met. In view of the result, where a majority of three thousand odd dropped to live hundred, I think the government would have been well advised to have taken the hint given them by the electorate of Royal in that regard.

United Kingdom
The only other time at which I spoke on the conference was at South Huron, and there I spoke on the conference because hon. gentlemen opposite made the conference the issue in that by-election. But apart from that, I made no speeches whatever, and one reason I made none was that I knew quite well what my right hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) would be only too quick to say with respect to any mention of the conference I might make. Apart from that, I thought it was better taste not to be criticizing the government in the presence of their guests, and I refrained also for that reason. The hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Factor) will remember that I had made an engagement very early in the year to speak at Queenston Heights at a great Liberal rally which was to be held there in the early part of July. I had given an acceptance before I knew what arrangements were to be made with regard to the conference, and after the date of the conference was fixed I wrote and cancelled that engagement because I did not think I should be speaking at the time of the conference in a way that would certainly reflect on hon. gentlemen opposite. Shortly after this house adjourned an important Liberal rally was held at Peterborough, and the hon. members for Northumberland (Mr. Fraser) and Ontario (Mr. Moore) and other members with seats round about strongly pressed me to come and speak at that meeting. I made exactly the same answer to them, that I could not speak at a political gathering prior to the conference without being expected to say something about the principles which should guide the administration with respect to the conference and without pointing out the very evident limitations of Canada's administration, which I did not think would be in good form just at that time. And so it was with the appeals which I received from western members to speak in western Canada and in my own constituency of Prince Albert. I felt that when visitors were here from all parts of the empire it was my duty to be in Ottawa and, as leader of my party, extend what courtesies I could to the guests of hon. gentlemen opposite, and to refrain from criticizing their hosts in any particular. When the agreement itself was subsequently announced, and its limitations were only too self-evident, I gave an interview to the press of the country in which I advised my own followers to avoid anything in the nature of criticism of the agreements until we had the
full details before us in parliament. I have done everything that a leader of a political party possibly could do to be chivalrous and to cooperate with hon. gentlemen opposite-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But chivalry
and cooperation are evidently words that are not to be found in the vocabulary of some of them, and particularly in the vocabulary of the right hon. leader of the government.
Now let me go a step further. Speaking of cooperation and the desire to have all parties united in the acceptance of a great agreement such as this is, I would like to ask the country-I will not ask hon. gentlemen opposite because they might not care to say -what they think of the line of approach taken by the Prime Minister in presenting these agreements to the House of Commons for the acceptance and more particularly in seeking the acceptance of those of us who sit on this side. What was the language used by my right hon. friend in referring to those of us on this side of the house? It was as provocative of antagonism as language could be. He made it pretty clear so far as we were concerned, that if any of us would venture to say a word in criticism of the agreements we were to be branded as guilty of some act of disloyalty to the empire at a time of crisis, that we would be regarded henceforth as unpatriotic. Listen to these words of his:
I ask my honourable friends on the other side of the house to accept these agreements in that spirit. I ask them before they prejudice the success of them by criticism induced by the consciousness that we have done what they failed to do. to remember that these agreements are for the good of Canada, for the good of the empire, and that these considerations at this time particularly should transcend the interest of party. T do not ask them to defend their failures of the past. I do not even wish to put them in issue.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: How conciliatory'!


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As my hon.
friend says, how conciliatory is language of that kind, how calculated to bring about happy relations between all parties in this house over a great imperial project on which a united front is desired! I say that my right hon. friend was as provocative as a prime minister could possibly be in presenting the agreement to parliament for its approval.
Failures in the past? If you want any answer to that I ask the Prime Minister to trace the progress and prosperity of this country under the regime of Sir Wilfrid
i	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
Laurier and the late administration, and compare it with conditions under the regime of hon. gentlemen opposite.
Listen to this further language of my right hon. friend:
I say that we have done well.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: "I", "I".


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And let those who would, for personal or party advantage, cavil at these agreements, remember that in all the history of this empire nothing has been before achieved comparable in present benefit or in future promise to that which the Ottawa conference may claim to its lasting credit.
Those who would for personal or party advantage cavil at these agreements? I ask the Prime Minister, was it for personal or party advantage that he did what he did with respect to these agreements? Was he actuated by personal or party motives in all that he did with respect to this conference. If he was not, I ask him what right he has to impute any such motives to anyone else.
While I am referring to this subject may I on behalf of the Canadian people extend to the people of Great Britain an apology on behalf of this country for language on the part of its Prime Minister which would infer that those who have dared to venture to take exception to features of the agreement which has been arrived at in this city are lacking in patriotism and loyalty to the empire. If we have reached the point in our history where the thought of public men not only in this country but in all parts of the empire is to be terrorized by the Prime Minister of Canada, it is time that some of us should speak out and let the people of Great Britain know that the people of Canada are just as proud of an independent expression of view as are the people of Great Britain, If through British history we all had not had that regard for independent expression of view we would not be the British peoples we are to-day.
I have referred to the attitude of the Prime Minister in seeking to secure cooperation in the approval of these agreements. The house will be able to judge how successful it was likely to be. Let me read now to the house what the Prime Minister said with respect to the principle underlying these agreements. I take it that it is the principle with which we are primarily concerned in registering our approval or disapproval of these agreements.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hon. gentlemen opposite say, "hear, hear." so there can be no doubt on that score. Now I ask the house to

listen to the statement of principle underlying these agreements as given by the Prime Minister. At page 109 of Hansard of October 12, 1932, he is reported as having said:
These agreements mark the first forward step in a definite scheme of closer empire economic association. They are based upon the principle enunciated by the Conservative party before the last general election, and steadfastly supported by it from that time to the present. They conform to the general plan pro-posed by this government at the economic conference held at London two years ago, reaffirmed at the opening of the Ottawa conference.
And elsewhere:
I made it clear that in our opinion the ideal application of the principle of protection involved an equalization of benefits thereunder as between manufactured and natural products.
And again:
Nor at this time do I wish to point the moral and suggest that the policies of this government, those which throughout the long years the party it represents has so unswervingly supported, must inevitably be the only policies on which a mutually beneficial plan of empire trade could be developed.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, how in the face of those statements are hon. members on this side of the house who have been opposed to the principle of protection as enunciated by hon. gentlemen opposite, to be expected to support the agreements now before us? How can we be expected to support them, and still preserve our self-respect in the matter of supporting our own principles? The Prime Minister has said: "They are based upon the principle enunciated by the Conservative party before the last general election." What was the principle of which he speaks?
The national convention held in Winnipeg on October 10 to 12, 1927, affirmed its adherence to the principle of the historic fiscal policy of the Conservative party. It is true that hon. gentlemen opposite ran away from the word "protection." They were afraid to use that word openly in the west, but every one knows what the historic fiscal policy of hon. gentlemen opposite is. It is the old Tory policy of protection. Under the present administration, however, it has become a policy of very high protection, a protection amounting almost to prohibition; in fact, in the great majority of cases it does amount to prohibition.
So I ask, Mr. Speaker: how are those of us who fought the Conservative policy in the election campaign of 1930, who have based our policies not on increases but on lowering of tariffs, and have made our appeal to the people on that score-how are we to support a trade agreement which the Prime Minister tells us is based on that principle? The right

United Kingdom
hon. gentleman opposite has made it impossible for us, even if we wished to do so, to support these agreements in their entirety. Were we to do so for all time to come we would hereafter be confronted with the charge that in approving these agreements we had endorsed the principle of protection, the historic policy of the Conservative party.
My right hon. friend goes a step farther and makes his position doubly clear, by stating, "They conform to the general plan proposed by this government at the economic conference held in London two years ago." What was that general plan? The plan was that the British government was to change its fiscal policy, that it was to become a protectionist government, and that only when it became protectionist would the government of Canada undertake to deal with it in the matter of reciprocal tariffs. My right hon. friend said, "We do not want any preferences granted by the lowering of tariffs, but what we tell you you must do is this: you must increase tariffs by 10 per cent." He went a step further at the conference and said, "I am appealing to you on the basis upon which the Conservative party in Canada appealed to the country in the general election of 1930. I am here representing a Canada first policy, and that Canada first policy means that nothing which can be produced or manufactured in Canada shall be permitted to come into Canada except over tariff walls high enough to keep out anything in the nature of effective competition." That was the doctrine as he laid it down; there can be no mistake. Let me read what my right hon. friend said in London.
The Conservative party of Canada believes in and employs the principle of protection of the home producer of agricultural and fabricated products from harmful interference or world competitors. This policy of the Conservative party has come to be known as the policy of Canada-first. In approaching the economic problems of our empire, I stand foursquare behind that policy. And if this conference is to meet these problems, and provide an effective solution of them, it seems to me my attitude towards my own country will be the attitude of you all towards yours. On no other basis can we hope to effect an enduring agreement of benefit to each one of us.
That is the basis upon which the Prime Minister now tells us the agreements arrived at in Ottawa have been effective. Let me read again a few words from what the right hon. gentleman said in London:
rl he basis of the proposal is adequate protection to the industries now existent or yet to be established.
That was the basis on which he made his proposals in England-the basis of adequate protection, the old Tory doctrine of protection.
He made his proposals on that basis alone, and he tells us that it is on that basis that the agreements now before us are made. In order that there may be no mistake in this I shall ask the Prime Minister to correct me if I am wrong. Speaking of my right hon. friend, I have said that from the beginning he was consistent in his attitude, that he believed in high tariffs with all his soul, and that it was only on a high tariff basis that he would make agreements with any country. He has done that; he has been following that policy consistently. I say however, when he tells us that the principle of protection is the basis of his agreements, when he tells us that this agreement is based on a policy of high tariffs and Canada first, he cannot expect us to give him support. In other words, he is asking the Liberal party of Canada to do with respect to its principles what he asked Great Britain to do with respect to her fiscal policy. He said to Great Britain, "You must change your fiscal policy before I will negotiate with you." He now says to us, "You must change your principles or you cannot support this agreement." The fiscal policy of Great Britain has been changed. Whether the right hon. gentleman was responsible for changing it is a matter of indifference; the fact remains that it has been changed. On this side of the house, we of the Liberal party still believe in^ the principle of greater freedom of trade. We do not accept the principle of protection, and we cannot be expected to accept as policies which may help this country or the empire, agreements which are avowedly based on protectionist policies, and particularly a protectionist policy of the type laid down by my right hon. friend at the conference of 1930, and which caused that conference to be the deplorable tragedy we know it was.
There can be no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that that is the view taken of the agreement. It is taken not only by hon. members on this side of the house, but is the view taken by statesmen in the old country, who are familiar with its terms. I need not quote at length from different sources, but there is one quotation which I believe to be pertinent to the issue, because it has a bearing on the attitude of those who hold like views in this house. Hon. members have learned of the grounds upon which Liberal ministers of the crown resigned from office in Great Britain. It was not because they were not loyal to the empire; it was not because they did not desire to further trade between different parts of the empire, but because the agreements they were asked to approve are based on protectionist principles, a basis which seeks to rivet protection as a permanent policy on Great
268	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
Britain and on the British empire. In their resignations they so stated. Statements made by the ministers are supplemented by a statement made ' by the Liberal Federation of Britain, and in a communication to which Lord Crewe, Lord Reading and Viscount Grey of Falloden, were signatories, we have the following :


Ernest Lapointe: All unpatriotic, of course.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I read as follows in reference to the statement:
The question now, continued this statement, was not one of tariffs for revenue, nor of tariffs for an emergency such as were contemplated at the last election. "The government is now committed to an enduring policy of tariffs, which cannot by their nature be used to bargain for lower tariffs, and which must be further obstacles to that freer world trade to which we were all assured the Ottawa conference would be the prelude."
This is the view taken by one of the political parties in Great Britain with respect to these agreements. That is the view which, after studying the agreements, I think every hon. member in the house and every person in the country will conclude is the only view which may properly be taken. Indeed, whether it is or not, it is the view which the Prime Minister of Canada has said the government purposes to take in its statement of what it has achieved at the conference-
Now may I go a step further. My right hon. friend asks us on this side, in endorsing this agreement, to endorse Conservative tariff policies; he says this agreement is based on Conservative tariff policies, and he asks us to endorse them. My right hon. friend knows that at this very time we have before the house a motion in amendment to the address to His Excellency in reply to the speech from the throne which states that this house is of the opinion that the tariff policies of the government have worked injuries throughout this country, and he knows that every hon. member on this side of the house, speaking for the official opposition, is of that opinion and intends to support that resolution. I ask him how we can support a resolution which condemns the tariff policies of the government and at the same time support an agreement which the Prime Minister says is based on those tariff policies, an agreement which I believe, as one studies its provisions and sees the heights to which they have still further increased the tariff, will be seen, if put into effect, further to aggravate conditions that are already bad.
Let me read the motion that is before the house at the present time:
-this house is of the opinion that the tariff policies of the present administration have
fMr. Mackenzie King.]
seriously injured the trade of Canada and have intensified the economic depression, and that the government has wholly failed to afford a remedy for unemployment and agricultural distress as pledged by the Prime Minister.
That is our amendment. It is before this House of Commons at the present time. It states that the tariff policies of the government have failed to help solve the problem of unemployment and that they have made depressed conditions worse. We were careful to interject into that resolution words which would save the bringing of these conference agreements into the discussion, but notwithstanding that safeguard in our resolution the Prime Minister comes boldly forward and deliberately states in his opening remarks that these agreements are based upon the tariff policies identical in principle with those which are condemned in that resolution. Again I say, Mr. Speaker, how can a party that hopes to be consistent in the matter of principle be expected to take a position which will completely deny all that it has been standing for in the past, and all that it stands for at the present time? I do not know whether the Prime Minister was anxious to incur the opposition of hon. members on this side to approve of this agreement, but if that was his motive he could not have gone about it more effectively than in doing what he has done because I venture to say that any reasonable body of men, viewing the situation in the light of the statements of the Prime Minister, would say that it would be impossible for any party opposed to tariff policies such as those of the ministry opposite to support an agreement which will make those policies binding not only upon this country but also upon the other parts of the empire affected by them.
Let me now come to the agreement itself, and here I venture to say that if any are in doubt as to the truth of what the Prime Minister has said with regard to the high tariff or protective principle underlying the agreements, there will be no doubt left after an examination is made. Let us take first the Prime Minister's own statement on the tariff items. Altogether there are 223 items mentioned in the schedule, and we must remember that in supporting the agreement we are supporting this schedule; we cannot escape that, and everyone who votes for this motion votes in support of the schedule as it stands. What does the Prime Minister tell us in this regard?
The 223 items above mentioned as those on which the empire trading margin is widened may be classified as follows:
Items in which the result is secured by:
(a)	reduction of the British preferential rate only	 81

