1932-10-19

NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED

[Stage Direction]
William Henry' Golding, member for the electoral district of South Huron, introduced by Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King and Hon. J. C. Elliott.

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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaVERGNE:
1.	Was the Stadacona Sales of Montreal awarded contracts for ties or other lumber for the Canadian National Railways?
2.	If so. on what dates, for what amounts and for what quantities?
3.	W7ere these contracts awarded by tender
or privately?	.
4.	If privately, on whose recommendation and why were tenders not asked?
5.	Were other requests for similar contracts made? If so, why, how many were granted, and for what amounts and quantities?
G. What are the names of the persons who own Stadacona Sales?
7.	Were these contracts transferred to subcontractors by the contractors? If so, to whom?
Mr. BENNETT:: Mr. Speaker, I ask to have that question dropped. It deals with internal affairs of the railway company, and it has always been the policy not to endeavour to secure or place upon the table answers to questions based upon transactions of that nature.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Question dropped.


MRS. THAIS FREMONT, QUEBEC
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaVERGNE :
1.	Is Mrs. Thais Fremont, of Quebec, a member of the Canadian delegation at Geneva?
2.	If so, what remuneration does she receive and what is her mission?
3.	On whose recommendation was she appointed?
Mr. BENNETT:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No remuneration; delegates are allowed travelling expenses and living allowance. Madame Fremont was appointed one of the Canadian delegates to the thirteenth assembly of the League of Nations.
3.	The Secretary of State for External Affairs.


RADIO COMMISSION-MR. THOMAS MAHER
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaVERGNE:
1.	Is Mr. Thomas Maher, of Quebec, a member of the Radio Commission?
2.	If so. on whose recommendation was he appointed?
Mr. BENNETT:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The Prime Minister.


CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION-APPOINTMENTS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaVERGNE:
Will the government in the near future appoint the members of the Civil Service Commission?
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I think the only answer that can be given is that the government has this matter under consideration.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Answered.


LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT-FRENCH CANADIAN LIBRARIAN
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaVERGNE:
1.	Will the government in the near future appoint a Freneh-Canadian librarian to replace the late Mr. de la Broquerie Tache?
2.	If so, when?
Richard Bedford Bennett: The same answer will apply to this question, Mr. Speaker.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Answered.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-STADACONA SALES CONTRACTS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaVERGNE:
1.	Has any contract been awarded by the Canadian National Railways to the Stadacona Sales of Montreal?
2.	If so, what contracts, for what amounts and at what dates?
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I believe this question stands in a position similar to the one I spoke about first.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Question dropped.
Motions for Papers



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: Why does not the Postmaster General answer these questions?
Mr. LaVERGNE:
1. Have the following companies: Manseau Construction Co., Canadian Dredging Co., St. Lawrence and Great Lakes Dredging and Construction Co. done dredging work since 1926?
2. If so, how much work has been done by each per year, in what localities, and for what amounts ?


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-SECRETARY TO EXECUTIVE
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Who fills the position of secretary to the executive in the Post Office Department?
2.	What is his name, his salary, his experience in the Post Office Department, and what are his functions?
3.	Does such an executive exist in the other departments?
4.	If so, in what departments?
5.	Is there a secretary to the executive in the other departments?
6.	If so, what are their names?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) his reason for having question No. 13 passed as an order for return?


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: Because it refers to several departments.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to read the question to hon. members. It is as follows:
1.	Who fills the position of secretary to the executive in the Post Office Department?
2.	What is his name, his salary, his experience in the Post Office Department, and what are his functions?
3.	Does such an executive exist in the other departments ?
4.	If so, in what departments?
5.	Is there a secretary to the executive in the other departments?
6.	If so, what are their names?
That question could be answered in a very few words, and I do not think it ought to be passed as an order for return.


George Halsey Perley: Answers are
required from several departments, especially in respect to part 6 of the question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That does not make it necessary to pass the question as an order for return. My hon. friend could inquire from each department.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member is
privileged to answer the question in the way he desires.
[Mr. Speaker 1


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The question will be
passed as an order for return.


DEPORTATIONS FROM CANADA
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: L How many persons were deported in 1930, 1931, 1932, from Canada?
2. To what country (by numbers) ?
3,.	What was their nationality?
4.	How many were returned at their own free will?
5.	How many were returned at their private expense?
6 How many were sent back (repatriated) at the expense of the government?
7.	How many isolated girls and women have been among these repatriations?
8.	Who arranges for the purchase of tickets?
9.	Who provides the cost of tickets?
10.	Are tickets bought to final destination or to port of disembarkation?
11.	Who arranges for the visas?
12.	Are transit visas provided?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. DUFF (for Mr. Marcil):: For a statement showing the postmasters who have been dismissed in the county of Bonaventure since the first of August, 1930. the name of the post offices and the reasons of such dismissals, as well as a statement of the post offices which have been closed and the reasons therefor, also the new post offices that have been opened and on whose recommendation.


BONAVENTURE COUNTY'-PUBLIC WORKS EXPENDITURES
William Duff: For a statement of the expenditures authorized and incurred by the Department of Public Works in the county of Bonaventure since last session, with each and every case, the name of the contractor, the amount of the contract, the name of the overseers of the works and whether such works were done by contract or day labour, and on whose recommendation.


BONAVENTURE COUNTY-LIGHTHOUSE KEEPERS
William Duff: For a statement, showing the dismissals by the Department of Marine of lighthouse keepers and other employees in the county of Bonaventure, since the first of August, 1930, together with the name of the new appointments, and on whose recommendation were the new appointments made.

Portsmouth Penitentiary


BONAVENTURE COUNTY-UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF
William Duff: For a statement of moneys expended by tile Department of Labour for the relief of unemployment in the county of Bonaventure since the first of August, 1930, up to date, specifying the localities where such works were done and who was in charge, together with the amount of relief granted and the name of each municipality in which such moneys were expended and by whom such expenditures were made.