United Kingdom
(b)	increase in the intermediate or
general rate, or both	 89
(c)	reduction in the British preferential rate accompanied by increases in the intermediate or general rate, or both	
49(d)	reduction in all rates	
2(e)	increase in all rates	
1(f)	reduction in British preferentialand intermediate rates	
1
Of the 223 items there are 139 which have been brought about by increasing a tariff which is higher already than any tariff any country has ever had: In the light of that I ask how hon. gentlemen opposite can ask those of us who, in season and out of season have been seeking to get the tariff reduced to support a schedule framed in that fashion and which serves to bring about that kind of a result. That is the first statement on that score that I desire to bring to the attention of the house. It may be regarded as official.
Perhaps I cannot do better than to run through the agreement clause by clause; that is at least the only way to appreciate what it is we are being asked to approve. I read article I:
His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom undertake that orders shall be made in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Import Duties Act, 1932, which will ensure the continuance after the 15th November, 1932, of entry free of duty into the United Kingdom of goods consigned from any part of the British Empire and grown, produced or manufactured in Canada which by virtue of that act are now free of duty subject,, however, to the reservation set forth in schedule A appended hereto.
In speaking of that article of the agreement the Prime Minister stated that this was a great gain, that the government had secured the continuance of the continued free entry of goods into the British market as a result of the conference. The Import Duties Act which was passed in February of this year imposed duties on a very large number of commodities, but commodities from the dominions were exempt until November 15 of this year. Undoubtedly that provision was placed in the act with the view of safeguarding the situation for the future, but does anyone suppose that the British government would have thought of later on imposing duties against the different dominions on the various articles that were exempted at the time the act was put into effect? The British government had already shown towards Canada an attitude similar to that Canada showed towards the British government when we granted the preference in our markets;
of its own volition it gave Canada free entry into the markets of Great Britain with respect to those commodities on which duties were imposed when coming from other countries but as of our own volition we gave our preferences to the United Kingdom. Right Hon. Stanley Baldwin, speaking in this very chamber, representing the British government, drew attention to the fact that this right of free duty to the British market was something which this country might well appreciate. Mr. Baldwin's whole plea at the beginning of the conference-and it represented the British point of view at the beginning, however it may have changed later on-was that the conference might result in the reduction of tariffs all round rather than in the raising of tariffs as between the different parts of the British Empire or against other countries. Then how can my right hon. friend claim that the conference won anything in that regard? As I say, we have been enjoying that market ever since February, and this is October. My Tight hon. friend says it is going to be a great thing for the manufacturers of this country to have that great market of forty million people in which to sell our Canadian products. May I say to the right hon. gentleman that if Canadian manufacturers are able to go into the British market and successfully compete I do not see that they need anything in the way of further protection against British industry in this market. My right hon. friend would have us believe the conference had given our manufacturers the right to sell their goods in the British market. I say that right was secured to us by the voluntary action of the British government months before the conference began its sittings.
More than that, the Canadian government was not the only government represented at the conference; all the other parts of the British Empire were represented as well. Is no credit to go to any other part of the empire for what may have been accomplished, if aught was accomplished, in the continuance of this freedom of entry into the British market? And may I ask further if it is to be assumed that Great Britain is desirous of declaring economic war against the dominions? That is exactly what would be happening if Great Britain began putting up tariff barriers against the entry of goods from the dominions. No; there were many reasons which governed Britain's action. One was that there are some people left in the United Kingdom who still believe in the wisdom of the free entry of goods, and there are many things they want to
270	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
bring in from the dominions and elsewhere free of duty. Great Britain wanted this provision for herseilf. In the second place she wanted to reciprocate the attitude Canada has shown towards her ever since the British preference was put into operation here more than thirty years ago. Those are the reasons which caused the British government to take the course it did in continuing the free entry of goods from this country into the British market.
Article 1 of the agreement must be read in conjunction with schedule A which is attached to the agreement, and I ask hon. members to note this carefully. My right hon. friend and his friends have been telling the farmers of the country that four-fifths of the agreement is in their interests. When we discover to what extent the interests of the farmers have been furthered by the agreement, we shall find that there is not much left to say about the fractional degree to which other interests are going to share. Let me read schedule A:
As regards eggs, poultry, butter, cheese and other milk products, free entry for Canadian produce will be continued for three years certain. His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom, however, reserve to themselves the right after the expiration of the three years, if they consider it necessary in the interests of the United Kingdom producer to do so, to review the basis of preference, so far as relates to the articles above enumerated, and, after notifying His Majesty's government in Canada either to impose a preferential duty on Canadian produce, whilst maintaining existing preferential margins, or, in consultation with the Canadian government, to bring such produce within any system which may be put into operation for the quantitative regulation of supplies from all sources in the United Kingdom market.
Do you see what that means? My right hon. friend says that it is very desirable that the agreements should be made for long terms. We have not him to thank that this agreement was not made for ten years. At the opening of the conference he was quite strong for having the agreement extend for as many years as possible, and the fact that the agreement has been limited to five years has been due to other influences exerted at the conference than those that came from Canada, But what about this portion of the agreement that relates to dairy products-eggs, poultry, butter, cheese and other milk products? My hon. friends opposite have been saying that we -are going to be vastly helped by the agreement and that we shall have an opportunity now to sell our butter in the British market. They have not mentioned the fact that New Zealand gets exactly the same right as Canada in the British market, as do also Australia and the other dominions. They told

the Canadian people that we could not compete with New Zealand butter in our own market, and yet they declare now that we have gained tremendously by getting the right to compete with that same New Zealand butter in the British market. But let us look at the situation as it affects not only butter but all these other dairy products such as cheese, milk and other milk products. What does the agreement provide? It stipulates that at the end of three years-that is all this portion is to run for-the government of Great Britain will reserve to itself the right to-lower duties? No, not to -lower duties but to impose duties in the interests of -the agriculturists of Great Britain. The Right Hon. Mr. Amery, who represented the agricultural interests of Britain at the Imperial conference in Ottawa, has made the statement since his return to England that they ought to -begin the work of protecting British agriculture immediately, and not wait for any further conference in the matter. They have the principle of protection endorsed, and they ought to go ahead immediately with further protection for agriculture in Britain. What does this agreement say? It says that the British government will reserve to itself the right to impose increased duties with respect to all these dairy products. The only obligation with regard to Canada's possible benefit is that a certain margin will be preserved in the form of a preference; that is to say, the duties against Canada and other parts of the empire will not be as high as those imposed on European countries. May I recall what Joseph Chamberlain said when he advocated preferences. He said, "If you put your duties so high to begin with that we cannot get over them, the fact that you give us a preference does not amount to anything one way or the other." I ask hon. gentlemen opposite representing rural constituencies: Are you by your votes going to endorse the principle of the British government placing a duty on dairy products? That is what is being done by this agreement. We have it in black and white that the British government reserves to itself the right to impose duties-


An hon. MEMBER:: It has that right now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Notice is served in black and white in this agreement that it proposes to impose such duties at the end of three years.


An hon. MEMBER:: They have that right now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me answer the hon. gentleman who says they have that right now. What they have not at the

United Kingdom
present time is the endorsation of hon. gentlemen opposite of the imposition of a duty on agricultural products from this country. They will have that endorsation after hon. gentlemen opposite have given their support to this agreement, and any delegation of Canadian farmers that may go to Britain to protest against anything of the kind will be told, as quick as a flash, " Your own Conservative members in the House of Commons of Canada voted in approval of the reservation, indicative of an intention of the British government with respect to the imposition of extra duties on agricultural products." It is precisely what I said a moment ago; you cannot expect to inaugurate a protectionist regime in Britain in relation to manufacturers only and not expect that the farmers of Britain will be herrd from with regard to increased protection for themselves.
The more we see of this agreement, Mr. Speaker, so far as the interests of Canadian agriculture are concerned, the more we had better reflect upon the consequences of it in the immediate future. This provision is simply prophetic of the intention of the British government to levy duties against our dairy products inside of three years. I wonder how the farmers of this country will view this agreement as they see the gates gradually closing against their dairy products as they go towards the British market; because that is what is foreshadowed here. It is not surprising that hon. gentlemen opposite brought on their by-election in South Huron long before the terms of this agreement were made known. I said to the farmers in South Huron that the government knew pretty well what was in the agreement and that we should find, as soon as the election was over, just why it was that the byelection was brought on before the agreement was made public. We have the reason right here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I be permitted to inform the right hon. gentleman that the writ was issued on the 3rd day of August, as the law requires, 56 days' notice having been given. I intended to correct this mistake the other day.


Ernest Lapointe: What does that mean?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It means nothing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, no.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government had until the month of December to bring on the byelection. And may I say, with respect to some hon. gentlemen sitting opposite, that it was nearly a year before they were
admitted to the house, their constituencies having remained unrepresented in the interval. My right hon. friend's government might try that trick in South Huron, but it will not work with me. It is just a little more of that humbug, of which this provision also is an example. Speaking of humbug, listen to this. Knowing what was in this agreement, what did my right hon. friend say to the farmers in Calgary, as reported in the Calgary Herald on September 6:
Reverting briefly to the conference, he said: "Ever since I came arrong you you have cried aloud for these markets now secured to you.
Now you've got your chance; Deliver the goods. They are youru, but yours only if you take them.
And all the time here is the shadow of these closing gates against Canadian produce going into the British market three years hence. That is the result of blasting a way into the British markets, of making tariffs fight for the farmers.
Let us take the next clause, article 2, it reads:
His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom will invite parliament to pass the legislation necessary to impose on the foreign goods specified in schedule B appended hereto, the duties of customs shown in that schedule in place of the duties (if any) now leviable.
Schedule B is as follows: The first is wheat in grain, 2s. per quarter. I shall not quote the rates of duties fixed for the others, but I might indicate the commodities that are mentioned: Butter; cheese; pears, raw; apples, raw; apples, canned; dried fruits; eggs in shell; condensed milk; copper, unwrought, whether refined or not. That is the list, and with respect to it, article 2 says that the British government will ask parliament to impose the duties stated. In connection with that list it is necessary to read also article 4 of the agreement, because article 4 refers to that list in part. What does article 4 say? It says:
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.
No wonder I hear some hon. gentlemen saying, more humbug. What does this article 4 mean? The British government is being asked, and it is agreeing to ask the British parliament, to impose a duty against outside countries on wheat, lead, zinc and copper. The Prime Minister made a long statement
>
COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
as to what all this would mean in the way of increased advantage to the farmers, industrialists and others. What does it come down to? First of all, with respect to these four commodities, the condition is that Canada must make her first sale in the British market. In other words, if there is scarcity in other parts of the world for any of these commodities, Canada has no right to take advantage of the higher prices which that scarcity might create. She has to go first into the British market or lose the benefit if any of this preference.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wonder that my hon. friend says no, but those are the facts.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is not the fact; it is a distortion of the fact.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. gentleman will have an opportunity to express his views. Let me read the article again:
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.
Note-"are unwilling or unable." There cannot be any other meaning than that-that the only condition on which the preference is maintained is that we offer our goods on first sale in the United Kingdom although our wheat may be in demand in all parts of the world.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that not terrible?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend opposite ought to have groaned at the conference when the proposition was made.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is not a correct interpretation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Minister of Trade and Commerce should have uttered his groans at the conference. This is another feature of this bargaining business; nobody is going to agree what the bargain was. This is the English language and some of us at least understand the meaning of plain English:
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-
Not merely unable.
-or unwilling to offer these commodities on first sale in the United Kingdom.

That is the first thing. They have to be offered on first sale. As I have said, if there is scarcity in other parts of the world, off goes the duty so far as Great Britain is concerned if any of our wheat producers begin to offer their grain for sale in other countries and are unwilling to offer their first sale in the British market. What is the next condition?
At prices not exceeding the world prices.
Where is the advantage that is now to be gained? We get the world prices now. That is all tlie Canadian wheat producer and the copper, zinc and lead producers are getting now, all they are going to get under this agreement; they are going to get the benefit of the world prices. Let us see how that works out. Let us take what will certainly occur. Canada sends her wheat into the British market. Other nations are not permitted to send their wheat into the British market while Canadian wheat is going in there. What are other nations going to do? Are they going to remain idle? Are they going to keep their wheat in their own bins? They will find in Europe some other centre which will become the world centre and they will ship their wheat there, with the result that there will be keener competition than ever at this world centre, and the world price of wheat will go down. Therefore the Canadian farmer will probably find, as I think the right hon. gentleman was told during the conference or as it was represented to him anyway during the conference,-that the effect of this provision may even be to reduce the price of wheat for our western producers. That is as plain as it can be. Supposing there is a scarcity in Great Britain, we have immediately to rush our wheat into the British market, but any advantage we might get out of the scarcity in Britain at present will be offset hereafter by the fact that the only price we can obtain for it is the world price if wheat be plentiful elsewhere. We have to take the world price for our wheat, no matter which way it goes. The Canadian wheat producer gets only the world price and what as a consequence of this provision may happen to be a depressed price. The same is true of copper, zinc and lead. While the farmer is getting less for his wheat, butter and a few other things and the door is closing against him in the British markets some three years hence for his dairy products, what is happening under this agreement to the necessaries of life he has to purchase and to his costs of production? When we come to study the tariff schedules we shall see that the duties have been put up to a higher figure with respect to commodities coming from outside the empire than they have been at any previous time, notwithstanding the enormous

United Kingdom
height at which the tariff stands at present, and the duties even under the preference are practically prohibitive, so that the farmer will have to pay more for his necessities and those things that affect the cost of production, and as a consequence he will get less for what he sells in the markets of the world. That is the agreement which hon. gentlemen opposite claim is going to be so beneficial to everybody, but five-sixths of the benefit of which is going to the farmers of this country.
May I ask my hon. friends this question because I think it is important. They maintain that they got a concession from Great Britain on this point. Does that mean that the British government undertook to increase those duties because of some pressure which was brought to bear upon them; that the British government did not wish to put them up, but that they were told in so many words: You will get no bargain and we shall not have any agreement with Great Britain except on the basis of preference, and if you do not tax the food of your people, we shall not bargain with you? Is that what was meant by getting a concession? If there was coercion of that kind, if that was the basis on which the agreement was made, the sooner the agreement is let fall to the ground the better, because there will never be any good come to the British Empire when what is arrived at between different parts of it in any agreement is reached as the result of coercion. There has been coercion in the past. There was military coercion for a long time. That was resented and we had about the last of it on this continent in 1776. For a long time there remained legislative coercion across the seas. That was put an end to fortunately by the Imperial conference of 1926, and what has since been enacted by the Statute of Westminster. Are we now to have something new in the nature of economic coercion? Is one part of the empire to be coerced into doing against its will in the matter of the taxes it imposes and the fiscal policy that is to govern, something that it -would not have done but for an endeavour to avoid a conference being a failure in the eyes of the world9 I say hon. gentlem n opposite will have to make pretty clear to this house and the country on what basis these concessions were arrived at. If the British ministers themselves were for putting these increased taxes on food, if that was all done voluntarily on the part of Great Britain, as in 1923 in regard to what was done there in a limited way, well and good, I do not think any of us should have anything to say 53719- is
about it. But if those duties on the food of the British people were put there as a result of pressure which the government of Canada put upon the British government, then no Canadian can escape the responsibility.
Some bon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hon. gentlemen may laugh, but I tell them in these days of suffering, taxes on food mean a great deal to the common people. We know what the cost of living is in this country, and with what difficulty people are living here. We know also that in the old country people are suffering from lack of food and of the wherewithal to purchase food, and I say if these duties are there as a result of pressure put upon the British government by hon. gentlemen, apposite, then this country is guilty of a very grave fault, guilty of a course of conduct which cannot be defended. Again I say, if it is not the result of a bargain, if it is simply the free will of the British ministry doing what they think the British people wish to have done, then there is nothing further to be said; but any attempt to coerce the British ministry with a view to bring about an agreement, however laudable the object may be, is wholly inr defensible and should not be supported in any parliament loving freedom and the right to manage its affairs in its own way.
Now may I take article 3:
His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom undertake that the general ad valorem duty of ten per cent imposed by section 1 of the Import Duties Act, 1932, on the foreign goods specified in schedule C shall not be reduced except with the consent of His Majesty's government in Canada.
I ask hon. members to note that article with great care. What is schedule C? Schedule C is timber, fish, salmon and other fish canned, asbestos, zinc and lead. I have already pointed out that as far as zinc and lead are concerned they are in the same category as wheat, the duty only remains as long as Canada is willing and able to sell in the first instance her supply to Great Britain, and so long as she sells it at the world price, otherwise the duty goes off. Now, as to timber, there is a small duty at the present time and that is being continued. That is practically all schedule C signifies as regard timbers. That leaves fish, canned salmon and other fish, and asbestos. In regard to fish I think it will be seen that the rates secured by this agreement are the rates that we secured voluntarily in 1923.