PORTSMOUTH PENITENTIARY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston City):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I should like to: ask a question of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie). For the last twenty-four hours we have heard reports as to unusual occurrences in Portsmouth penitentiary. I should like to know from the minister if it is too early to give a report as to the cause of the disturbances. If it is not too early I should like to have his statement in the matter.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Kingston was kind enough to let me know a sh'OTt time ago that he purposed asking this question, concerning the rather serious disturbances which took place at Kingston the day before yesterday, and I have the necessary papers before me. From the reports I have received from the warden, and also from General Ormond, superintendent of penitentiaries, I am now in a position to furnish some information on the subject.
It appears that as far back as last Thursday afternoon some of the prisoners who were working in the quarries quit work suddenly, and three of the men who were considered to be the leaders in their action were immediately placed in their cells. On Thursday night some disturbance took place in one of the corridors where the cells are located, and demands were made upon the guards that the three men who had been taken into custody in the afternoon should foe released. However, nothing more developed on that night. Friday, Saturday and Sunday were uneventful days; all was quiet. On Monday afternoon, however, a rather serious outbreak occurred on the part of probably 300 of the 900 prisoners confined in the institution. So far as the warden and sunperintendent have been able to learn up bo the present time the only grievance of which the prisoners had complained, and which led to the riot or disturbance, was in regard to the issue of tobacco. According to regulation tobacco rations, and also pipes, are issued to the prisoners. Many of them are cigarette smokers who do not smoke pipes, and they complained that they were not allowed cigarette papers with which to make cigarettes. This seemed to have constituted the main grievance. Another grievance of which they complained was that they were not given sufficient hours for recreation, and in one instance a complaint was made by a prisoner that the daily newspapers were not permitted in the penitentiary. These seem to have been the only complaints that were made to the warden, which have so far come to my notice. I have had telephonic communication with General Ormond, the superintendent, and he has not given me any different version in regard to the complaints, or causes of trouble. As far as I am aware these are the only complaints that have been made known. General Ormond is now in charge of the situation at Kingston and as recently as noon today reported that matters are quiet, although he did say that some of the inmates evinced a rather sullen disposition, but he thought that he was properly prepared for anything that might develop. He proposes at once to open a formal inquiry in regard to the whole situation. I understand that inquiry will open either this afternoon or tomorrow morning. The inquiry will be full and searching.
I know-and I am glad of this opportunity to mention this point-that in the newspapers it is alleged very generally that there are other causes of grievance and complaint among the prisoners beyond those which I have stated. I know that it is said in some newspapers that dissatisfaction exists in the penitentiary on account of the release of certain prisoners on parole, referred to in the newspapers as the "broker cases." I would like to point out this fact to the house, that the clemency or remission branch of the Department of Justice is now, and under all governments has been, a branch which is carried on as completely confidential. Clemency is the exercise of a prerogative of the crown, possibly the last of the royal prerogatives to survive. It is not exercised by His Excellency the Governor General by order in council or upon the recommendation of council, but solely on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice or of the Solicitor General. In the present instance, in regard to the broker cases particularly, all the recommendations were made by me, as the Solicitor General was not present in Canada at the time when these brokers were released. It has been stated in a number of newspapers that the
Portsmouth Penitentiary

effect of the release of the brokers had something to do with the recent disturbance. I am not inclined to give much credence to such statements. In the first place let me tell the house that all, or nearly all, of the prisoners in our penal institutions are pretty familiar with the law and practice in regard to the administration of the Ticket of Leave Act. We have a statute on our statute books which provides that the Governor General may grant a ticket of leave to any prisoner upon the recommendation of the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General, and upon such conditions as he sees fit to impose. The effect of a ticket of leave is to permit a prisoner to serve the remainder of his sentence outside prison walls. He is not free, he is still technically in custody, and he must comply with all the conditions of his ticket of leave, one of which is that he shall periodically report to a magistrate or chief of police as to his occupation and his whereabouts, and if the prisoner, while at large, fails to comply with any condition, or is guilty of any lapse in conduct, he can be immediately restored to the penitentiary to serve the remainder of his original term without any further trial.
It is also well known among prisoners-as I gather from letters which come to me daily from prisoners themselves-that there is an established rule or practice in the remission branch of the Department of Justice in regard to the administration of the Ticket of Leave Act. I will state generally what that practice is. I am not permitted by established rule of the department to go into details or make public reports or furnish particulars in regard to individual cases of prisoners. That information is not even furnished to the House of Commons. But I may state generally the rule which prevails. Where a prisoner is a first offender, and has not been found guilty of a crime involving violence or an attack upon women or a crime which may be described as a bestial crime, such as incest, and where the conduct of the prisoner while in prison has been satisfactory, where there is no adverse report by the trial judge or magistrate-because in every instance these reports are obtained, then that prisoner will be granted a parole when he has served approximately half his term of imprisonment. He is then allowed, upon the conditions endorsed upon his ticket of leave, to serve the remainder of his term outside of prison walls.
This rule does of course admit of some exceptions, because there are cases where further confinement may endanger a man's life, or a serious operation or the like may have to

be performed. These are considerations to which we must have regard. But the general rule and practice is as I have stated; no matter what the offence, except those special offences I have mentioned, any prisoner of whatever class who is serving a term for a first offence, not for a crime of violence, and whose conduct has been good and is so reported by the warden, may expect favourable consideration on an application for clemency when he has put in half his term. And in computing the half term, if the prisoner's conduct has been good he is allowed six days a month for good conduct by way of remission.
This rule has been applied in all the brokers' cases. They were treated precisely as other criminals. When they served half their term, if they were first offenders they were granted ticket of leave upon the condition that they should report to magistrates or police officers as required, and if in future their conduct continues good to the end of the term for which they were originally sentenced they will not be called upon to serve any further sentence in a penal institution on that sentence.
There is one thing further, lest I be tripped up by some newspaper, perhaps I should mention it too. In the case of one of the ten brokers, it transpired that as he was unable to obtain bail he was imprisoned between three and four months in the Toronto gaol before he was tried. That often happens in the administration of our criminal law, poor men are often unable to obtain bail. Many judges take such a circumstance into consideration when passing sentence, and allow the sentence to date from the original imprisonment. Not so in the case of this particular broker. But in computing his actual term of imprisonment I counted the three months served prior to conviction, and when he had served half his term with remission earned he received a ticket of leave. All the brokers were treated in the same manner, and all first offenders not guilty of crimes of violence, whose prison conduct has been good, and who have not been adversely reported upon by trial judges or magistrates, are treated in the way I have indicated.
This rule or practice is known pretty generally among prisoners in the various penitentiaries. Daily I receive communications from prisoners written on prison paper, telling me their term is half up and their offence is a first one, and conduct good, and requesting that I should deal at once with their case.
I will say this also, that every application- and there are thousands of them in a year-

Implement Repairs
every application from a prisoner himself whether on a postcard or gaol paper, receive just the same consideration from the remission branch as do applications which very often come to the department backed by eminent lawyers, members of parliament or influential friends. The same treatment is given exactly to the application of the prisoner himself. He does not need to employ counsel, he does not need to enlist the sympathy of influential friends. If he can comply with the conditions I have stated his application for clemency will be fairly and favourably dealt with.
So it has been in the case of the brokers. There are some still in custody who received longer terms of sentence, and who have not yet served half their terms. There were also one or two who could not be called first offenders, who have not been dealt with up to the present time. In addition to the ten who have been liberated two others in Ontario were freed for the purpose of deportation to the United States, and they have been deported.
I make this statement because I do not believe that the fact that these brokers were treated in the way I have described-just as a pickpocket would be treated if he were a first offender-had anything to do with the disturbance which recently took place in the Kingston penitentiary. A further reason for making this statement is the charge that has been flagrantly made in Canadian newspapers, and the rules of the department forbid my entering into a newspaper controversy on such a subject. I am there to advise His Excellency in regard to the royal prerogative as to clemency, and the procedure in such cases is considered absolutely secret and sacred in the department.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: May I ask who is the prison warden at the Kingston penitentiary, and when he took charge?


Hugh Guthrie: There is no definitely
appointed warden of the institution. On the retirement of Warden Ponsford last spring the Civil Service Commission was asked to appoint a new warden. One has not been appointed as yet, I am sorry to say, but Mr. Gilbert Smith, an inspector from Ottawa and an officer who has had wide experience in penitentiary work, was placed in charge as acting warden until the Civil Service Commission could make a selection. I believe the advertisement for a warden is current at the present time. An examination was held some time last July but it was not considered
that the applicants were suitable and a new advertisement was issued. The matter is in the hands of the Civil Service Commission and I am not directly consulted with regard to the personnel. However, I notified the commission today to hurry up the appointment, and in the meantime Inspector Smith, whom I believe to be a very capable officer, is in charge as acting warden.