An hon. MEMBER:: Just another fish
story?

274	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But the point of greatest significance in this article is this, and remember in endorsing an agreement we are above everything else endorsing the principles that underly it. This duty of ten per cent shall not be reduced except with the consent of His Majesty's government-where, in Great Britain? No, in Canada. This duty of ten per cent which is being put upon some of the food and other necessaries of the British people cannot be reduced except with the consent of the government of Canada. Can anyone defend an action of that kind? There is something very, very far-reaching and very significant. Let us turn the situation around; how would we in Canada feel if with respect to an agreement that had been entered into, our government, this Conservative government said, "We have fixed certain duties on timber, which has to do with all the work of construction, houses and the like, we have fixed certain duties on fish and other forms of food, and on copper and zinc, and we will not allow these duties to be changed except with the consent not of our own parliament but of the British government". How would we feel? Is there one member of this house who would support that? I venture to say there is not one hon. member in any of the parties who would support it. Then how can we ask the British government to support a measure which we in our own parliament would not be prepared to support if the situation were reversed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They have agreed to it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, under the kind of compulsion we have heard about, the government of the day in Britain has agreed to it. The British people have not agreed to it. May I add a further point that must not be lost sight of. This agreement is for the term of five years. In these premises, how can it longer be said that Great Britain has control over her own fiscal policy? How can it longer be said that Great Britain has the right to regulate her own taxes? It can-lot possibly be said that she has if this agreement is to remain in force, because here is a clause which says that only with the consent of the government of Canada can the British parliament lower the duties that have been imposed by this agreement upon its people in the particulars mentioned. Parliament in this dominion has struggled in the past for the right of self-government, for the right to control its own fiscal policies, and to have autonomous rights in all things; are members of parliament who have sought and helped to win these things, and have secured them

at the last with the goodwill and by the good grace of Great Britain, now going to try to fetter the fiscal liberty and parliamentary freedom of the people of the old land? Mr. Speaker, I say the principle embedded here is wholly indefensible and is undeserving of any support from any part of the British Empire.
As I have already said, this section has to be read in connection with article 22:
This agreement between His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom and His Majesty's government in Canada is to be regarded as coming into effect as from the date hereof (subject to the necessary legislative or other action being taken as soon as may be practicable hereafter). It shall remain in force for a period of five years, and if not denounced six months before the end of that period shall continue in force thereafter until a date six months after notice of denunciation has been given by either party.
May I point out that not only does this mean that by approving this agreement we abandon the principle of control of our own fiscal policy, but we surrender all right hereafter to protest about interference in the domestic affairs of our parliament or country by other parts of the British Empire; and we support another principle which is equally vicious, and which the Prime Minister himself has said is bad, namely we bind the hands of succeeding parliaments. What did my right hon. friend say in that regard? I quoted him the other day; he made it very clear what his view was as to binding the future of other parliaments. I have not his exact words at hand, but they were to the effect that any principle of that kind was entirely wrong, and he gave among other reasons why it was wrong, that it helped to create vested interests. Was he trying to create vested interests when he had that clause put into the agreement? Has he been trying, all through this agreement, to create vested interests, binding the people to a certain level of taxation for five years, was that for the purpose of strengthening vested interests in this country and Great Britain which exist at the present time? I am using his own words when I speak of the effect in the creation of vested interests by binding the hands of subsequent parliaments.
May I add this further, that there is no guarantee even as far as this clause and some other features of this agreement are concerned, that other parliaments in Great Britain are going to countenance this principle of having their hands bound by a previous administration. Indeed already some of the leaders in Great Britain have made very clear what their views on that point are. What does Mr. George

United, Kingdom
Lansbury, the leader of the Labour party in England, say with respect to these agreements in the event of the Labour party being returned to power?
Mr. George Lansbury, leader of the Labour party, speaking at Carlisle, said it would be a profound mistake if the statesmen gathered in Ottawa imagined that the present British government could bind the nation for a period of years to a policy of protection. The Labour party would never accept the principle of continuity either in foreign, dominion or domestic affairs. The Labour party wants, and will struggle for, international agreements which will enable the goods of the world to be exchanged fairly and equitably between the various nations. Tariff and preferences can never do this. The Labour party, whenever the election comes, will ask for a mandate to free the people from any economic entanglements which may be woven around them at Ottawa.
The Labour movement wanted the best of relations with the dominions, but these must be a part of the international relationships with the rest of the world.
There is a statement by the leader of the Labour party in England, and it is endorsed by Mr. Arthur Henderson, another leader of Labour, who in a letter denounced the British government for-

bartering away for years our freedom to determine our own fiscal system and making concessions which must be paid for by the British householder in higher prices.
I would also quote here, because they are entitled to speak for those they represent, the views of the Liberal ministers in Great Britain including Sir Herbert Samuel and Sir Archibald Sinclair as expressed in the joint letter of resignation which they issued, in which they declared they regarded the Ottawa agreements as-
-a danger to the best interests of the empire, a derogation from the powers of parliament, a barrier to removing restrictions on the world's trade; a burden upon the British people and a probable cause of increased unemployment and social unrest.
And those views were endorsed by the executive of the Liberal Federation in Great Britain. May I say that the Liberals in Great Britain are just as loyal and true citizens of the British Empire as any others, and no one in this parliament has the right to>
question the sincerity of anybody in this or any other part of the empire who gives expression to his own views with respect to these agreements.
May I draw attention to the words of the Right Hon. Philip Snowden. I confess, whatever opinions others may hold of him, that he is a man I wholeheartedly admire, a man who has the courage of his convictions regardless of what the cost may be in the attitude which the public may take towards him, 53719-181
a man who is prepared to make for his convictions all kinds of sacrifices. What did he say of the Ottawa agreements, and he did not say it without having profound reasons for the view he takes? He said:
The dominions are to dictate to us where we shall buy and where we shall not buy. The agreements have surrendered our fiscal autonomy and have handed over to the dominions control of British trade policy, reducing this country below the status of the dominions.
My colleague (Mr. Lapointe) has just handed me the Prime Minister's own words with respect to this binding of future parliaments. Speaking to a bill that was before the house in April, 1928, the present Prime Minister then said:
This particular bill is, I think, the one in which we endeavoured to apply, as something that should be observed generally in matters of this kind, the principle to which reference has been made. Personally I have held a very strong view for some considerable time as to the undesirability of any legislature or parliament tying the hands of succeeding legislatures or parliaments with respect to annual expenditure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear-" annual
expenditures."


Ernest Lapointe: What about taxation?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Surely there
is a parallel. My right hon. friend a little before had said:
That idea may or may not be sound, but I do not think that when matters of policy are affected-
Why does not the Prime Minister say "hear, hear" now?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do. I was speaking
of annual expenditures.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Listen to what follows:
-and matters of policy always are affected in relation to grants of public moneys-this parliament should tie the hands of two or three succeeding parliaments. Not denying that parliament has always the right to repeal legislation. I submit it is undesirable to create vested rights with respect to legislation.
He also said:
Five years is the life of a parliament, and I cannot think it quite consonant with the ideas of the right hon. gentleman as heretofore expressed that this parliament should bind the hands of future parliaments. I am quite aware of the fact that it would be quite competent for succeeding parliaments to change that figure to forty or to ten; they would have that power, but a vested interest is acquired when a statute of this kind is passed by parliament; the commission naturally expects that that is the end of it.
I think the Prime Minister has made it very clear what his feeling in the matter is.
276	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


Richard Bedford Bennett: Annual appropriations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If there is any single principle of self-government, surely it is that the people have control over taxation, and are in duty bound to review the taxes every year. May I say to my right hon. friend that a tariff is a tax, and he cannot get away from that no matter what he may say to the contrary. Every duty imposes a tax upon the people of the country.
Next comes Article 5 which reads:
His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom will invite parliament to pass the legislation necessary to modify the conditions at present governing the importation into the United Kingdom of live cattle from Canada on the lines already agreed upon in principle between themselves and His Majesty's government in Canada.
That is a matter that might be considered apart from the treaty altogether. I see my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Mullins) is listening as we speak about the removal of a cattle embargo. I think he has the view that he secured the removal of a cattle embargo himself, that it did not require any conference to do that. I have always thought that he had a part in it, although I think the largest credit is due to the late Hon. Peter Larkin, who was Canadian High Commissioner in London at the time the embargo was removed. However, cattle embargoes have been removed before and they may be removed again, but they can hardly be regarded as having a special place in an agreement of this kind.
I come now to Article 6, and I ask hon. members to see what they can make out of it in the way of definiteness. One of the faults of this whole agreement is the obscurity of the language in which it is couched, the uncertainly as to the meaning of the words and as to what their interpretation and application will be:
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 ewt. per annum.
Does that really mean anything? It means that a commission is sitting and is going to report, and after its report the government may submit some measure to parliament, but it does not say that the measure will be submitted or that parliament will accept tho

measure if it is. It does not say what the measure -is going to be or when the legislation is to become operative or for how long it will remain in operation. There is nothing there that binds the British government to do anything for a term of five years. It says nothing as to the time at which this legislation is to come into force or as to the period during which it will remain in force. That is another of the great achievements secured by this agreement for the benefit of the agriculturists of this country.
Article 7 provides:
His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom wall invite parliament to pass legislation which will secure for a period of ten years from the date hereof to tobacco, consigned from any part of the British Empire and grown, produced or manufactured in Canada, the existing margin of preference over foreign tobacco, so long, however, as the duty on foreign unmanufactured tobacco does not fall below 2/01d. per lb., in which event the margin of preference shall be equal to tbe full duty.
What does that clause mean? It purports to be doing something for the tobacco growers for a period of ten years. Notice how insidious this whole business is. At one point the protection is for a period of three years, at another time for five years, and here the government have succeeded in working in something that might be thought to extend for ten years. They seek in this way to have the public mind grow accustomed to protection over a long period, but there is nothing in the clause itself which necessarily means that any duty will be retained for any length of time, or that it must necessarily be of any particular amount. The article rather suggests it may gradually vanish. Look at what it says:
His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom will invite parliament to pass legislation which will secure for a period of ten years . . . the existing margin of preference over foreign tobacco.
They have now an existing margin which the article says may go on for ten years, but only provided parliament does not change it which it apparently has the right to do. Change it?-in what way? "So long, however, as the duty on foreign unmanufactured tobacco does not fall below 2/0id. per lb." The margin is kept only so long as the duty against foreign tobacco remains at a little over two shillings per pound. If the British parliament decides to reduce that duty the margin of preference becomes equivalent to the full duty, and if the full duty is brought down by shilling or pence, the margin disappears and the rate applicable to British Empire grown tobacco also. Of what benefit will that article be to the

United Kingdom
tobacco growers? Who will as a consequence of this agreement begin extending his tobacco plantation in Canada in order to supply the British market when at any time the British government, if it sees fit, may reduce the duty on tobacco, bring it down to any point, or wipe it out altogether?
Let us consider the next article.
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, provided that this clause shall not extend to any preferences accorded by Northern Rhodesia to the Union of South Africa, Southern Rhodesia, and the territories of the South African High Commission. by virtue of the customs agreement of 1930; and further will invite the governments of the Colonies and protectorates shown in schedule D to accord to Canada new or additional preferences on the commodities and at the rates shown therein.
I have not time to go into that matter at the moment, but I invite the attention of the house to the fact that here is a new departure with respect to the whole matter of taxation of colonies and dependencies. Under this agreement the governments are making, so far as the countries of the rest of the world are concerned, a closed preserve of the dependencies and the colonies. Heretofore they have been free to trade with these colonies and dependencies. We on this continent as colonies, sought for years to get freedom of trade, and not to have the government of Britain impose duties for us. Under this agreement. however, we in this parliament who have fiscal freedom in these matters, are to sanction a course which states that whether they wish it or not, these dependencies and colonies in order to provide preferences to other parts of the Empire must have certain duties against the rest of the world imposed upon them. There is another principle which I do not believe we in this parliament ought to support for one minute. I shall not touch the larger issues raised, but it raises further far-reaching questions when we consider what other countries of the world are likely to think, those' countries which are not only being shut out of the markets of the British dominions and Great Britain herself, but shut out of the great colonial empire, as well, in consequence of the agreements. Those are matters which may well be very carefully considered.
Now we come to the so called concessions made by Canada. Here I think all people in Canada will experience a very great disappointment. I was very much inclined to believe that when we saw the agreements, we would see the British preference restored at
least to its level of two years ago. The preference itself has been greatly decreased since 1930 as we know, the actual rates of duties have been increased against Great Britain as well as against other countries. This agreement, far from restoring the old rates as they were at the time the present administration came into power, has fixed rates which are so high that in many cases I believe as the result there will be little in the way of trade.
Not only has it fixed rates very high as regards goods coming from Great Britain, but so far as goods from other parts of the world are concerned, this agreement raises tariff barriers still higher. Can any one imagine a government going the lengths to which this government has gone in actually making still higher against other countries of the world the very high duties which were imposed as a result of the special session of 1930, the regular session of 1931 and the additional taxation oif the last session when the excise taxes, which in reality are customs duties, were increased.
Article 9 of the agreement is as follows:
His Majesty's government in Canada will invite parliament to pass the legislation necessary to substitute for the duties of customs now leviable on the goods specified in schedule E the duties shown in that schedule, provided that nothing in this article shall preclude His Majesty's government in Canada from reducing the duties specified in the said schedule so long ns the margin of British preference shown in that schedule is preserved or from increasing the rates under the intermediate or general tariff set out in the said schedule.
Before I venture to attempt any analysis' of the schedule itself, may I direct the attention of the house to the part of this clause which in my view' is the most and very significant.
[DOT]-provided that nothing in this article shall preclude His Majesty's government in Canada from reducing the duties specified in the schedule, so long as the margin of British preference shown in that schedule is preserved.
I draw the attention of the house to the expression "so long as the margin of British preference shown in that schedule is preserved". That means that if this agreement is approved for the next five years the parliament of Canada cannot change certain of the duties imposed under the schedule; it means that this parliament of Canada cannot alter its own customs duties, except in a very restricted way either reduce or remove. If as happens throughout the schedule a number of commodities enjoying the British preference are made free coming into Canada, and the duties are sky-high as against all other countries, the sky-high margin of pre-
278	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
ference must be preserved for the next five years. Under this clause, no matter what party is returned to office, and no matter what the wishes of the members of the present or the next parliament may be, they will have no right to alter those duties in any particular whatever if the margin of preference is affected. Is this parliament prepared to countenance action of that kind on the part of the government? Was there ever any act on the part of any government which so bound a parliament in a matter of its fiscal rights and freedom?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The treaty with the West Indies was for a period of twelve years; that with Belgium was for four years.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Rate (ad valorem) = 53%
.54 cents on $1 02

Liberal	 20J
Conservative	 100
Conference	 72
Axminster carpets-
Liberal	 22J
Conservative	 100
Conference	 78
Those are examples of what has been conceded, as hon. gentlemen opposite say, to Great Britain as a result of this agreement, and what thereby is being conceded to the consumer in Canada.
Let me give the first and last of these quotations to make a little clearer the rates which were in effect when the Liberal government went out of office and the rates which now apply under the agreement, and mark you, these conference rates I am quoting are preference rates and apply only to goods from the United Kingdom. They are the lowest schedule rates; the duties against foreign countries are much higher:
Cotton printed piece goods-	Per cent
Liberal	 18
Present rate	 50
White cotton flannelette-
Liberal	 15
Present rate	 48
Wool piece goods-
Liberal	 24 J
Present rate	 59
Wool overcoating-
Liberal	 24J
Present rate	 91
High grade suitings-
Liberal	 24|
Present rate	 63
Hosiery, wool-
Liberal	 22J
Present rate	 77
Blankets, wool-
Liberal	 20J
Present rate	 72
Axminster carpets-
Liberal	 22J
Present rate	 78


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, before the adjournment I was referring to the various items in the schedule that is attached to the agreement and I expressed surprise, which I think will be general throughout Canada, that an examination of the different items should indicate that, instead of the tariff of Canada having been lowered by the agreement it has been very considerably increased; that even with respect to the British preference, the rates, instead of being at a figure which makes possible trade with Britain, are in many cases so high as to give reason to
believe there will be very little in the way of importations of some of the items referred to in the schedule.
I drew attention, however, to what appears to be, I think, the worst feature of the entire agreement, which is that we are being asked under its terms to maintain for a period of five years these, in many cases, exorbitantly high rates of duty. To appreciate what that really means one has to take into account the heights to which the tariff in this country had been raised before this agreement went into force at all, to consider the level at 'which the general tariff stands as compared with those of other countries. I venture to say there is not another country in the world that has a tariff anything like as high as is our general tariff. As we know, it was increased in some cases twenty per cent, fifty per cent, in others one hundred per cent, two hundred per cent, three hundred per cent, four hundred per cent over what the old tariff had been. Yet by this agreement there are cases where the general tariff is put higher still.
The feature that is all important for this parliament to consider is whether it is going to adopt the principle of allowing one government to say what the tariff of Canada must be for a given period of time irrespective of what the wishes of the electorate may be. Whether we are to be bound for a term of years to the high tariff rates which a government that may be in office one day and out of office shortly after, may fix. That is the most serious feature of all. When we consider that this is an effort to raise tariffs not only so far as Canada is concerned but so far as other parts of the British Empire are concerned against the rest of the world, this ironclad arrangement of high tariffs existing around the British Empire for a period of years becomes a rather serious international as well as national problem.
I have been taking up the various clauses of the agreement, and I have felt that in justice to hon. gentlemen opposite I should not omit any. For that reason I shall continue with just a comment or two in regard to the remaining clauses. Article 10 reads:
His Majesty's government in Canada undertake that protection by tariffs shall be afforded against United Kingdom products only to those industries which are reasonably assured of sound opportunities for success.
Note, Mr. Speaker, that in every one of the clauses that refers to duties, it is repeated that the principle governing is that of a protective tariff. All the way through we are dealing with protective tariffs and this clause repeats that principle. It undertakes that
282	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
protection by tariffs shall be afforded to what? This is the most surprising thing of all. When the Conservative party launched the national policy, the cry was that protection was for the purpose of safeguarding infant industries; it was to protect infant industries. Once those infant industries became strong enough to stand on their own legs and to compete reasonably with the industries of other countries, the protection the people were told would be removed. But the present administration goes the length of saying that the tariffs are not merely for infant industries, but that protection by tariffs shall be afforded to those industries which are reasonably assured of sound opportunities for success. Once an industry has reached the point that it is assured of sound opportunities for success so that it can compete in different parts of the world, then it is to have the protection which the government gives it by tariffs. As I have already said, the industries that are able to compete in the British markets themselves ought to be able, I think, to get along without the additional tariff protection which this agreement purports to give them.
Article 11 reads:
His Majesty's government in Canada undertake that during the currency of this agreement the tariff shall be based on the principle that protective duties shall not exceed such a level as will give the United Kingdom producers full opportunity of reasonable competition on the basis of the relative cost of economical and efficient production, provided that in the application of such principle special consideration shall be given to the case of industries not fully established.
In the clause that I read a moment ago it was the fully established industries that alone were to get special protection. In this clause it says that special consideration shall be given to the case of industries not fully established, so that while the one clause purports to look after only well established industries and to give them protection, the next clause gives special consideration to those that have not yet become established, and also stresses that the tariff is a protective tariff. Always what is given is protection, more protection. As to what this clause really means, I am afraid the government will have to explain. The terms are most ambiguous. Who is going to say what is "reasonaible competition"? I am sure that what would be "reasonable competition" in the minds of hon. gentlemen on this side of the house would not be "reasonable competition" in the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite. Who is to determine what is signified by the phrase "relative cost"? What do the words "economical and efficient production" mean? And yet this is a

phrase which is used to indicate the -basis on which tariffs will be either given or withheld with respect to industries in this country. Who is to decide what is "reasonable competition," "relative cost," "economical and efficient production"? Possibly we shall get a little more light in another clause or two, but in the meantime I want to ask this question: What becomes -under this arrangement ,of any effort to have a tariff for revenue purposes? Tariff for revenue is ruled out altogether. Under this agreement all the tariffs we are fixing are being fixed on the principle of protection, not on that of a tariff for revenue. If a government in Canada wishes to have a tariff for revenue, it is precluded from doing so for the next five years. It is hard enough to raise revenue in this country at the present time, and a large proportion of the revenue that formerly came to the treasury on account of a tariff that had been framed in relation to revenue, is dried up by reason of the tariff having been raised to a point that makes revenue from this source very scarce. I shall be very much surprised if any appreciable numbers of members of this parliament are prepared to surrender through any arrangement made under an agreement of this kind, the right to raise revenue by tariff in times like the present when taxation, heaven knows, is difficult enough to raise. The Prime Minister in speaking of the whole matter summed up this phase in the following paragraph:
Under this agreement, Canada has in addition declared that it will give the United Kingdom producers full opportunity of reasonable competition on the basis of the relative costs of economical and efficient production, provided that in the application of such principle, special consideration should be given to the ease of industries not fully established. Pursuant to that undertaking, this government has increased the preferences in the manner I have just indicated,-
Notice how special consideration is to -be given industries not fully established; tariffs are to raised:
Pursuant to that undertaking, this government has increased the preferences in the manner I have just indicated-
That is, they have put up the tariff higher against other countries.
-and has furthermore agreed to cause the tariff board, authorized by act of parliament at its -last session, to review, at the request of the government of the United Kingdom, any item in our tariff schedule which it is claimed is out of keeping with the principle adopted.
The Prime Minister a sentence or two further on sets forth a governing rule which he says must be read in connection with this

United Kingdom
paragraph. My right hon. friend will say later that what his government has established is a competitive tariff, but understand the basis on which it is established:
The general rule governing our concessions to the United Kingdom is that we maintain a tariff, though a preferential one, against their products.
Elsewhere he said the tariff is based upon the principle of protection. That brings us to article 12, which relates to the tariff board:
His Majesty's government in Canada undertake forthwith to constitute the tariff board for which provision is made in the Tariff Board Act, 1931.
The comment which I have to make on that particular clause is to ask my right hon. friend why is it we have had to wait until the British government requested that a tariff board should be constituted to have the tariff board constituted in this country?	If a
tariff board has any virtue in it, surely it should have been constituted before this, not at the instance of the government of another part of the empire but at the instance of this parliament. My right hon. friend put a bill through this house a year or two ago establishing such a board. He told us that it would have to be put through at that session, and he also said the commissioners must be appointed for a term of ten years, and took rather strong exception to the statement from this side of the house that those of us who were here would wait and see how the commissioners performed their functions before we would agree to their being kept in office any ten years. But nothing has been done. We have had tariff increases ever since the present administration has come into office, and a tariff board if it was to be of any service should have been consulted with respect to all these changes. But now, after the tariffs have been made sky-high in every direction, my right hon. friend comes along and says, " I will constitute the tariff board which I told parliament a year or two ago would be established in Canada." But established for whom? For the benefit of the Canadian consumer, the Canadian farmer, the people of this country? Not at all. Established for the purpose of enabling British manufacturers to appear before it to find out whether their interests are being sufficiently looked after. And this from the Prime Minister who went up and down this country during the last general election campaign talking about Canada first.
Now take the next clause, which relates also to the tariff board:
Article 13. His Majesty's government in Canada undertake that on the request of His
Majesty's government in the United Kingdom they will cause a review to be made by the tariff board as soon as practicable of the duties charged on any commodities specified in such request in accordance with the principles laid down in article 11 hereof and that after receipt of the report of the tariff board thereon such report shall be laid before parliament and parliament shall be invited to vary wherever necessary the tariff on such commodities of United Kingdom origin in such manner as to give effect to such principles.
What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? It means that the tariff board of Canada is to be moved into action at the instance not of Canadians, not of consumers who are affected by our tariffs, not of any classes in this country, but at the instance of the British government. In other words we are to have a government of another part of the empire say when our tariff machinery is to be put into motion where it relates to matters pertaining to the tariff board. That comes back to the old question as to how far we want the affairs of this country interfered with by the governments of the other parts of the empire. I venture to say that if we are looking for trouble that is the best direction in which to seek it. If we are going to put upon the British government the onus of moving our tariff board into action, and put upon our own government the onus of having its board take up investigations whenever the British government wish to have an inquiry made, it seems to me we are going out of our way to make difficulties between the governments of the two countries and between the two countries themselves. May I also say that if the principle is sound, if the tariff board is in that way to perform a useful function with respect to the manufactures of Great Britain, why is it limited only to those who are shipping goods into this country from Great Britain? Why are exporters from other countries not equally entitled to appear before the tariff board and to be heard with respect to what the tariff is? The principle is either sound or it is not sound. Why should it be restricted in this fashion to the action of a government of another part of the empire and with respect to interests that are not Canadian but British?
But there is another feature which is even worse with respect to the tariff board. My right hon. friend said the tariff board was to have judicial functions. If anyone will read the speech Lord Hailsham made in Calgary he will find how far in the opinion of the British government this judicial function on the part of the tariff board was to extend. In so many words it was stated that hereafter, with respect to the matters referred to in this agreement, the tariff is to be a matter of concern not for the parliament of Canada and
284	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
the people's representatives in parliament, but for this judicial body that is being established in the form of a tariff board. That I say is a thoroughly unsound principle. Tariffs are a form of taxation; they are part of the fiscal policy of the country, and no government has a right to take away from parliament its full control over fiscal policy. Time and again the Tory party in Canada has sought in one way and another to have the tariff put up to a certain height and then kept there at the instance of some tribunal that was to have the whole say as to how it was to be varied. I venture to say that if my right hon. friend thinks he has met with success in that endeavour he is very much mistaken. I do not believe that any parliament of Canada will agree to surrender to any tariff board which is to be regarded as a judicial tribunal the say as to what the tariff in Canada is to be with respect to any commodity whatever. That right belongs to this House of Commons. The representatives of the people in parliament are the only ones who have a right to have any say with respect to the taxation the people of Canada have to bear, and will never endorse any other principle, no matter how beautiful may be the language in which it is couched, or whether it relates to an agreement between different parts of the empire rather than peculiarly and immediately to our own country.
What else does the agreement say in regard to the tariff board?
Article 14. His Majesty's government in Canada undertake that no existing duty shall be increased on United Kingdom goods except after an inquiry and the receipt of a report from the tariff board, and in accordance with the facts as found by that body.
Now I draw attention to the principle underlying that. The principle laid down there is that the tariff board must decide in the first instance what duties may be reduced and where they affect British commodities, that duties cannot be reduced at all until the tariff board so indicates. Well, again that is an entire surrender of our fiscal rights. I do not care whether it is a question of reducing or of increasing duties; the right belongs to this House of Commons to do both, and we can never agree to surrender to a judicial tribunal or any other kind of a tribunal the right to decide what the duties of Canada shall be.
I want to draw attention to this further fact, that a large section of the people of this countiy are not likely to have much confidence in any decisions which may be reached by a tariff board the personnel of which is

appointed by my right hon. friend opposite. Not that I do not think he will endeavour to get someone to cany out his intentions. I say it for this reason: He has declared already that the whole principle on which this trade agreement is to be carried out is the principle of protection, and he is going to get a tariff board for what purpose? To see that the principle of protection is maintained in the tariff. My right hon. friend asks us then to agree to his appointing gentlemen who will see that the principle of protection is maintained in our tariff for a period of at least ten years. He says that this board is to be appointed for ten years. He says that under this agreement their particular task is to see that the principle of protection is maintained. I wonder if all hon. gentlemen opposite are going to endorse wholeheartedly that particular idea. I say to them that they had better consider very carefully the people they are representing in this parliament, because at this time as never before the people will expect their representatives in parliament to speak out and say what they think is in the interests of the people. We have had tariffs increased to the point where they have brought exasperation to all classes in Canada -to importers, exporters, merchants, retailers, business men and consumers. There is not a class in this country that is not exasperated by the heights to which the tariff has been raised and the way in which it has been administered. Now we are being asked to keep the tariff at these heights and to take away from parliament and give to a judicial tribunal which my right hon. friend will appoint the task of seeing that that principle of protection is maintained in the tariff. It is a pretty serious business, I say, for hon. members to agree to any principle of that kind.
May I add this? Nothing is said in this agreement about the excise tax. While the clause states that the duties are not to be lowered except on the condition mentioned so far as the particular commodities referred to in this one section are concerned, it does not say that the government of Canada shall be precluded from increasing the excise tax on any commodity entering Canada from Great Britain or elsewhere. The session before last a one per cent excise tax was imposed on all commodities entering this country, and last session that was increased by two per cent, making the excise tax three per cent, and when you take into consideration the fact that the excise tax is imposed on top of the actual tariff as it is levied, in many oases it comes nearer to being a four

United Kingdom
per cent than a three per cent addition to the duty. There is nothing here which would prevent the government from adding another two or three or four per cent to the excise tax. They can just go on adding to the excise tax as they see fit, and thereby defeat altogether the whole purpose of the clause I have just read.
Article 15 reads:
His Majesty's government in Canada undertake that United Kingdom producers shall be entitled to full rights of audience before the tariff board when it has under consideration matters arising under Articles 13 and 14 hereof.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I need not draw attention again to the fact that here it is not the people of Canada that are thought of in this agreement. It is United Kingdom producers who are to have the right to appear before the tariff board. Why have not the producers of Canada and the consumers of Canada the right to appear before the board? May I remind the house in this connection of one important clause in the Tariff Board Act as it now stands, and that is that only those matters are to come 'before the tariff board which the Prime Minister wants to have placed before it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, the Minister of
Finance.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, of course I take it that whoever is Minister of Finance will do whatever my right hon. friend wishes to have done. If the Prime Minister did not wish the duty on a certain commodity to be considered by the tariff board I am sure that my friend the Minister of Finance with his good nature would see that that matter did not go before the board.