BUTTER IMPORTATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: In reply to questions asked yesterday by the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) I may say that there was no Australian butter imported into Canada during the last three months, while seven hundred boxes were imported from New Zealand. There were 3,465 boxes of Canadian butter shipped back to Canada from the United Kingdom.


AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT REPAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: I wish to
ask a question of the government based on a telegram I have just received from Winnipeg. I do not expect an answer at the moment, but I should like the government to take the matter into consideration. On May 25 regulation 536 was passed dealing with repair parts for agricultural implements, as I mentioned the other day. That order was in violation of an undertaking given the house by the Minister of Finance. The government evidently recognized its error-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Will the hon. member
proceed with his question?


John Livingstone Brown: Yes. Evidently the government recognized its ertor and rescinded that order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order. The hon. member for Lisgar is quite well aware that this is not the time to make the speech upon which he is now entering. If he wishes to ask the government a question I wish he would proceed to do so.


John Livingstone Brown: In view of the facts I have stated will the government take into consideration the question of remitting the duties that have been collected on those repair parts since May 25?
Wheat Bonus


CHINESE FLOUR
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Shaver Woodsworth: I have received a flour sack on which I should like to 'base a question directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens). The flour which was contained in this sack was used in a Vancouver bakery. On the front of the sack there are some Chinese characters and a Chinese trade mark, and the words in English are: Golden Shield Brand Roller Flour Kwong Yan Nin Canton
L. Dunbar & Co., U.S.A.
I should like to learn whether this flour was milled in Canton, as would seem to be the case, and imported by a United States firm. I do not know why flour used in Vancouver should come to us in that way, and I should like to know also if this is one result of the cheap export freight rate to Vancouver. I shall be very glad to give this sack to the minister-


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Before the hon. gentleman sends it over would he mind reading the Chinese inscription?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think hon. members from Vancouver are better acquainted with Chinese than I am.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If the hon. gentleman would be good enough to indite a note and send it to the department, together with the sack which he has in his hand, I will have the matter investigated.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: I should like to direct the attention of the government to a despatch which appeared in this morning's Ottawa Journal:
Premier George S. Henry declared late this afternoon unemployed transients may again be given relief work on construction of the trans-Canada highway this winter, within the provincial boundaries, despite the decision of the federal government against wholesale relief work.
Later Premier Henry said:
-Ottawa does not wish us to go on with the work-
I should like to ask the government if the premier of Ontario correctly indicates the attitude of this government.


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour) :: I have no doubt that the premier of Ontario was incorrectly reported.


WHEAT BONUS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battle-ford):: I should like to direct the attention
of the government to three of a number of telegrams I am receiving from time to time from western Canada. The three I intend to read are very brief; they all deal with the one matter, and I am sure the government imust be in a position now to tell us just where they stand. The first telegram reads:
Press for wheat bonus. Farmers cannot pay taxes and live.
The next telegram reads:
Push hard for wheat bonus. Country in terrible condition.
The third telegram reads:
Strong demand for wheat bonus. Do something or revolution inevitable.
What I should like to ask the government is this: In view of the announcement made in the press the other day that representations had been made to this government by the three prairie provinces, and in view of the fact that the government have had ample time to come to some decision in the matter, what is the conclusion at which they have arrived? This may not mean anything to the government, but it means a great deal to western Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Vallance: But this is a matter
of public importance.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has
asked his question.


John Vallance: But the government
have not answered it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. gentleman would deal less in revolution and more in silence I might answer his question. The matter is under consideration by the government and no conclusion has been arrived at.


John Vallance: In reply to the Prime
Minister might I say that this is of great importance to the west. The Prime Minister gave us his assurance that he would give the matter consideration.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


John Vallance: Now the Prime Minister says it is still under consideration. It seems to me it has been under consideration for a long time.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. SAMUEL FACTOR (Toronto West Centre):: May I ask the Prime Minister if
the press is correct when it states that the legislation based on the report of the transportation commission will be introduced in the Senate and not in this chamber?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I stated the other day-and if
the hon. gentleman had been in his place he would have heard me, or if he had read Hansard he would have known-that the government were considering the question whether the legislation should be introduced in the Senate or in the House of Commons. The Senate is not in session and will not sit until Thursday, but I can tell my hon. friend that the legislation will not be introduced this week in either house.


IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, October 18, consideration of the motion of Right Hon. R. B. Bennett (Prime Minister) for approval of the trade agreement entered into at Ottawa the 20th day of August, 1932, between representatives of His Majesty's government in Canada and of His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom, subject to the legislation required in order .to give effect to the fiscal changes consequent thereon.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):	Someone who spent August last in
Europe has said that Tory press propaganda was so active even abroad during the Imperial economic conference that most of the people there were under the impression that our Prime Minister was a kind of Iron Duke who could force his will upon the world. That story might go down at long distance, but as the electors of South Huron are neither Italian nor Spanish citizens but good Canadian citizens, they hold entirely different views about the matter and about the policy of the government. I take this opportunity, as the first member who speaks after the advent to this house of our good friend the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. Golding) to offer him our warmest congratulations and at the same time to congratulate very heartily the electors of that constituency.
As an introduction to the remarks I am going to make this afternoon on the motion before the house. I have prepared some preliminary figures which I wish to read. They are very short; they cover only five pages, and as a matter of courtesy and as an act of graciousness I shall be glad to send a copy to the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve), who will reply to my speech. In the meantime, hon. members will have the advantage of reading the figures in Hansard so that anyone who wishes to do so may comment upon them.
Someone asked Marshal Foch one day, "What is war?" His answer was, "War is common sense." The same thing can be applied to trade; trade is common sense. The figures I am going to give are taken from Review of World Trade, 1930, issued by the League of Nations, showing the British Empire's share of world trade.
According to that statement the British Empire trade with all the countries of the world amounted to $15,127,000,000 in 1930 and was 27-31 of the total world trade. We find in the Statesman's Year-Book of 1932 published by Macmillan & Co., that in 1931 the total imports of the United Kingdom were £862,174,709 and the exports £453,199,164, leaving an unfavourable balance of trade of £408,975,545.
What is the total trade of the dominions who sent delegations to the last Imperial economic conference? The last figures we could find were those of 1930. In that year the total amount of trade of those dominions with the exception of Canada was £936,354,560.
We will not insist on the trade figures of British Malaya, Ceylon, Nigeria, Gold Coast, Kenya and Uganda, Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, Palestine and Aden for two reasons: because they were not represented at the conference and because their total trade, including foreign, amounts to only 2-72 of the world trade.
As the government intends to create a new channel of trade in the British market, it is of the utmost importance to find what is the total amount of trade of the other British countries amongst themselves and to make a comparison between their British and foreign trade.
The trade of the United Kingdom with Australia, New Zealand, British India, Irish Free State, Canada, Union of South Africa, Newfoundland and Southern Rhodesia is as follows: Imports, £205,910,000, and the exports of British, foreign and colonial produce £166,233,000, leaving an unfavourable balance of trade of £39,677,000. The United Kingdom has a favourable balance of trade only with the Irish Free State, the Union of South Africa and Southern Rhodesia.
[Stage Direction]
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
The total exports from the United Kingdom to British possessions in 1931 included foreign and colonial produce amounting to £16,109,000. How much was made in Germany?
The trade of the United Kingdom with Canada during the last two' years was as
follows:
Imports	Exports
1930	£38,146.000	£30,246,0001931	
32,816,000	22,163,000Decrease.. ..£ 5,330,000	£ 8,083,000
Decrease in one year: £13,413,000.
According to the above quoted statement of the League of Nations, the total amount of world trade is 855,365,000,000. The total trade of the British nations is $15,127,000,000, but the United Kingdom trade does not represent even one-half of that figure, it is only £1,251,728,433 or $6,083,400,184.38. If the proportion of the total trade of the British nations in 1930 was 27-31 per cent as compared with world trade, the proportion of the total trade of the United Kingdom with the other dominions represented at the conference is only 9-11 per cent. The trade of our neighbour to the south, the United States, in 1930, amounted to $6,544,000,000 or in rough figures, $460,600,000 more than the whole trade of the British nations amongst themselves. Canada had a good share of that market. The Year Book of 1930 gives the following figures, representing our trade with the United States:
1906	 $169,256,452
1914	 396,302,138
1922	 515,958,196
1929		 868,012,229
1930		 847,442,037
1931		 823,996,044
The figures for 1931 are taken from the Canadian Almanac and do not include our trade with the United States' possessions of Alaska, Hawaii, the Phillipine islands and Porto Rico. The other dominions so far have assured for themselves a predominant place in the United Kingdom for their exports, but the Canadian trend of trade has been altogether different because of our geographical position on the North American continent. The figures for Canadian trade in 1931 are as follows:
British	Foreign
Exports.	.	.$	292,884,145	$	506,768,522Imports.	.	.	204,935,168	701,677,513Total. .	.	.$	497,819,313	$	1,208.446.035
In round figures our trade with the United States is one-half of our total trade, two-thirds of our foreign trade and twice the