Mr. RHODES:: I take it that my right bon. friend speaks from experience.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I speak from experience to this extent, that I have never at any time asked that anything should be withheld from a tariff board.
Now we come to article 16, and may I say that the further we proceed with this agreement the more clearly we see that the things which it was impossible to have done by this administration at the instance of this parliament are now being done, if done at all, at the instance of other parts of the empire. Surely for a Canada first government that is an extraordinary position. We here in this House of Commons have been demanding and the people of Canada have been asking over and over again that there should be some stability in the tariff so that the people might
know where they stood in the matter of imports, that there should be an end to this making of tariffs by order in council and the alteration of tariffs by departmental regulation for the purposes of valuation in relation to exchange, dumping and what not besides! We have contended that under the present administration it is impossible for importers to know what the actual duties are likely to be by the time the present administration get through with their own valuations. It did not require any powers of prophecy to be able to discern that the first thing the British government would ask would be that there should be some stability about the Canadian tariff, that these irregular practices would have to end. And so it is not surprising to find the following clause in the agreement, though it is surprising that it should be inserted there by a Canada first government at the instance of the British government rather than at the instance of the parliament of Canada. Article 16 reads:
His Majesty's government in Canada undertake that customs administration in Canada shall be governed by such general principles as will ensure: (a) the avoidance, so far as reasonably possible, of uncertainty as to the amount of customs duties and other fiscal imposts payable on the arrival of goods in Canada; (b) the reduction of delay and friction to a minimum; and (c) the provision of machinery for the prompt and impartial settlement of disputes in matters appertaining to the application of tariffs.
Here at last is an admission on the part of this government that the sort of thing therein mentioned has been going on for the past two years, and the only reason this clause now appears is that the British government would not have anything to do with the government of Canada in the matter of a trade agreement unless they were given some assurance of this kind. Unfortunately there is no guarantee that the assurance will be carried out.
I need not emphasize the general nature of the language as to the particular machinery that is to be set up, and how and by whom it is to be administered, but I would say this to my hon.. friend the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman), that if it is left to him I do not expect that there will be much alteration.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: There has not been much alteration in the administration since the right hon. gentleman was in power.


Ernest Lapointe: Potatoes are radishes now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thought my hon. friend the Minister of National Revenue was awake.
286	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
Next comes article 17, which reads:
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. They further undertake to give sympathetic consideration to the possibility of reducing and ultimately abolishing the exchange dumping duty in so far as it applies to imports from the United Kingdom.
Does anybody believe that that means anything at all? It is another admission that the government have been doing things they should not have been doing, and that strong exception has been taken to their action by the British government, and there has been an effort made on the part of the Canadian government to make it appear that they are going to mend their ways. But if the principle enunciated here is a sound one, why may I ask is it confined to goods coming into this country from Great Britain? Why not apply the same principle to goods entering Canada from any part of the world? Are we to cease all trade with the rest of the world as soon as this agreement goes through? It begins to look like it. The more one studies what is designed by the various articles of the agreement, the more one comes to the conclusion that an effort is being made to have a great protectionist wall thrown around the British empire, and that matters are being so arranged as to make next to impossible hereafter extensive trade with any other part of the world. That is what I say it begins to look like. These clauses which restrict to Great Britain, the application of all the good intentions of the government, give reason to feel that there is a good deal of truth in that particular thought.
The next clause, article 18, is not one of any considerable importance; I do not think it will make any difference to the result whether or not it is approved. The article is as follows:
Article 18. His Majesty's government in Canada undertake to modify the existing regulations governing the importation of pedigree stock from the United Kingdom into Canada in a manner already agreed upon in principle, between themselves and His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom.
As the matter has already been agreed upon, and the British government has undertaken to carry out its part, I have no doubt it will fulfil its promise, whether or not such promise is contained in an agreement.
Then, article 19 follows. We are now getting down to some of the small stuff, I am afraid. It sounds important enough.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER:: Small stuff all along.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Article 19 is as follows:
Article 19. His Majesty's government in Canada undertake to accord to those non-selfgoverning colonies, protectorates and the mandated territories to which the benefits of the British preferential rates are at present accorded, and also to Zanzibar, the preferences on the commodities and at the rates shown in schedule F and also any preferences for the time being accorded to the United Kingdom. Provided that His Majesty's government in Canada shall not be bound to continue to accord any preferences to any colony or protectorate which, not being precluded by international obligations from according preferences, either (1) accords to Canada no preferences or (2) accords to some other part of the empire (in the case of Northern Rhodesia, except the Union of South Africa, Southern Rhodesia, and the territories of the South African High Commission) preferences not accorded to Canada.
I shall not attempt to interpret the meaning of that clause beyond reminding the house of urhat I said a little earlier in the day, that what is being done with respect to relations between these protectorates, colonies, mandated territories, and the like, in the way of giving exclusive privileges to parts of the British empire, and taking away from other parts of the world corresponding trading advantages which they had hitherto enjoyed, constitutes a very serious question.
The Prime Minister referred off and on to the Canada-West Indies trade agreement w'ith which article 20 of this agreement deals specifically. It is as follows:
Nothing in this agreement shall prejudice or diminish any of the benefits enjoyed by any of the parties thereto under the Canada-West Indies trade agreement dated the 6th July, 1925.
That agreement was drawn, as my right hon. friend has said, by a Liberal administration. I thank him and his friends for acknowledging the satisfactory nature of the agreement, which is indicated by its continuance. My hon. friend referred to a ten year period, and later stressed it in connection with the West Indies agreement.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: A twelve year period.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: I said that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then it runs
indefinitely thereafter, subject to six months' notice. Now we come to trade agreements with a number of small countries, with which we exchange a relatively small number of articles. There is the convention of commerce with Belgium, the convention of commerce with Czechoslovakia, the convention of commerce with Italy, the convention of commerce with the Netherlands, and the trade agreement with the British West Indies. Omitting mention of the British West Indies agreement, with which I have already dealt, the other four-namely, the conventions with Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Italy and the Netherlands-comprise the only other treaties mentioned by the Prime Minister which run for periods longer than one year. They are in operation for four years. My right hon. friend states the present agreement will run for only five years. May I, however, draw attention to this important feature: There is no clause in any one of these agreements running for four years which compels this parliament to keep any portion of its duties at a certain figure for the period of time for which such agreements are in force. All the agreements do is to give the most favoured nation treatment to the particular countries affected. They leave this parliament perfectly free to alter the tariff as it thinks best. There is all the difference in the world between an agreement which runs for a period of years, but which leaves parliament free to act as it thinks best with regard to tariffs, and an agreement which is fixed for five years and which says that on many items
288	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
the governments concerned cannot alter its tariffs in that period of time, whether or not they may wish to do so. I think unquestionably the five year period is one of the most objectionable features of the agreement, but here again we have to thank others rather than the head of our own government for the fact that the agreement has not been fixed for a much longer period of time. Everyone knows that in the speech with which my right hon. friend opened the conference, he stressed the importance of having agreements arrived at for long periods of time. What happens in a case like that? You create vested interests, just as my right hon. friend has said; you enable those privileged groups to become more strongly entrenched, and when the agreement relates not merely to a country but to an empire you get some idea of the monopolies you are creating behind tariff barriers, especially in a country such as this. Nothing, Mr. Speaker, is more dangerous to the great body of the people of the British Empire than the combines and monopolies which have been and will be created under the terms of this agreement.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: And the other dominions agreed to the same period of time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And the other dominions, so far as I know, also had Tory governments. It is a Tory conspiracy. What have we had? We have had a number of governments coming together from different parts of the empire, all of them committed to protection, and drawing up a protectionist zollverein the like of which has not been attempted by any group of countries on the earth with the exception of those which comprised the German Empire. My hon. friends well know that that is what took place. These governments, committed to protection, all happening to be in power just at the same time, met here and drew up a series of agreements. Not satisfied with seeking to extend and maintain protection in their own countries for a long time they seek to have protection extend like some ring of iron around the British Empire as a whole.
There is one further clause, Mr. Speaker, with which I should like to deal; I refer to clause 23 of the agreement:
In the event of circumstances arising which, in the judgment of His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom or of His Majesty's government in Canada, as the case may be, necessitate a variation in the terms of the agreement, the proposal to vary those terms shall form the subject of consultation between the two governments.

That means nothing, Mr. Speaker. It contains the words, "shall form the subject of consultation" and I should like to ask my right hon. friend this question: Under that section, in the event of a government in England wishing to end this agreement, and a government in Canada also wishing to end the agreement, would it be possible for those two governments to do so without violating any feature of the agreement or a principle that is fundamental? I wish the Prime Minister would tell us that. I think probably he will tell us that under this agreement, if we put it through, we are bound for five years, no matter what the people of Canada or the people of Great Britain may say with respect to what they wish to have done in regard to their tariffs during that period of time. I believe the Prime Minister will tell us that because of vested interests that are in the way of establishing themselves, I question very much if he will find, regardless of what he says, that governments will agree to continue what their people to whom they are responsible may insist to have changed.
That concludes my examination of the several articles of the agreement, Mr. Speaker. I have read every one of them. I have not omitted one, and I ask this house whether there is a single important clause in that whole agreement which does not violate some fundamental principle for which we in this parliament should have an abiding regard. I must say a few words, in regard to the form in which this matter is brought before parliament for approval. I spoke of the economic conference of 1923. That conference came to certain conclusions with respect to changes in the tariff which it was understood would be submitted to the parliament of one of them, but it left it quite open to the representatives of the people in the parliament of Great Britain to say what they wished to do in regard to the proposed changes. They were free to modify any of the suggested tariff items if they wished so to do. A list of items was mentioned in the agreement, but it was understood by the parliament of Great Britain, with respect to those items on which it was proposed to impose duties, that they had a perfect right to do as parliament wished to have done in the matter. Can we do anything like that at the present time? I ask my right hon. friend if I am not correct when I say that this agreement, in the form in which it is presented to this parliament, admits of no alteration in any particular. The tariff . schedules here, no matter how obnoxious they may be to any hon.

United Kingdom.
gentleman opposite-not to speak of those on this side of the house-cannot be altered in the slightest particular, unless I am very much mistaken. More than that, I very much doubt whether any amendment can be offered to this motion which my right hon. friend has placed on the order paper. Later I am going to ask his honour the Speaker to rule on that point so that we can be perfectly sure, but I think my right hon. friend has brought this agreement into parliament in the form in which it is, knowing that it is incapable oif being amended. We have to take this agreement as it is, every clause as I have read it, every item in the schedule attached to it as we see it, without the possibility of altering one single line thereof. If that is true, where is the freedom of this parliament? Whait real freedom have we, as representatives of the people in this parliament of Canada of influencing action as a result of discussion, opinion and argument? I repeat that the tariff changes mentioned in the schedule here are not something to come into force as a result of the judgment of this parliament. They are in force now and yet not a member of parliament has so far pronounced in favour of them, if we *except perhaps the Prime Minister. I doubt if there is one member of parliament who knows the full significance of any of these items, with the exception of the Prime Minister.
I am going to ask one thing of the Prime Minister, and in the reply that he gives we will have a test of his good faith in this regard. I ask him to allow these schedules to be discussed fully in committee of ways and means before we are asked to vote our approval of the agreement. I think that is a very reasonable request to make. We have facilitated the house going into committee of ways and -means; the committee has been established; the schedule is already before it and one item of the schedule has been called. It is quite within the power of the Prime Minister to adjourn this debate with respect to the main motion, and allow us to take up in committee of ways and means the various items set forth in the schedule. I ask the Prime Minister if he will give us that opportunity. I do not know whether or not he is prepared to answer that question immediately, but I wish he would do so. I say to him that it is a reasonable request to be made, and I say to him also that unless he concedes that right there is no member of this House of Commons who can possibly know what he is voting for when he supports the agreement. It is only when we go through the agreement 53718-19
item by item and see what is involved by way of increase or reduction of tariff, as compared with the tariff in 1930, or with what we think the tariff should be now, and when we know the value of the commodities that are going to be affected and to what extent they are going to be affected, that any of us can say intelligently what the agreement itself really means. We must remember that the schedules comprise the most important part of the agreement. So I say I hope my right hon. friend will give us that opportunity before he asks us to vote for the motion which he has placed on the order paper, calling for the approval of the treaty including the schedules.
Now there is one other thing. May I ask my right hon. friend whether these agreements can be amended, or whether his motion can be amended. This motion is to approve of the agreement. I know there are many hon. members in this house who would like very much to support certain features of this agreement.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I assume that some hon. gentlemen opposite wish to support the agreement. I am not surprised however, that they are beginning to change their minds. I assume that there are some members of this house who would like to support certain features of the agreement, but they would like to have an opportunity to make perfectly plain what particular features they wish to support. In the form however in which the motion is before us we are not without examination of the schedule in a position to vote intelligently upon it. There have been other agreements brought into this house in previous years which have had an effect on international relations, and when they have been brought in they have been brought in, in some instances at least, in a manner which enabled members of parliament to amend what in their judgment ought to be amended, and to approve of such parts as merited approval. One of the objectionable features of bargaining, however, and of arriving at an agreement as a result of bargaining rather than by means of voluntary action on the part of each parliament concerned, is that it involves either total acceptance or total rejection.
I am going to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule upon the question whether or not an amendment is in order. If it is in order, I understand that the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) would like to move

290	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
the following amendment to the agreement as expressive of the views of some hon. members on this side of the house:
That all the words after "that" be struck out and that the following words be inserted instead thereof:
1.	In respect 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, this house welcomes such terms of the agreement as propose the reduction of existing duties, as well as those which in any way tend to increase the possibilities of greater demand for Canadian products.
2.	This house emphatically condemns the features of the agreement which show increases in an already unreasonably high tariff.
3.	This house disapproves in the strongest terms of the effect of the agreement whereby the present government has precluded Canada from exercising the right which is vital to prosperity of the dominion of making trade agreements for the marketing of her products abroad.
4.	The house learns with greatest concern that the agreement gives no definite assurance that regulation by order in council imposing arbitrary and wholly unwarranted restrictions on trade will be abandoned.
5.	That this house reaffirms the principle of British preference which has been the policy of the Liberal party since 1897 and is convinced that had the tariff provisions of May 1st, 1930, prevailed Canadian products would have enjoyed advantages in British markets immeasurably greater than any which they can hope to obtain under the proposed agreement.
That suggested amendment has been drafted by my hon. friend, and many on this side of the house would like to have it proposed and to be given an opportunity to vote upon it. If you rule, Mr. Speaker, that an amendment of the kind may be made to the motion, it will be introduced; but if you say that the motion is in such a form that it cannot be amended, we shall have to govern ourselves accordingly with respect to the attitude which we shall take towards the agreement itself. I do not know whether-


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no amendment before the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No; I am asking Mr. Speaker whether the motion is susceptible of amendment as proposed.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: When the suggested amendment is proposed, I will give a ruling upon it, and unless an immediate decision is required I shall be glad to consider it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He cannot put suppositious cases to the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thank the Speaker for his courtesy in undertaking to

consider the suggested amendment. We will wait, before making any proposal with regard to the amendment, to ascertain the views of His Honour upon it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: His Honour said that he would not give any ruling until there was an amendment proposed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say a word in conclusion with respect to one or two political and economic consequences of the agreement as it is .proposed?
We are told that this agreement is going to make for the .unity of the empire. In my view, Mr. Speaker, it is all-important for this house to consider how far an agreement of this kind will promote unity within the British Empire. My view is that unity within the British Empire is based upon freedom and not upon restrictions, and that this agreement, by increasing the number of restrictions to trade in many directions; by permitting interference in the domestic affairs of one part of the empire by another; by allowing interference with the fiscal policy of one section of the empire on the part of another; and by the misunderstandings which will arise over the interpretation of its various clauses, will1 go far to embarrass relations within the British Empire instead of creating harmony and good will among its component parts. That, in my opinion, is one of the reasons why we ought to consider very carefully whether this particular agreement should be adopted at this time. It is a very serious thing to take any step which will lead to friction between different parts of the empire. I think the British Empire suffered sufficient strain during the period of the conference itself. I -believe, as one distinguished writer has said, that we are perhaps better off that some agreement was reached than if none had been arrived at. On the other hand, as the same writer has said, perhaps the British Empire would have been much .better off if no conference had taken place. We ought, therefore, to consider very carefully whether these additional restraints on trade, which are being enacted by this particular measure, will help in any way towards furthering the unity of the British Empire.
Finally, there is the question of the effect of the agreement on world trade, which, I submit, is one of the most serious aspects of the whole situation. What this particular agreement does, considered along with others that have been drafted, is to create, just exactly as some of us feared, and mentioned at the last session, a sort of zollverein, a tax upon many commodities that come from out-

United Kingdom
side countries into any part of the British Empire. In case it should be thought that I am misinterpreting the views of the administration on this matter, let me quote once more, what I quoted the other day, from the statements of the Prime Minister. He spoke of the effect of this agreement in relation to the sort of policy that was being put into force. He himself has given a designation to what has been done by the conference when he states that it has created an imperial policy. I quote from Hansard:
I rather choose, at this anxious time in our country's history, to return thanks that the peoples of the empire-were able-to inaugurate an imperial tariff policy-
And elsewhere he has said:
If I interpret aright the attitude of this country to the great imperial policy we are adopting, public opinion throughout Canada would demand that it be so carried out.
And the essence of the great imperial policy is set forth in what he said, speaking 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.
There is a pronouncement of policy on the part of the administration, and I question very much whether it will appeal to hon. members of this house. Since when have we had imperial policies with respect to trade or any other questions determined for us in advance at an imperial conference? I have always understood that matters of policy were for the respective governments concerned. But here is a group of gentlemen, all members only of executives, who met together in conference in Ottawa and decided to settle imperial policy. We are told that what we have before us is a part of a settled imperial tariff policy, an imperial tariff policy based on the principle of protection. Well, since when has the constitution in the different parts of the British Empire been so altered that we have, meeting anywhere in the empire, a cabinet authorized to determine imperial policy? That is a new development, and, I say, a very serious one. It is a serious matter if, before parliaments have been consulted at all, before the people's representatives in the various parliaments of the British Empire have had an opportunity to express their views upon a great transaction such as the tariff that is to control for the next five years such a policy can be determined by executives brought together at a conference in any part of the empire. It is bad enough to have the tariff within one's own country determined merely by executive action without reference to par-
53719- 19i
liament; but to have a tariff policy for the British Empire as a whole laid down by the combined executives of the different parts of the empire is a new departure, and one which I venture to say should not be countenanced until authority of the parliaments themselves has been given to their executives to act in matters of this kind.
This is an endeavour to create a zollverein. It is an endeavour to make out of the British Empire an economic unit, something which many hon. gentlemen opposite think should be made out of the empire. What will be the result of the creation out of the British Empire of a great economic unit? That is worth pretty serious consideration.
Prior to the present time other countries of the world have felt free to trade with any part of the British Empire, feeling that they were dealing with autonomous self-governing countries whose affairs were controlled freely by their own parliaments. But hereafter if what the Prime Minister tells us is correct, the rest of the world will be told that there is an Imperial tariff policy which shuts all of them out from trade with the British Empire until they have paid tribute to the part of the British Empire with which they wish to trade, and this includes not only the self-governing portions of the empire but the whole colonial empire as well.
What Canada wants above everything else is markets. She wants markets within the British Empire, but she wants world markets as well. It is only as she gets world markets that she will be able to dispose of her surplus products in the different parts of the world. The British Empire itself, large as it is, cannot take all the surplus products of this country in respect to the total production of many of its basic industries. Can we suppose that other nations are going to look on with indifference at being thus shut out of the British Empire and allow Canada to trade with them as freely in the future as we have been trading with them in the past? If economic units can be created in one part of the world, they are certain pretty soon to be created in other parts. Already in all parts of the world we are beginning to hear talk of retaliation against the countries of the British Empire on the part of other countries. We hear rumors of its being made more and more difficult for the countries of the British Empire to find markets in other parts of the world, since other parts of the world are being shut out of the British markets. If such is to be the result, that, if nothing else, ought to have prevented this agreement from ever going into force.
292	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
Let me conclude by reading the words of Sir Arthur Salter, so often quoted as an authority by the right hon. gentleman opposite. They are words of one who has been giving close study to world economic questions and particularly those which relate to the tariffs of the nations. Sir Arthur Salter says:
If Ottawa has laid a foundation upon which more may he huilt, it has indicated very clearly that the limits to what may be built are much more restricted than at least English imperialists have believed. There were periods in the conference when the bonds of empire seemed very fragile-more fragile, indeed, than they are, for the temper and circumstances of the conference, the personalities of the delegates and of the representatives of the "interests" most in evidence, gave a distorted and misleading reflection of the real sentiments of the mass of the peoples in the empire. _
The strong and unanimous feeling toward the end that agreement must be reached was probably born more of fear than of hope-grave fear of what failure would mean rather than ambitious hopes as to the fruits of 6ucce6S. It is certainly true that the bonds of empire are stronger than if the conference had broken down. It is more doubtful whether they are stronger than if no conference had been held, and if the expectations which preceded it had never been raised.
The world as a whole will either move toward a system in which each country can exchange the products which it is best qualified to produce for those in respect of which other countries have corresponding advantages, or it will move toward an organization, national, imperial or regional, in which each unit will pursue the ideal of self-sufficiency, with their standard of living poorer for the I06S of world trade. . . We shall move as a whole to a world order in which each national unit will be a unit in the general commonwealth, or to a system of closed and, it may be feared, increasing by hostile units which will add immensely and incalculably to the risks of further wars.
Hon. gentlemen opposite at the Imperial economic conference had an opportunity such as has never before been given to public men in the British Empire. Their opportunity was greater even than that of those who came from other parts of the empire. They had an opportunity .to lead the way in helping to wipe out restrictions, to lower tariff barriers, to create greater freedom of trade within Canada, to create more in the way of freedom of trade throughout the British Empire, more in the way of freedom of trade throughout the world. They had it in their power to set to the rest of the world an example that would be helpful at the forthcoming economic conference whereby the world would find some relief from the thraldom into which it has come in this post-war period because of nationalist policies that have led to the putting up of tariff barriers by different countries and to the frustration of world trade. That was the opportunity they had. They failed in that

opportunity. Not only did they fail, but they have made trade immensely more difficult for the world hereafter. They have increased restrictions; they have raised barriers; they have made trade .more difficult in this country than it was before, more difficult as between different parts of the British Empire, more difficult as between the different countries of the world.
They had a still greater opportunity. They had an opportunity to further the great work of the League of Nations itself in seeking to promote peace and good-will among the nations of the world. They know very well that over and over again the declaration has come from Geneva that there can be no peace between the nations until these tariff barriers which are keeping them apart in t'he matter of trade, are considerably lowered or altogether removed. They had a chance to increase freedom of trade. They had a chance to advance peace and good-will among the nations of the world. In both of these tasks they have failed; both these opportunities they have lost. Instead of freedom and peace, their action was more in the direction of economic war. Where they have failed, where the great opportunities they had have been lost, the Liberal party of Canada will take up the task anew. It will take up the task of seeking to further freedom of trade between the different countries of the British Empire and between the British Empire and other portions of the earth; it will take up the task of seeking to advance peace and good-will among the nations of the world, this task it will take up with renewed energy and vigour; take it up with a determination to succeed where hon. gentlemen opposite have so lamentably failed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman has asked a question and I desire to answer it. The resolution which stands upon the order paper and which I moved the other day, is you will observe, subject to the legislation required in order to give effect to the fiscal changes consequent thereon. I apprehended that in the discussion the right hon. gentleman and his friends might take the view that has been taken, and those words that have been added, "subject to the legislation required in order to give effect to the fiscal changes consequent thereon", involve the introduction of a bill by the Minister of Finance, and also involve the introduction of a bill in terms approving the agreement. The same thing applies in the case of Rhodesia, South Africa, and the Irish Free State. The resolution is framed in this form so as to meet

United, Kingdom
the tariff situation in accordance with the general practice that has prevailed in this country in connection with the coming into force of tariff changes and to meet the other matter as well, so that with the adoption of the resolution there will be not one bill but two founded upon it, one dealing purely with the matter of tariffs and the other approving of the agreement.


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: Mr. Speaker, we have listened to-day to a lengthy and exhaustive analysis of the trade treaty now in effect and now being discussed in the house. The rules of the house preclude me from entering into a discussion as lengthy as that of the right lion, gentleman (Mr. Mackenzie King) who has just preceded me. However, if I am not able to give as lengthy and exhaustive an analysis of the trade treaties I hope to give to the subject at least a little breadth and I trust a little depth as well.
We have had, to-day, Mr. Speaker, a very important pronouncement on the part of the Liberal party. If I am to interpret what the right hon. leader of the opposition stated I would infer that at the first opportunity, when the Liberal party crosses the floor of the house and becomes the government of the country, they will abrogate the treaties that now are really in effect. I think I am not doing them an injustice by putting that interpretation on the remarks of the leader of the opposition. It seems that Imperial connections have been going, so to speak, to the highest bidder. My right hon. friend the leader of the opposition has said that when his party comes into power they will give to Great Britain a preference of fifty per cent, basing that preference on the tariff that was effective when the Liberal party left office in the year 1930. When that statement was made there came to my mind the fact that in 1929 there was an amendment moved from this section of the house to the budget of that year. On March 14, 1929 the following subamendment was moved by my hon. friend the member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) and seconded by myself, to the amendment proposed by the party then in opposition, the party now in power:
That the amendment be amended by striking out all the words after "house" and substituting therefor the following:
"urges upon the government the consideration of an immediate and substantial increase of the British preference as a step towards freer trade relations between Canada and other nations."
As I look at the vote taken just a few weeks later, on April 11, 1929, I am almost ashamed to see among those who voted against the motion the present leader of the opposition.
However, what I want to point out is that when it comes to a question of giving rather extensive trade preferences, I am glad to see that the Liberal party are now following the principles laid down in 1929 by the little group to which I have the honour to belong.
I think generally speaking it is the opinion of all parties in this house that between the various component parts of the empire there should be the friendliest and olosest relationship possible. We in this corner of the house, just as in a general way the two larger parties in this house, are anxious to foster the closest possible relationships between the various members of the British commonwealth of nations- That commonwealth of nations occupy approximately one quarter of the globe and comprise about the same percentage of the world's population. There is no doubt that such a large population, about 445,000,000, can become a very powerful and important factor in the world's progress. Within its orbit we find all races and all creeds, and if these can be brought together to understand each other and live in harmony and peace we shall have accomplished far more than has been accomplished so far even by the League of Nations. I think we in the smaller group represented in this part of the house are anxious to foster that spirit of peace and good understanding with all sections and between all parts of the British empire.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I come to the conference of 1932. There is no doubt that this recent Imperial conference marks an epoch in the history of Imperial relationships. But I might ask this question, Is the general desire for closer relationships to be obtained by the method of increasing tariffs? I have no doubt that the government was imbued by the very best motives both at the time of calling the conference and during the conference itself. But when we look back over the past year or so to see whether trade treaties are desirable methods of cementing together the various parts of the empire, we are bound to feel a certain element of doubt. There immediately comes to my mind the fact that in the last year or two trade treaties have been abrogated, with much resulting friction. Once we enter into treaties as between one part of the empire and another and those treaties are abrogated, I believe the second condition is worse than the first; for in the first place by the creation of treaties we may be opening new avenues of trade, not necessarily increasing trade. That happened in relation to the trade agreements between Australia and New Zealand and Canada. And what was the result? After the treaties had been in effect
294	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
a certain length of time there arose a desire in Canada that they should be abrogated. This did not tend towards more harmonious relations. I think I can say the very reverse is true. Even today we have not overcome the difficulties and hard feelings that were created when the treaties were abrogated.
In the past the present government has looked upon trade as a form of war. I want to dissociate myself entirely from that viewpoint. In my opinion trade ought to be the cement that binds nation and nation together. As long as we have the viewpoint that trade is a form of war, any treaties we enter into are bound in the long run to be of no avail.
Will the trade treaties now before us, entered into at the Imperial conference, achieve the objective of drawing closer the relationship between the various parts of the empire? Why was the conference held at all? Was it because we in this country wanted a conference to be held for purely altruistic motives? Or was iib for purely materialistic considerations, that is, iconsiderations commercial in their character? I think I can safely say that the conference was called for the purpose of trying to create a certain diversion of trade into empire channels, trade that was formerly going to other parts of the world. I want to put on record some views given by other agencies as to what took place during the conference, and see whether what took place here really would bring about that much desired closer relationship. From newspaper reports at the time, it seems that the treaties that were being entered into were put on a purely business basis. Business considerations were the onlliy ones discussed. I find in n brief statement in the Daily Express of London, England, of August 20th, the following:
We have a picture of squalid squabbles with every big-hearted motive frustrated by the United Kingdom delegation.
Who was responsible for these "squalid squabbles"? This paper accused the United Kingdom delegation. According to this report, squalid squabbles " were going on in the conference room in regard to the treaties.
Then the London Daily Herald of August 19th:
The Canadian premier is now striving to win his end by forming a united dominions front against Great Britain.
I do not think that is bringing the empire together into closer relationship, assuming of course that the statement was correct. Then it goes on to say, " high tension still prevails." Walter Citrine and John Bromley, both of whom I happen to know, and neither of whom can be accused of being addicted to unduly 
strong language, were here officially representing the industrial labour movement of Great Britain. On returning to Great Britain they both made vigorous protests against the " sordid bargaining in which the British consumer has been a mere pawn in the food-taxers' game." That is what might be oalled the official view of the Labour movement in Great Britain of the conference that took place here.
In the London News Chronicle of August 20 last I find this:
One Dominion statesman said to me today with an air of melancholy, "I have come to the conclusion that the only way to prevent the break-up of the empire is to avoid conferences as you would the devil."
It seems at least that we have statesmen here in the Dominion of Chnada. In Great Britain we find that the national government has split over the conference agreement. Several members of the British government have resigned from office and the matter has become more or less a party controversy. The leader of the opposition in this house stated what was the viewpoint of the official opposition in the British House of Commons. He told the house that Mr. Lansbury had stated that if the Labour party were returned to power they would not be a party to an agreement which taxes the food of the gjreat masses of workers of Great Britain. In Australia the leader of the opposition, Mr. Seullin, within the last few weeks has made a statement very similar to that made by Mr. Lansbury in Great Britain. So I think that those who believe that empire trade treaties are a means of cementing the various parts of the British Empire into closer relationship are doomed to disappointment.
If treaties of this nature are to be binding, certainly they should not be of a partisan nature. Any party that is in power is bound to accept responsibility for its actions, but when it comes bo dealing with a matter of this kind, seeking to put into effect an agreement to be maintained for a period of years,
I believe such an agreement ought not to be partisan in character, but rather national, if such a thing is at all possible. I claim that these agreements entered into between the various parts of the empire are purely partisan, and because of that very fact I do not think they will live the length of time which their promoters intend that they should. It is doubtful if any more Imperial economic conferences will be held for a good many years, but if they are going to be held I think the party in power might well consider whether other sections of the house should not be