amount of our British trade, and this in spite of high tariffs which have caused a shrinkage in trade. These tariffs have not changed the natural trend of our trade. Is it the intention of the government of Canada to divert to Canada the trade of Great Britain with the whole world? If so, how long will it be before this Canadian trade takes root in Great Britain and ousts the other dominions from the place they have had in that market?
Page 7 of the report of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the fiscal year ended March 31,1932, contains an analysis of Canada's trade. This would appear to be no more than a transcription of the very- excellent speech made last year during the budget debate by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston). The figures are as follows:
Canada s foreign trade during the year ended March 31, 1932, amounted to $1,166,069,000 compared with a similar trade in 1931 valued at $1,723,641,000, and in 1930 at $2,393,212,000. showing a decrease compared with the year
1931	of $557,572,000 or 32-4 per cent, and with 1930 of $1,227,143,000, or 51-3 per cent. During
1932	imports amounted to $578,504,000 compared with an import trade in 1931 valued at $906,613,000, and in 1930 at $1,248,274,000, the decrease in imports in 1932 compared with 1931 amounting to $328,109,000 or 36-2 per cent, and in 1930 to $669,770,000 or 53*7 per cent; while total exports during the year 1932 were valued at, $587,565,000 compared with a similar trade in 1931 valued at $817,028,000, and in 1930 at $1,144,938,000; the decrease in 1932 compared with 1931 amounting to $229,463,000 or 28-1 per cent, and with 1930 to $557,373,000 or 48-7 per cent. During 1932 Canada's domestic exports amounted to $576,344,000, and in 1931 to $799,743,000, and in 1930 to $1,120,258,000; the decrease in 1932 compared with 1931 amounting to $223,399,000 or 27-9 per cent, and with 1930 to $543,914,000 or 48-5 per cent. For the fiscal year ended March 31. 1932, Canada's trade balance was favourable to the extent of $9,061,000 compared with an unfavourable balance in 1931 of $89,585,000. and in 1930 of $103,336,000; the improvement in Canada's trade balance in 1932 compared with 1931 amounting to $98,646,000. and with 1930 to $112,397,000.
With what big rocks does the Prime Minister intend to bridge that chasm of $1,227,143,000 between our trade in 1930 and outtrade today? It is well known that the agreements have not been arrived at in the valley of humiliation 'because the Prime Minister in all modesty has expressed his conviction that he has done what others failed to do. The agreements were signed in a vale of tears where there was a possibility of war.
During the 1930 campaign the eloquent voice of the Prime Minister was blasting a way into the markets of the world. Now he promises that these trade agreements will be lasting. It is the same old story except that