United, Kingdom
taken into consideration and even called into consultation when agreements of this nature are contemplated.
Why do I say that these agreements are partisan in their character? I turn for a moment to the remarks made by the Prime Minister last Wednesday when introducing these agreements to the house. What did he say?
They are based upon the principle enunciated by the Conservative party before the last general election.
When a party attempts to make an agreement of this character binding over a number of years, it is usurping a prerogative that does not belong to any party. If at another election the people of this country by an overwhelming vote decided that they did not wish these agreements to continue in effect, would it be right that after receiving a special mandate they could not abrogate them? I think that would be contrary to the best interests of Canada and subversive of parliamentary government. The Prime Minister has been good enough to state that these agreements are based upon the principle enunciated by the Conservative party in the last federal election. If I am not mistaken the important question in the last general election was not imperial preferences, but the economic condition throughout the country and particularly the question of unemployment, and it was largely on those two issues that the present government was returned to power.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: And butter.


Abraham Albert Heaps: 
Henry Herbert Stevens: If there were lingering doubts in the mind of any hon. member in this house or of any person in the country as to where the right hon. the leader of the

opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and his followers stand in regard to these trade agreements, those doubts must have been cleared away today. Everyone will now be convinced that the right hon. gentleman and his party are irrevocably opposed to the agreements that have been presented to the house by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett).
The leader of the opposition spoke for upwards of three and a half hours, and I am sure the house will agree that it is impossible for one, in the brief space of forty minutes, to make adequate response to a dissertation of such length. Towards the end of his remarks the right hon. gentleman declared that the conference was a meeting of a Tory government representing Canada and Tory governments representing other parts of the empire, and that it constituted a Tory conspiracy which sought to rivet protection upon the empire. Those are the words the right hon. gentleman used. I took them down carefully at the time because I know that at times the right hon. gentleman, in a moment of enthusiasm, will indulge in language which later he endeavours to explain in some way. A Tory conspiracy on the part of Tory governments within the empire. Is the government of Mr. Forbes of New Zealand a Tory government? Is the government of Mr. Lyons of Australia a Tory government? Is the government of the Irish Free State a Tory government? Is the government of South Africa under Mr. Hertzog a Tory government? Is the government of Great Britain a Tory government?


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is led by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, but it is not a Tory government. It was not a group of Tory governments; the cold facts are there to show that it was not. Nor was there any conspiracy to rivet protection upon the empire. A genuine effort was made by the representatives of the governments of the British Empire to put into a practical form economic cooperation within the empire, thus strengthening the ties of sentiment and of constitution that bind the empire together.
The hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Heaps) has very properly asked this question:	Are trade treaties the best
method of promoting empire solidarity? I do not quarrel with my hon. friend at all for propounding that question. It is a very proper question and one that might engage the attention of this house or of anybody that desired to discuss the matter in an academic way. But the point in the whole question seems to be entirely lost sight of by the leader of the opposition and many others

United Kingdom
who are critical of the conference. The point is this, that an effort has been made to do something practical towards improving the economic solidarity of the empire. Something practical has been attempted. We who attended that conference recognize that the full measure of success has not been attained, but we do believe that definite steps have been taken in the right direction. We believe that common sense agreements, practical and useful to all parts of the empire, and of mutual benefit all round, have been entered into, vphich will not only assist in the development of trade within the empire but will be a step forward in the direction of solving the various problems that are perplexing the world to-day.
The right hon. gentleman proceeded in his remarks to declare that Canada wants world markets. Of course Canada wants world markets. But the inference from my right hon. friend's words was this, that because Canada and the other dominions had achieved a measure of agreement with regard to their trade relations one with the other, therefore as a result of that they had shut out trade with other countries. It is not a fair conclusion. It was an inference to be drawn from the right hon. gentleman's words. He did not so declare, but he thundered it forth-*" What Canada wants is world markets." Of course Canada wants world markets, and Canada is striving to get world markets and will get them. Let me pause here to remind the right hon. gentleman of some of the difficulties that have been confronting Canada in securing world markets. All the implications of the right hon. gentleman's remarks, in the course of his speech of three or four hours, were to this effect, that Canada by its action at the Imperial conference, by its actions in this parliament in dealing with its tariffs, had to a degree dissociated itself from other countries in the matter of trade. He harps upon that. Well, let us see what the facts are. Does he realize that during the years that he was in office the leading countries of the world erected very serious barriers against Canadian products as against those from other sources? Are he and his followers aware that there has grown up, not during the last two years since we have been in power but during the last four or five or six years, a tendency towards isolation-in Europe a tendency to European isolation, a tendency to resist the inflow of goods? That step was taken by other countries before Canada did very much in that regard.
Let us take France, with whom we had an agreement entered into by the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues. In 1927, when the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues were in office, France increased the duty against wheat from 174 to 27 cents; and before they went out of office this duty was increased up to 85 cents per bushel-a prohibitive rate of duty. Take wheat flour; in the same country, I find they increased wheat flour, while my hon. friends opposite were in office, from 66 cents per 100 pounds to $2.28 per 100 pounds-again, a prohibitive tariff.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: What did they do about
it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, as my hon. friend
from Lincoln asks, what did they do about it? Nothing at all. Again, take reapers: these were increased from 55 cents to $1.43; mowing machines from 55 cents to $1.47; fresh apples from 74 cents to 27 cents; condensed milk from $1.?5 to $1.53, and so on down the line affecting a whole series of articles. Turn to Germany. Wheat was free in 1925 and it had risen by a series of increases during the time my hon. friends opposite were in office, to 974 cents per bushel. The same applies to wheat flour; there was an increase from 86 cents per 100 pounds to $3.41. I have a long list of articles, so far as Germany is concerned, a full page of them-oats, for example, from 65 cents to $1.30; aluminum blocks from free to $2.75, and so forth. Take Italy. Wheat increased from free to 864 cents per bushel during the period hon. gentlemen were in office; flour from $1 per 100 pounds to $2.08; newsprint from 18 cents to 45 cents per 100 pounds; tires and tubes from $10.55 to $13.15 per 100 pounds; bacon from free to $1.30 per 100 pounds, and so forth. The same story applies to Belgium:	Cheese was increased from 30 to 91 cents per 100 pounds; wheat flour from 24 cents to 5 cents per 100 pounds; condensed milk from 76 cents to $1.26 per 100 pounds, and so on. The same thing is true with regard to Czechoslovakia.
The point I am coming at with my right hon. friend is this: While he was in office the markets of Europe were closing to Canadian goods such as wheat, wheat flour and various other primary products as well as manufactured goods. I am not saying that he is to blame for that, but I wish to point out to him that it does not behoove him to stand in his place in the house and suggest or throw
300	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
out the inference that because we are in office the markets of the world are being closed against us. As I have indicated by these quotations, they were in large degree closed before he left office.
He declares then that Canada desires and wants world markets, and that this agreement ought to be condemned and prevented from going into force because it will interfere with Canada's securing markets in other parts of the world. How he weeps, in his peroration, over the peace of the world! He says that the peace of the world is what he is after. Let me quote his words-"The Tories have failed, and where the Tories have failed the Liberals will take up the task of restoring once again the economic peace of the world." During all the time he was in office there is no evidence whatever that he suceeded in promoting peace throughout the world in any way, shape or form. There is no sign, no intimation, that by the treaties he put into force, all of which I have before me, there was any thought of or any attempt made to promote the peace of the world, nor was there anything done other than is done in this agreement. Every treaty he entered into was passed in the same way as is proposed in this case. Nevertheless he comes before parliament and says that this treaty with Great Britain must be accepted in full or rejected, and he says: "This is a terrible thing." I have before me the whole list of the treaties, some twenty in number, that have been entered into, most of them by the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues, and there is not one of them that was not presented to the house in precisely the same manner as this, to be accepted or rejected. Let us take the French treaty signed by his deskmate (Mr. Lapointe) and the late Mr. Fielding, whose signatures appear on the agreement which I have under my hand, by Mr. Poincare and one other on behalf of the French government and by a representative of the British government. It was signed in December 1922, with mo change possible in any item; and it contained page after page of items, far more than there are in this agreement. They brought it to the house in the following April and laid1 it on the table, looked us in the eye and said: "Take it or leave it." Parliament passed on it and accepted it, without being able to change one item. Yet my right hon. friend stands in his place to-night and says that the very foundation of this country is threatened by this agreement. I do not wdsh to be rude, but I want to teill the right hon. gentleman that when he indulges in that argument, as he did for a very considerable length of time, and repeats it, it is just pure claptrap, nothing 
else. Let us see what one of the leading Liberal papers in Canada yesterday had to say editorially on this subject. The Globe said-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friends have
been very glad to have the support of the Globe. The Globe said:
The Liberal opposition seem determined to attack the empire trade agreements in parliament. It is not clear that any useful purpose will be served by so doing and damage may result if it strengthens opposition in other countries.
And that is precisely what the right hon. gentleman hopes to bring about. He hopes, as was evident throughout every part of his speech, to stir up in Great Britain opposition to this agreement.


Mr. VALLANCE:: It is there now.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, there is a certain
amount there now. The right hon. gentleman hopes to do this, because he knows for the last sixty, seventy or eighty years Britain had been in theory and in practice a free trade country and just now under existing circumstances they have parted from their historic policy. He knows there is still some doubt in the minds of many people in Great Britain as to the wisdom of doing so. He is seeking to stir up that opposition by trying to show that in this country there is strong opposition to this treaty. Why did he not move the amendment? He read it but he did not dare to present it to the house. Why? Because behind him-and I am looking at some now- are members who would not dare to stand in their places and vote against these agreements, members who in caucus-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Name them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: -have served notice on
their leader that in parliament they would not dare to oppose these agreements. The right hon. gentleman read the amendment. Was it really a courageous act to read the amendment, get its terms out to the public, and not move it? Why did he not move his amendment and give us an opportunity to analyse it, make a proper reply to it, vote upon it, and put the members of his party as well as of ours on record in the matter?
Then he turned to my right hon. leader, the Prime Minister of this country, and referred in bitter, somewhat scathing terms to his attitude in 1930. He kept reiterating the insinuation that the Prime Minister in 1930 in his attitude at the Imperial conference in Great Britain was lacking in proper regard

United, Kingdom
for the usual practice followed by statesmen in a conference of that kind. Let me tell the house what happened at the opening meeting of that 1930 conference. My colleagues the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) were present as well. This is what happened. The leader of the government of this country rose in his place as the premier of the senior dominion. He read his address as all did- and1 it was a singularly forceful address- pointing out to the conference that if anything definite and practical were to be achieved, in his opinion it was desirable that the attempt should be made along the lines of imperial preference. That was briefly his statement. He was followed by Mr. Scullin of Australia, who read his speech prepared beforehand, and Mr. Scullin reiterated in somewhat different language what the Prime Minister of Canada had said. Mr. Scullin was followed by Mr. Forbes, who had not seen or heard of what these two previous speakers had prepared, and he read his speech with the same thought running through it. The same thing applies to the Irish Free State and in a lesser way to Mr. Hertzog of South Africa. In other words these men came to that conference without previous consultation, and one after another gave expression to the view that if anything practical were to be achieved, it would be along the lines of imperial preference. Was that an attempt on the part of the Prime Minister of Canada to thrust his views, as the leader of the opposition expressed it, upon the British government? The conference then studied the question, and unlike conferences at which my right hon. friend opposite represented his country, where it is reported that he did not attend the meetings at all but left this largely to his colleagues, the Prime Minister of Canada and his colleagues attended all the meetings, all the various economic gatherings. What happened? Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Snowden suggested that other avenues should be explored, such as import boards, quotas, and so on. They were explored, they were studied, and they were rejected by all the empire representatives, including the many British representatives as well. Nothing was achieved. It - was then that the right hon. leader of this government, in the closing days of the conference, invited them to come to Canada, and it was recognized that that invitation was a step in the right direction, because if the conference moved out of the atmosphere of London, and the dominions and the mother country met in one of the other dominions-and this was
thought the most suitable place for the first conference-they might deliberate upon this policy again with an expectation of success.
They came here, and they have succeeded in agreeing. And I point out to the right hon. gentleman that these are agreements, they are not views that have been imposed upon others. They are agreements entered into- between whom? Between Canada and the United Kingdom; between the United Kingdom and Australia and New Zealand, between the United Kingdom and the Union of South Africa and other countries, and then bilateral agreements between Canada and Southern Rhodesia and other countries. These are not some ipse dixit that this government has conceived and pitchforked into the arena; they are carefully worked out agreements, and as such we invite the house to consider them.
The right hon. gentleman said that we would negotiate on a high tariff basis and on no other. That is not true. He also said that we had in these agreements raised the tariff-he said this deliberately, two or three times-against the United Kingdom and the other empire countries.


An hon. MEMBER:: So you have.


Henry Herbert Stevens: An hon. member says,
" So you have." As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, on 136 items we have actually lowered the tariff against Great Britain. The Prime Minister said 89, but in many of the items that he counted as one there are three or four sub-items. In all it amounts to 136.