United Kingdom
he has reduced his vocabulary by one letter. Is it not in accordance with the decrease in trade?
Let us scrutinize the speech which the Prime Minister made last Wednesday. His speech may be full of meat, the meat of millions. Why did he not say billions, of potential hogs? But let us see its bone-dry skeleton. At page 109 of Hansard the Prime Minister says:
These agreements mark the first forward step in a definite scheme of closer empire economic association.
Definite, mark you. He says further:
I do not wish to create the impression that as a result of this conference we are putting into operation a plan that will secure at the outset the greatest development of the empire's trading potentialities.
Mark you, the greatest possible development of the empire's trading potentialities. He goes on:
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. I do not ask them to defend their failures of the past. I do not even wish to put them in issue.
What did the Prime Minister do about the possible potentialities? He continues:
The agreement with the United Kingdom is naturally the agreement of primary importance to us. We have given to the mother country increased advantages which are set out in detail in the tariff resolutions to be submitted to the house by the Minister of Finance.
What potentialities are there? At page 111 there is a summary of the proposed changes in the customs tariff of Canada, and then at page 119 I find the figures of Canada's exports to the United Kingdom in July and August of this year. Remember, the agreements were signed on August 20 last. The Prime Minister says:
Figures of Canadian exports to the United Kingdom in July and August of this year show considerable increases over the figures for the same months in the previous year in nearly all branches of trade.
Iron products-The value of Canadian exports to the United Kingdom in the first five months of the present fiscal year were $2,481,968 compared with $1,570,244 in the same period in 1931, an increase of 58 per cent.
Further examination of trade returns reveals striking increases in certain items.
Exports to the United Kingdom from Canada of typewriters increased from $11,259 in five months, April to August, 1931, to $400,468 in the same period of this year.
The Prime Minister continues:
Although the total imports of the United Kingdom during the first six months of this year decreased by £58,000,000, as compared with the same period in 1931, the imports from British empire countries show a net increase of nearly £4,000,000. While Canada's contribution rose from £13,200,000 to £17,300,000, the imports from the United States dropped from £51,500,000 to £43,250,000.
These increases took place before the agreements were signed. The Prime Minister continues:
The possibilities of increased activities in Canadian factories and transportation routes with corresponding decrease in unemployment, as a result of these preferences, is unlimited.
I remember very well that during the special session when the tariff was being raised the Prime Minister said exactly the same thing. He said that the manufacturers were being given high protection on the clear understanding that they would keep people at work and that there would be no more unemployment. But they did not do so.
At page 121 the Prime Minister says something about timber. He said that the increase in Canadian exports of timber to the United Kingdom amounted to £153,873. According to the Prime Minister's figures we exported to the United States 1,445,000,000 feet of lumber, valued at $39,000,000, and to the United Kingdom 186,000,000 feet, valued at $6,474,000. Our increase in timber exports to the United Kingdom amounted to £153,873, or in dollars $570,866.83; so $31,955,133.27 represents the total decrease in our timber exports to the United States and Great Britain as a consequence of these agreements. To sum up, the improvement is only $500,000 odd while the loss is nearly $32,000,000.
The Prime Minister paid a tribute to high protection when he said that the United States market is closed to us because of their high tariff.
I come now to what the Prime Minister .-aid about fish products and the potentialities there. The Prime Minister says:
It seems probable that the 10 per cent preference will enable us to take a substantial portion of the United Kingdom business in this canned fish in which the United Kingdom for the year 1930 imported a total of 188,000 hundredweights.
Then the Prime Minister refers to copper and says:
Our preference of 2d. per pound assures Canadian producers access to the third largest market in the world for unwrought products.
368	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
It may assure access to the United Kingdom market, but we do not know how much our manufacturers will sell in that market. The Prime Minister goes on to say:
If plants operated to capacity, there would be a surplus for export of about 125,000 tons. In 1927 exports were 119,705 tons; 1931, 108,213 tons. Canada's lead production hitherto sold in all the principal markets of the world except the United States, which imposes a tariff of 2'125 cents per pound.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the house must realize the value of a stabilized market for Canadian lead and copper where the preference is at the rate I have indicated.
That is a potentiality only, a possible or probable result. The Prime Minister continues:
The retention of the British preference of 10 per cent will assure empire countries of a market capable of absorbing a very large proportion of the surplus production.
We also have certain other minerals such as mica, talc, graphite, and feldspar, in which a trade is possible, provided that our producers can meet the market conditions of the United Kingdom.
The Prime Minister then turns to agricultural products and speaks of the "potential possibilities for the production of 8,500,000 hogs by 1937."
The right hon. gentleman continues:
And in the quota arrangement under consideration and soon I believe to be made-the commission has been sitting now for several months and the report, I understand, is practically complete-we shall have a quota of 2,500,000 hundredweight per annum. I wonder if the farmers of this country have a proper appreciation of just what the value of that is.
Then, speaking about cattle, the Prime Minister said:
In 1906. Canada exported to the United Kingdom 163,994 cattle, being her maximum since 1874.
Then, later on he states:
While Canada's surplus in cattle production is at present at the lowest level in 20 years, an export outlet is required under normal conditions for upwards of 200,000 cattle.
That also is a guess. Then he continues:
The Hawley-Smoot tariff of 1930 practically closed the United States market. It is therefore of utmost importance to Canadian producers to have unrestricted access to the only alternative export outlet.
He is guessing about the access to export outlets. Then he continues:
When the new agreement becomes effective, Canadian cattle will be in a position to compete on their merits in the interior markets of Great 
Britain, and will be relieved of some of the overhead costs which have in the past made this trade a precarious one.
Lower down on the page I find:
An expansion in the output of concentrated milks means a greater increase in employment not only in manufacturing the product itself, but also in producing packages, as cans and cases, labels, etc., than is the case with an expansion in the output of cheese and butter, 'this feature of the agreement will be especially beneficial to the province of Ontario.
What about the province of Quebec? I ask the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) to tell us about that. Now we come to the Prime Minister's comments concerning creamery butter. In that connection I read the following:
The proposed treaty should-*
Not "shall."
-should also result in a gradual increase in the price of creamery butter, in which case Canadian agriculture will benefit, not only from the increase in price, but also from the increase in production, which will result from an increase in price.
Again the Prime Minister uses the word "will" when I suggest he should have said "would." I do not understand the English language as well as the Prime Minister, but as in the first instance he used the word "should" I suggest he should have used the word "would" later on. If in the first instance he is so indefinite, why does he become so definite in the second? Then he continues:
The prairie provinces will enjoy
[Stage Direction]
Oh yes, he is sure; he has dreamed it.
[Stage Direction]
a most needed benefit as a result of this provision as will Canadian agriculture as a whole.
Concerning cheese, the Prime Minister has the following to say:
Canada will now enjoy in the British market free entry for three years certain, with preference margin of 15 per cent which will be maintained during the currency of the agreement.
And so on. Then he continues:
It is however important to keep in mind that the various milk product industries act interdependently in maintaining a stable price for these commodities.
That is some consolation for the distressed farmers. There is a terrific chasm of $1,227,143,000 between our 1930 trade and our present trade which is to be filled up with dry bones, potential possibilities, and possible potentialities. Possibly the government means well, buit hell is paved with good intentions.

United Kingdom
Trade is the life of the nation. Due to high tariff policies, however, it is decreasing. Our fellow citizens are unemployed; they suffer because they cannot clothe themselves comfortably; they are hungry. What does the government offer them? It offers the direct relief of probabilities, possibilities and potentialities. The Prime Minister comes to their rescue with, as we say in lower Quebec, or as my hon. friend the senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) would say, un petit rien tout neuf, peinture en bleu.
The ship of state is sailing in a dense fog. The captain is blind folded, because he has thrown his compass of common sense into the open sea and has replaced it by probabilities, possibilities, potentialities and uncalled for patriotism. The ship is adrift. Why is it that Tory members take off their hats to their leader? Why? Because he makes strong, windy speeches. In fact, the wind is so strong it blows their sailor caps from off their heads.
On this side of the house we will be true to our duty and our country. We will do everything we can to prevent the Prime Minister from making harmful and dangerous experiments at the expense of Canada, or to gamble any further with her future.
Hon. ARTHUR SAUVE (Postmaster General) :: Mr. Speaker, my modest contribution to this debate will be limited to a consideration of some aspects of the Imperial economic conference, the national spirit which inspired its deliberations and the effect of the agreements arising therefrom. Appreciating the honour conferred by those who have asked me to address the house in my mother tongue, which is not theirs, I desire to give them before complying with their kind invitation a brief resume of the remarks I shall later deliver in French.
The conference will attain its desired end if the citizens of the empire will accept their share of cooperation in the same spirit of good will as that which inspired the delegates in their deliberations. If political interests do not impede the progress of these agreements the government will fulfil its duty of applying the new policy. The policy of the Conservative government was directed towards the negotiation of commercial treaties, because we knew what we had and we understood that the need of Canada was to export our products to the different countries of the world, and especially to countries within the empire.
(Translation):
I shall address a few remarks in my mother tongue, but not, however, with the intention of replying in strong language to my hon. friends who, very eloquently, spoke yesterday on the subject matter of this debate. I listened with pleasure to the remarks of the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), who is always eloquent, and notwithstanding the strong language he used in his speech, I found him very interesting. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) has lost none of his oratorical powers. I shall take the opportunity, in the course of my remarks, to refer to his speech, as well as that of the hon. member for Quebec East.
Were we, sir, to put faith in the utterances of hon. members on the opposition side, we would be led to believe that their mission was to warn us that a crisis prevails in this country and that the people are in dire distress, when, on the contrary, they should not forget that it was the Conservative party or the government which, at present, presides over the destinies of this country, that warned the people of this crisis, when our opponents concealed and even denied its existence, so as not to jeopardize their administration.
The government, for the last two years, has been conscientiously facing the new conditions resulting from the abuses often pointed out, the blunders of the past, the influences which precipitated the crisis, as well as the need for social and economic reform. For two years, the crisis has raged with such fury throughout the world that no economist, no statesman could foresee the consequences. The causes of this depression are numerous and, often, a remedy which is efficient when applied in a healthy centre, is of no use during an epidemic or its action weakened in an infected centre. The government did their utmost to carry out their pledges and if the results were not all that was expected, it is not due to their policy, but rather to the causes of the crisis and the acts of past administrations.
The difficulties are in direct ratio with the intensity of the crisis, and again I repeat, the government made considerable efforts to improve the situation, while endeavouring as much as possible to relieve the distress of the people.
Our opponents speak as if, for the last two years, the government had refused to trade with other countries and as if, had the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) been in power, he would have found markets abroad to sell our products n*

370	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
advantageous prices. Does this contention rest on facts or past achievements. I do not think, sir, that the opposition can possibly maintain such a contention, in the light of truth or of its past acts. It was when our friends the Liberals were in power that the United States practically closed their markets to Canadian products. At the very outset of the Liberal rule in 1921, the country began to suffer from the United States tariff policy, from 1922 to 1930, namely, the Fordney-McComber tariff, in 1922, and the Hawley-Smoot tariff in June, 1930, as the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) is also aware.
Had this, sir, happened under the Conservative government, what an outcry of protests and simulated indignation would we not have heard from the apposite benches! It was under the administration of my right hon friend, the leader of the opposition, that France increased its tariff against us, and established prohibitive duties against our wheat and flour. It was also under his administration that Germany, Belgium and Italy established prohibitive duties against Canadian products. What did the late government do? What effort was made to induce these countries to amend their tariffs in order to 'better favour us? What steps did our hon. friends opposite take to improve the farming situation and enhance the prices of Canadian products? I fail to see any, either in their legislation or negotiations carried on with the countries I have just mentioned. France levied a duty varying from 17J to 27 per cent on our wheat, and, furthermore, when the late regime was near ending, it increased this duty to 87 cents. Germany did the same. Italy raised its tariff against us to 86t cents per bushel of wheat, and from $1 to $2.08 per hundredweight of flour. Belgium increased its duty on our cheese from 30 to 91 cents, on our condensed milk, from 76 cents to $1.26 per hundredweight. This is one of the causes of our trade depression, and explains the fall in prices of our farm products. Our hon. friends apposite do not mention these facts, and my good friend, the hon. member for Temiscouata, who is always so well disposed towards me, although 'he gave proof of much vim in the reading of statistics, forgot to mention these facts. There are also other causes I do not wish to be so narrowminded as to impute to my opponents, the late government, all the ills which the crisis has brought upon us. There are factors which are foreign to governments, apart from the causes mentioned a moment ago and the fact that the late administration was too slow in acknowledging the existence of this crisis, for

political ends. Among the others, may I mention currency which underwent fluctuations, disastrous transitions, affecting the exchange and increasing the burden of our liabilities abroad, especially depreciating the Canadian dollar. There are also the displacement of long term loans; our enormous liabilities, the dominion, provincial, municipal', school and private liabilities.
May I mention, by the way, the overcapitalization of industries, the procrastination in practising thrift and the disproportion between' the cost of production and that of distribution, greatly attributable to the crave for luxury and fashion. Machinery has replaced the workman. A well-known economist stated the other day that machinery has not harmed the working class, since the workmen are far more numerous than they were in the past. There may be many causes for this, but what we must not ignore, is that machinery forces the workman to retire when fifty-five years old, and throws him on the state which, owing to modern ideas and requirements, is forced to overload its budget so as to establish old age pensions.
It is unnecessary to refer to the consequences of the diffusion of science without control, founded on activities lacking totally in foresight.
The government has made great efforts to end the crisis and improve our markets. What loyal and serious opponent, in touch with the country's affairs and conditions, can deny that the government did not do its utmost, for the last two years, trying to solve the very difficult problems which it had to face.
We believed that Canada would benefit by agreements between the various parts of the British Comimomwea 1th and that, bearing in mind the policy and the attitude of the other countries towards ours, in tariff matters, it wias urgent to negotiate these treaties with the various nations of the British Commonwealth, which evidenced a similar desire. A conference was held in 1930, and our opponents referred to that conference as if nobody knew anything about it in this country, and as if they themselves had not mentioned that there would ibe one in 1930, to which the then Prime Minister was to attend accompanied by the brilliant lights of his government.
The right hon. Prime Minister of Canada, sir, did not lie flat before the conference. . . .


Mr. POULIOT (Translation):: Is the Postmaster General pleased to see me back in the chamber? I went out to welcome a newly married couple from my county who had just arrived in Ottawa.

United Kingdom


Mr. DUGUAY (Translations):: If you used more common sense, you would receive a reply.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not wish to prevent him from continuing his speech; let him recover his senses and continue his speech, let him continue to disgrace us.


Arthur Sauvé: Mr. Speaker,
I trust that you will bear in mind the time which the hon. member is taking up.


Jean-François Pouliot: He is too slow in delivering his speech; I am not delaying him; he is unable to bestir himself.


Arthur Sauvé: When one
has common sense, one takes time to think, and whoever has any breeding, endeavours to show it in his manners.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is very
nice also to have pretensions, I never was so humiliated in my life.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER (Translation):: Order 1 I must request the hon. member for Temiscouata to observe the rules, otherwise I shall be obliged to name him.


Arthur Sauvé: Mr. Speaker,
permit me to reply. The hon. member for Temiscouata should, with the experience he has, and for the sake of his people, and that of his race, abstain from such talk. Let him not refer to me except for his own needs, let him say that I am unworthy of his esteem or attention, I shall not complain, however, let him think of his race and the consequences of his behaviour.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am thinking of the postmasters whose throats he has cut.


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member only thinks of cutting throats; he tried to cut the throat of the Prime Minister of the province of Quebec, and it is then that I discovered his peculiarities and despised him.


Jean-François Pouliot: If he wishes to turn red, we have no need for him.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order!


Arthur Sauvé: I feel certain that I command more respect in the ranks of his party than he himself does.
I shall continue my remarks. The right hon. Prime Minister went to the conference, in London, with a proposal to the delegates of the British Commonwealth, especially those of Great Britain, he stated to them: We have granted to England a preference for a number of years. We now wish to see that this prefer-53719-24*
ence becomes mutual and reciprocal, because Canada, has more than ever, need for new markets and we consider that our real interests lie with the British Empire. He did not go to the conference in London, saying: I am British to the core. No, he discussed matters from a business viewpoint, with the interests cf the various parts of the Commonwealth in mind, but, above all, as a representative of Canada, and in the interest of Canada.
The hon. member for Labelle stated yesterday:	I am in favour of closer relations between Canada and the various parts of the British Commonwealth, and especially with Great Britain, but not under Tory government."
If he is in favour of the principle of such relations, why conclude thus, especially when, at present, the National Government in England includes laborites, free-trade liberals and conservative protectionists. I wonder how a man of his standing, -whom I respect-he is aware of it-could have invoked such an argument. Was it to show that he was ill-disposed towards the government?
The hon. member for Quebec East, with a great sweep and magnificent gestures, even in strenuous language such as served his purpose stated: ''These trade agreements will create competition contrary to the interests of the British Empire, and there might result discontentment and serious difficulties." Why such scruples, why this fear when it is a question of trade agreements between the various parts of the British Commonwealth. Why this apprehension among our liberal friends who, however, again maintain that free-trade is a policy of peace and union among nations.
Mr. ST. PERE (Translation): Ask the League of Nations.


Arthur Sauvé: That is another question.
Mr. ST. PERE (Translation): Not precisely.