Ernest Lapointe: Over the tariff of 1930.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We have reduced the tariff against Great Britain, in fact most of them are put on the free list, and they could not be reduced much more than that. The right hon. gentleman goes on to say what his party would do if peradventure they came into offioe again; they would give to the British, he says, a fifty per cent reduction. I do not know just what he means by that. If an item is on the free list, as a great many of .these are, I do not see how he could give a fifty per cent reduction. But, as my hon. friend pointed out a moment ago, when the right hon. gentleman was in office, when he was sitting on this side of the Speaker, when he was in the plenitude of power and in a position to give effect to his words, then he voted against what to-day he says he would put into effect. What confidence can we have in utterances of that kind?
The leader of the opposition says we have increased the tariff; and he goes through the schedules and picks out an item here and
302	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
there. I invite the house to recall that he picked some items out of the cotton and woollen schedules. It is known, it was known to the British, it was fully discussed, that theTe were great difficulties in the way of Canada's making further substantial reduction in the tariff on cottons and woollens without endangering the industry in this country.


Charles A. Stewart: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is no sense in simply laughing at this, as the hon, member for West Edmonton does. This is a mighty serious thing. I will ask my hon. friend, is he prepared-[DOT]


Charles A. Stewart: Don't ask me too much.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I ask my hon. friend, as I ask the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler): are they prepared now to vote for substantial reductions, such as the right hon. leader of the opposition suggested, in the cotton and woollen schedules?


Mr. EULER:: I haven't any in my riding.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He has them very near. And I am reminded of the boot and shoe industry and the furniture industry. When you get down, Mr. Speaker, to individual industries, you find scattered through the Liberal, ranks of this house hon. members who are interested in the task of safeguarding these industries; when they are in office no violent hands are laid on the schedules, but when they are out of office any one of them may criticize the whole field of protection so long as certain ones remain silent and assure particular interests that they need fear nothing. When they were in office nothing was done. What did the right hon. gentleman do this afternoon? He took this schedule and picked out a few items relating to the cotton and woollen industries, but he wholly ignored the linen schedule. What has he to say about it? Was that a wise or an unwise thing? In this agreement we have given to the United Kingdom virtually the linen business of this country. Did we do right or wrong?


Charles A. Stewart: They have it now.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They have not got it now.


Charles A. Stewart: Who has it, then?


Henry Herbert Stevens: There was a substantial tariff against it. We have removed the tariff and put it virtually on the free list.

What about glass? The glass trade has been going largely to the continent, and we have now placed the British in a position where they can get our glass business. Then in the iron and steel schedules to which the right hon. gentleman referred in ridicule, what is done there? "Oh," he says, "certain manufacturers in Canada and certain manufacturers in Great Britain met together, and what did they do? They parcelled out Canada between them." That is not what they did, and he knows it. What happened was this: these experts on both sides met together and discussed the technique of the iron and steel business with the end in view that some portion of the $300,000,000 odd of imports of iron and steel products that came from foreign countries in 1929 should be turned over to the British. That is what we did.
The right hon. gentleman ridicules the agreement, because he says, in some instances we have raised the intermediate and the general tariffs. Well, where an item was free across the board and the British desired that they might be given a preference, how could you give them a preference, even the right hon. gentleman's fifty per cent, unless you put on a duty in the intermediate and general classes? What we did was this: we invited careful study and consideration and we used this tariff for the purpose of the diversion and direction of trade, the purpose for which tariffs ought to be used.


Charles A. Stewart: At what cost?


Henry Herbert Stevens: At less cost to the
Canadian consumer, and with much benefit to the British manufacturer.
The right hon. gentleman fails to recollect that these are agreements that have been entered into by various component parts of the empire, signed and brought into this house. And it will be asked that they be passed just as they are presented, there is no doubt of that. We might as well face that fact, just as the right hon. gentleman did with every agreement he brought into this house-there is no difference whatever in this case. They have been carefully prepared and carefully studied by the representatives of the different governments-
The right hon. gentleman has two points to which he seems to attach a great deal of importance. One is the five year term of the agreements. How he harped upon that today, as he did the other day-this iniquitous thing, the five year term, destructive of the very foundations of parliament, violating the liberties of the people! He says other British governments will not be bound by these terms.

United Kingdom
Then he quotes the leader of the government in regard to annual expenditures and tries to draw an analogy between the two when no analogy can possibly be made. He cites the five year term and then seizes on the fixed spread as two points which he describes as vicious, and declares that because of them these schedules should be rejected.
As regards the five year term I shall not labour the point, because he himself, knowing that it would be mentioned, cited the four treaties we have had with Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Italy and the Netherlands, which were made for a period of four years. It was perfectly virtuous for him to make a treaty for four years with any one of those countries, but it is a vicious thing for the Prime Minister of Canada to make a treaty with Great Britain for a period of five years. What is the difference?


Ernest Lapointe: Did any one of those other treaties bind Canada to maintain a high tariff against other nations?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will come to that in just a moment. I am talking now about the period. Was there anything vicious in making these treaties for a four year period? No, of course there was not, and there is nothing vicious, but on the contrary something meritorious, in making a treaty with Great Britain for five years.


Mr. MALCOLM:: No.
Mr. Siii/v.EjNS: I will tell my hon. friend what is meritorious about it. We are amending the tariff for the purpose of diverting trade from foreign countries to Great Britain. Does anyone for a moment suggest that that can be achieved in a year? Therefore it was decided, and wisely decided, by all concerned that this agreement should be for a period of years, and five years was fixed upon in order to give the new process of trading some fair chance of success.
Now I come to the question that the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) has raised. He asks, did any of those treaties fix a spread, that is an iniquitous spread-


Ernest Lapointe: I said, did any one of those treaties bind Canada to maintain a high tariff against all other nations of the world.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Nor does this one. All this agreement does is to fix the spread.


Charles A. Stewart: It is the same thing.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am glad that the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) agrees with that.
I turn now to the French convention. Who signed it? The gentleman who has been interrupting, the hon. member for Quebec East. I find his name at the foot of this agreement. Here are the names:
Ernest Lapointe
W. S. Fielding
Hardinge of Penliurst
R. Poincare
L. Dior.
In articles X and XI of that convention I find rather interesting reading. Article X reads:
The natural and manufactured products originating in and coming from France, the I'rench colonies, possessions and protectorates, enumerated in schedule E to this convention when imported into Canada shall be subject to the duties of the intermediate tariff, provided, however, that on the amount of the duty computed under such tariff the importer shall be entitled to a discount of ten per cent.
Provided also that on such products or any of them the proportionate difference between the intermediate and general tariffs shall at no time be less than it is at present.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: That is no answer.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Article XI reads:
The natural and manufactured products originating in and coming from France, the French colonies, possessions and protectorates enumerated in schedule F to this convention when imported into Canada shall be subject to the duties of the intermediate tariff provided, however, that on the amount of the duty computed under such tariff the importer shall be entitled to a discount of 15 per cent.
Then note this:
Provided also that on such products or any of them, the proportionate difference between the intermediate and general tariffs shall at no time be less than it is at present.


Charles A. Stewart: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: All we get from the member for West Edmonton is a vacant laugh. I he principle we have in the agreements before us is precisely the same. We are simply maintaining in these agreements the spread between the British preference and the intermediate and general tariffs. The French treaty was to be in force for twelve years, and in all the years it was in force we maintained the spread between the tariff fixed in the schedules and the general tariff. Furthermore, the French treaty during all the period it was in force fixed the rate of duty on the same articles against every one of the twenty-one countries receiving most favoured nation treatment. That was the treaty made by hon. gentlemen opposite. But when we make a treaty with the United Kingdom at the Imperial conference, it. is a
304	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
vicious principle and a venal act. So I say, Mr. Speaker, that when you come to apply that test of the five year period and the test of the preservation of the spread, you find that hon. gentlemen opposite themselves were the initiators of this practice. They were committed to it so far as foreign countries were concerned, but it is a vicious principle when we apply it to the British Empire.
Time will not permit me to follow the right hon. gentleman through each of the clauses which he took up, but there are one or two which I wish to mention. The right hon. leader of the opposition referred to the fixing of prices of commodities, the fixing of prices on wheat, lead, copper and zinc. He quoted article 4 and said:	This means that Canada
cannot sell to any other country in the world at a higher price than it sells to Great Britain. He persisted in reiterating that, although we interrupted and pointed out that he was in-, terpreting the clause wrongly. By no stretch of the imagination can you read that into the clause. Article 4 says:
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.
The meaning of this is clear to anyone who will approach it with a fair mind and not deliberately distort it. The meaning is this. The British government will place a preference on wheat, copper, zinc and lead-I shall not give the exact figures of the preference, as they are stated in the schedules-and we undertake that in view of that preference we shall not attempt to raise the price of these goods in the British market beyond the world price. The leader of the opposition asks: What good1 is this? The answer is that it is a mighty valuable thing for Canada to have a sheltered market for her copper, for instance, in a country that buys 150,000 tons of refined copper a year. Great Britain is the largest purchaser and the largest user of refined copper outside of the United States. It is also a very valuable thing to Canada to have a sheltered market for her wheat in Great Britain, which uses twice as much wheat as any other country in Europe. It. is also a very valuable thing for the producer of lead and1 zinc in Canada to have a sheltered market for these products in Great Britain, which buys them in huge quantities. We say t.o Great Britain: Give us an advantage in your

market- so that the foreign-made article will have to pay tribute entering your country as against free entry for Canadian goods, and in return we undertake not to take advantage of that to raise the price against you. That is the whole story. There is nothing in the world to prevent Canadians shipping all their copper to the United States and all their wheat to China or some other part of the world if they want to. There is not a syllable in this agreement which says if we do that we will not have access to the British market. It does say, however, if we refuse to sell Great Britain at world prices, if we refuse to supply her market she is at liberty to open her doors to other countries without interference. Let us consider wheat for a moment. We -can supply every ounce Great Britain needs. If, peradventure, in some period of stress and scarcity we refused to sell Great Britain wheat when she needed it, she would be at liberty to deal with other countries.


John Vallance: It could not happen.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, of course it could not.


John Vallance: The hon. gentleman knows it could not happen.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is right, it cannot happen. Let the hon. member tell that to his leader who belaboured the point this afternoon.


John Vallance: Even if Great Britain took it all, the minister knows he is wrong.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not know I am wrong; on the contrary I know I am right and this afternoon my hon. friend's leader was wrong.
Then the right hon. gentleman opposite refers to article 6 concerning bacon. He brushes this clause aside by saying that it is obscure and indefinite. He asks what it means, and makes the statement that-clause 6 means nothing to the Canadian farmer. Well, in very simple language, it means that whatever advantage the producer in England, Scotland Northern Ireland or Wales secures, the producer in Canada secures: that is what it means. Any advantage given to Great Britain in what is known as the pig industry will be given to Canada. Why is it put in those terms? That is a fair question, but it was not so asked. The reason is this: For over six months Great Britain has had in operation a commission of highly qualified men who have been studying the pig industry of Great Britain to learn to what degree and by what means the British farmers can raise more of the pork required in the British market. From the investigation it hopes to present to parlia-

United, Kingdom.
ment certain recommendations, and by this agreement every one of those recommendations in the interests of the British producers accrues to the benefit of the Canadian producers.
The right hon. gentleman states that article 6 is of no use to Canada, and asks "What does it amount to?" It amounts to this, that in 1929 the bacon imports into Great Britain were 8,278,000 hundredweight; in 1931 they had increased to 11,131,000 hundredweight. We are the only dominion producing bacon in large quantities, and we are asked to step in and to the extent of 2,500,000 hundredweight take a position beside the British producer in all the advantages offered in the British market.
The right hon. gentleman has referred to the colonies. He states that the article in the agreement whereby the colonies accord to Canada access to their markets contains a very dangerous principle. He did not refer to the Boston tea party, but he did state that for a century Canada and other parts of the empire had been fighting to preserve the right to control their own interests. "But", states the right hon. gentleman, "under this agreement you are imposing your will upon the colonies." We are doing nothing of the kind. What happened was that spokesmen of the colonies, accompanied by experts from the colonial office who spoke for and represented various colonies, came to an understanding with Canada about a certain list of articles concerning which the Canadian producer would receive advantage in colonial markets. In turn, we have extended advantages to the colonies, just as the right hon. gentleman did in the West Indies treaty. All that the Secretary of State for the colonies did was to embody in this agreement an undertaking that so far as he was concerned, he would present a measure to the British parliament, that body which speaks for the colonies, and that he would recommend to the colonies for their acceptance the appropriate measures. The success of the arrangement depends upon whether or not the colonial government, in their constitutional rights, will or will not accept the proposals. If they do not accept, we may or may not extend to them the advantages offered. It is a question of agreement which must be ratified by the British government, by the governments of the colonies and by the Canadian parliament.
I am sorry I shall not be able to follow all the remarks of the right hon. gentleman; my time does not permit it.


James Malcolm: Go on.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The right hon. gentleman has termed these agreements an invasion of
the rights of parliament. The very fact that he spoke for three and a half hours this afternoon and this evening is an illustration of the extent to which parliament is at liberty to review them. Of course, in opposition the right hon. gentleman believes the minority should rule. When he is on the government side of the house, however, there is no question in his mind about who should rule; it is the majority. It so happens that these measures to be voted upon in the house have been recommended by a government supported by a majority. It does not follow, however, that that majority need follow us. I expect they will, but I know there are some hon. gentlemen opposite who will not dare vote against the agreement. I know, further, that there never have been any similar measures presented to parliament in connection with which the government has not followed the course we are following at the present time. Neither my right hon. friend nor any of his followers can mention any.
The right hon. gentleman referred to the three per cent tax, and has stated that there is no provision for its repeal. There is provision in the agreements to deal with the three per cent tax and those other matters which have arisen out of the chaotic condition of exchange affecting the British empire and the whole world. Fortunately for him he was not in office when these conditions developed, 'but the fact is they did develop and have been faced by this government.
Some of the government's action my right hon. friend does not like, but in the main, Canadian business has been held steady, and through governmental action in many instances has been saved from ruin. This government is now and has for some time been striving to achieve measures which will relieve it, as well as other governments, of the necessity of special measures to prevent chaos and ruin.
I shall not impose upon the house much longer, nor shall I attempt to follow the items in detail. Before taking my seat, however, I should like to pay a tribute to the civil service staff of Canada for the work they did in the preparation of these agreements. I was proud, Mr. Speaker, of the work accomplished by the leading civil servants of our country. I believe there is not an hon. member in the house but will endorse heartily what I am saying. For instance the civil servants in the Department of National Revenue and the Department of Trade and Commerce who dealt with the intricate matters pertaining to the tariff measured up to the best in the empire. We have in our Bureau of Statistics experts of whom the whole coun-

Questions

try may well be proud, men who prepared and presented the most complicated and intricate statements to the conference. Those statements were accepted without any question. Further than that, I should like to pay tribute to the secretariat. I do not think any Imperial economic conference held in London was better served by its secretariat than was the conference in Ottawa. The parliament of Canada may well be proud of the part Canadian civil servants played in the preparation of these agreements.
In presenting the agreements to parliament, Mr. Speaker, we do so in the hope that they will prove of lasting benefit not only to Canada but to the other dominions and the empire as a whole. We 'believe that they are a step in the right direction, an effort to put into practical form a true type of economic cooperation within the empire.
On motion of Mr. Malcolm the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Bennett, the house adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
Tuesday, October 18, 1932