Arthur Sauvé: The hon.
member for Hochelaga (Mr. St. Pere) will himself perceive the distinction. Whence comes this annoyance, among our friends opposite, at the outcome of the negotiations at the Ottawa Conference? Is it because everybody agrees, both in business and financial circles, in all countries, and in the foreign press, that the conference was a great achievement for the British Empire and especially for the Prime Minister of Canada and his country? Why, then take advantage of the present circumstances to abuse the Prime Minister, to try and belittle him, to state that he is unworthy of the post he occupies and that the great task he accomplished at the Imperial conference is not to his credit?
372	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
One even insinuates that the Prime Minister has betrayed the interests of his country when, together with his government he negotiated the treaties of which, today, Canada boasts, while awaiting the time when prosperity will return to us. Why these insults, why this contempt shown towards the Prime Minister, personally? Can any one reasonably contend that he has not sufficient brains to preside over the destinies of this country? Can anyone contend earnestly that he has not enough patriotism or that he has not sufficiently toiled since he is at the helm of the country's affairs? Does any one contend that he has not given the best part of himself, the whole of his time to the service of his country? Whatever may be the outcome of his efforts, why insult and despise him, at the very time when all the nations of the world are closely following the debates of this house on the pacts concluded? What advantages will the country thereby derive? I can understand that from a liberal viewpoint, our opponents foresee a certain immediate advantage in raising prejudices, or, even, misrepresenting the meaning and aim of our policy, but what benefit can the country derive from such an attitude towards the Prime Minister and the government? None, on the contrary, only harm! However, sir, when our opponents, in their amendment-on which they are undecided how to vote-request us to refer the matter to the people before giving approval to the trade agreements, I can understand the shrewdness of their tactics and the political advantage which the Liberal party find in requesting an appeal to the people at present instead of waiting two years hence, namely the time when the Canadian people will better be able to judge the results of these trade agreements. I know-and they also recognize-that in two years they will be unable to speculate on such prejudices against the Prime Minister or his government so as to capture votes, because the people will then be enjoying the fruit o*f our labours, the advantages of new markets and the bliss of prosperity.
The conference planned had a success which was unexpected by our opponents. Had the hon. leader of the opposition been in power, he would have presided over this conference, in London, perhaps, not in Canada. What would have been the results? Would they have been similar to those the Ottawa conference gave?
Let us suppose they were, for we are not so narrow-minded and unfair as to deny him ability.
Farm products were referred to. May I, sir, quote a few articles which will be of
[Mr. Sauve.l
interest to our farmers and, particularly, those of my province. I shall not allude to manufactured articles, especially textiles. I shall simply point out, by the way, that the government's policy is to protect the industries which need markets and which use raw materials, and not to foster useless industries or those which have no need of protection.
The conference opened its proceedings by discussing a plan to promote Imperial trade, after having given consideration to the potentialities of Canada from the double viewpoint of local needs and the exportation of its products. I repeat, sir, the government's policy is not to close any markets. We desire, as all good Canadians do, all the markets necessary to Canada, however, we begin by those we can obtain from England and its dominions. Are we right to have considered, first, the markets of the British Commonwealth? Can those markets offer us great advantages? The sheet anchor which Canada seeks? Noting the fact that the whole British Empire comprises the greater quarter of the globe's population; realizing that the British Isles produce for only two days per week the food necessary to their 40,000,000 consumers; considering that England imports from countries outside of the Commonwealth, products valued at $15,000,000,000 and that the whole of the Empire purchase on foreign markets for $25,000,000,000, the government under the direction of its Prime Minister, opened the conference and negotiated pacts which gave happy results and of which the country has cause to rejoice.
Take lumber, for instance, article 1 of the pact insures its free entrance and article 3 gurantees a considerable minimum margin. May I quote a few other articles? The embargo on Canadian cattle is dbdlished. We, therefore, have reason to expect a large increase in our cattle shipments. The Hawley-Smoot tariff, in 1930, under the late government-everybody in Canada is aware, having witnessed and suffered from it-was fatal to us, and again I repeat it, our opponents made no real effort to minimize its noxious or injurious results. Condensed milk: This is the most remunerative branch of our dairy industries. The United Kingdom imported, in 1931, over 300,000,000 pounds of these goods. In 1931, Canada manufactured over 90,000,000 pounds, and only exported to the United Kingdom and abroad 34,000,000 pounds, because of prohibitive duties. Today condensed milk will enter free during three years and will not have to pay a duty of 15 shillings per hundredweight. This amounts to a preference of 15 shillings, and for us, therefore, a

United, Kingdom
potential production of 175 to 200 million pounds.
Butter: The United Kingdom imported, last year, close ito 1,000,000,000 pounds, and Canada only supplied them with 8,000,000 pounds, out of a total exportation of 10,000,000 pounds and a total production of 225,000,(XX), in round figures. Experts assure us that as a result of the pacts concluded and our excellent trade connections in Great Britain, Canada may possibly produce within five years, about
300,000,000 pounds of butter. However, we shall have to avoid an over-production of this commodity, by continuing to foster the growing of wheat on a large scale, in the west. Diversified zoning in accordance with the natural peculiarities of the various districts and requirements of our trade, become more and more indispensible every day. Cheese: The United Kingdom imported in 1931, more than 300,000,000 pounds. Canada supplied her with 80,000,000 pounds, out of 113,000,000 pounds which she produced. Canadian cheese will now enter free on the English market, during the next three years, and even with a preference of 15 per cent. Tobacco: The United Kingdom imported more than 230,000,000 pounds in 1930, and Canada supplied her with almost 4,000,000 pounds, out of a 50,000,000 pound production. Experts inform us that by following the curing methods advised for tobacco, we shall increase our exports 50 per cent. Potatoes: The United Kingdom imported over 17,000,000 hundredweight. Canada only supplied her with a small quantity owing to the embargo on potatoes from Canada, not under our regime, but previously. We have obtained a 10 per cent preference and their free entry on the English market, this is very advantageous to our farmers. Eggs: The United Kingdom imported, in 1930, 26,000,000 hundredweight, and Canada only supplied her with 26,000 dozens, out of the 270,000,000 dozens produced on the farm, not including the cities. According to article 3, our eggs enter free on the English market, instead of having to pay prohibitive duties.
Our trade with Bermuda will expand.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member has spoken for forty minutes.


Arthur Sauvé: I shall close
my remarks. I was often interrupted in the course of my remarks.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Go on, go on.


Arthur Sauvé: Thanks. As
to honey, to the already existing preference
of 10 per cent granted to Canada, will be added a preference of 7 shillings per hundredweight according to our agreement with England, Australia and New Zealand.
The Prime Minister in his brilliant statement pointed out the advantages which Canada would derive from the preference granted on its barley, oats and peas. This means that the results of the trade agreements guarantee to our farmers very alluring new markets. Should not the government, under the circumstances, bearing in mind the world crisis and the administrative difficulties which we have to meet owing to the depression, be rather unanimously congratulated on the success achieved? Does not the country at least owe it a testimonial of having accomplished excellent work?
I regret, sir, that my time has expired and that I cannot complete my remarks on this question: Dura lex, sed lex.


Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, there is at least one feature of his contribution to the debate this afternoon on which I am able to congratulate the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve), it is the fact that he has taken part in this discussion at all. I take strong exception to the habit that has developed among supporters of the government during this and last session, of not replying to the speeches made by members of the opposition. Parliament has been instituted largely for the very purpose of giving an opportunity for the expression of conflicting opinions on all sides, and it is a very bad practice for a government, whether on the part of the government itself or on the part of its supporter's, to refrain from discussing public matters, as hen. gentlemen opposite have done during this session and on former oecas-sions. I am glad to see that within the last twenty-four hours they have changed their course in this regard. If there is one thing that requires discussion in parliament it is a resolution such as this, asking the house to approve cf the agreements entered into between the United Kingdom and Canada and other parts of the empire.
I have grave doubts-and this will be my first point-as to the principle involved in these agreements. If it were right at all for representatives from the different nations within the empire to assemble in Canada and, practically speaking, prepare among themselves a budget for Canada, it becomes a very serious matter that, when a resolution resulting from such a conference is submitted to parliament, those who are responsible for it should avoid discussing it. I think we should look very carefully into these agreements, and
374	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
if the method that has been followed has been to have representatives from the different parts of the empire prepare a budget for Canada, then surely the representatives of the Canadian people should be expected to discuss this budget before voting upon and passing it finally.
If I cannot follow my hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) in much of what he has said this afternoon, nevertheless I congratulate him sincerely upon having discussed the subject to some extent and having taken part in this debate. I hope that from now on the Prime Minister of Canada will instruct his supporters, when he presents a measure to parliament, which as I say has been instituted for the very purpose of free and full discussion, that they shall take part in any debate that may occur on that measure; because both sides are expected to discuss national issues and to present their views thereon. Therefore, not only as a matter of courtesy to members on this side of the house, but as a duty which they owe to those from whom they have re-oeived their mandate, hon. gentlemen opposite should take their stand in parliament on every measure submitted and let the people know just what their views are.
In pursuance of this opinion, may I express regret that we are unable to follow as completely as we should like the discussion which is now taking place with respect to these agreements in the parliament of the United Kingdom, for the reason that we are not obtaining, through the press, adequate reports of the discussions. I will not blame anyone in particular. I am a newspaper man myself by origin and inclination, and I know that very often a newspaper offers all that it has; it cannot give more information than is at its disposal. But we are certainly not getting from the other side the fullest reports of the discussions which are taking place there. We know very largely what Mr. Neville Chamberlain thinks of the agreements; we know very largely what Mr. Baldwin and the other statesmen who were in Ottawa this summer think of the agreements from their point of view. But what we are interested in knowing is why some of the members of the British government have actually resigned. On what grounds have they based this grave action which they have taken? I am very sorry, for my part, that we have not been able yet to obtain in the fullest detail the statements made by Sir Herbert Samuel and other leaders of opinion in Great Britain who dissent entirely from these agreements and who have taken their stand on the question in the British parliament.

After all, it might be argued, as the Prime Minister has argued in some of his remarks, that the more opposition there is in other parts of the empire the better the bargain should appear so far as Canada is concerned. I believe he has advanced that argument, at least with respect to the waterway question. But it is not so. It may be that in the process of bargaining, when a proper balance has not been observed, the fact that one party gets a very great deal may induce opposition from the other side. But there might be opposition also to the very principle of the agreement. There might be opposition not only from Liberals and Progressives in Canada but from Liberals and Progressives throughout the empire, on the ground that these agreements cannot be of advantage to the empire as a whole, notwithstanding the material advantages that may accrue to this or that line of industry, inasmuch as they are based on a principle which is wrong in itself and which therefore must be combated not only in Canada but in Great Britain as well. For that reason we should like to know what stand is being taken on these agreements in Great Britain.
The Postmaster General has advanced a certain general line of argument with respect to the agreements. I will not follow him; I have my own line to follow. Moreover, I am limited, just as he was, by the time allotted me. I may say, however, that his commendation of the agreements appears to me to be based chiefly on fear. It has been said in some newspapers that the delegates, after finding that they could not agree, decided in the last moments of the conference to get together; acting through fear they made the best of the matter and tried to agree on certain points, because they were afraid that an admission of failure would prove a very grave thing for the world at large and especially for the empire. But if the agreements have been based on fear, then my hon. friend's faith in them is also the result of fear. He seemed to me to admit frankly that if the agreements were submitted to t'he Canadian people today they would be turned down. He said that the Liberals are right in asking that we go before the people on these agreements. "They are perfectly right," he said, "because the people do not know much about them and might vote them down; but if we wait two years the people will have' discovered in that time that the agreements are all right, because of the results they will have brought." Well, if the Postmaster General speaks for the gov-

United Kingdom
eminent, then it seems to me that we have an administration whose main function is to renew its promises every two years. This government was elected in 1930 on the strength of certain promises-that it would end unemployment, would overcome this crisis, and would in a general way restore prosperity in Canada. Two years have passed and we are now presented with these agreements, which we are told are intended to bring back prosperity, to end unemployment, and to do the veiy things which the government said they would do in 1930. But the Postmaster General says that we shall have to wait another two years before we reap the fruits of the agreements. It reminds me of a defaulting debtor who goes to the bank to renew a promissory note. He says, "I am sorry I cannot pay anything now, but if you will grant me a renewal I shall be able to pay in four months' time or perhaps two years." The banker would likely reply, "It is all very well renewing your note, but I might more readily renew it if you would pay something on account." That is very much the attitude of the Canadian people in this matter. I suppose they will actually remew the note, because they cannot do otherwise, but they would like to have something on account; they would like to be given an assurance that something has been done. They do not want to be given merely a renewed promise. I do not know whether my hon. friend will be seeking a renewal of his note when that time comes, but I would suggest to him that the time of an election is a very bad time to renew promises. He says to his leader, "Do not by any means listen to the Liberals; they want to drag you to the people and if you go before them you will be beaten; but in two years' time these agreements will have brought about the results which we hope for."
Much has been said concerning these agreements. I read carefully those speeches to which I had not the privilege of listening-the speeches made on this subject by our friends on this side and also the very few speeches, too few in my opinion, that came from the other side. My intention this afternoon is not so much to introduce new matter as to coordinate some of the arguments that, in my view, are of gravity and importance on a question like this.
My first objection to the agreements is an objection to the very spirit in which they have been entered into. I maintain that the bringing together of representatives from every nation in the empire to enter into
agreements to apply in common to every part of the empire is absolutely contrary to the spirit of the development which has taken place within the empire, especially in recent years. In this respect I am fully in accord with the remarks of the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). During late years we have developed within the empire the principle of autonomy, the providing of a national status and the creation of a national spirit in every part of the empire. We have created the principle of self government within the empire.
An attempt is being made to depart from that principle. There has been held in Ottawa an imperial parley composed of representatives from different parts of the empire. They met together to evolve a fiscal policy, not for each individual part of the empire but for the empire as a whole. I protest very strongly, as have other hon. members, against the imputation that this imperialistic policy was the policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I have been a member of this house for some years-a member of the press gallery for almost as long- and I remember well the days of Laurier. Similar motions were presented to the house; there were motions for the creation of an imperial parliament, motions for the creation of an imperial federation and motions or resolutions for the creation of other bodies imperialistic in spirit. An effort was made to create corporations, or whatever they might be called, whereby representatives from every part of the empire would meet and evolve policies to become common to the empire. But none of these suggestions emanated from the Liberal party; they were always opposed by that party led by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) states that these agreements can be traced back to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in my opinion, if I may use the expression, he is spreading flowers on the wrong grave. I can remember from whence those resolutions came-they came from strong Tory-minded Conservatives, from what we called the imperialistic junkers-I do not use that term in a deprecating sense-they came from men like Sir Sam Hughes and others of that school. Instead of the Prime Minister attempting to trace these agreements back to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, I wish he would say that they are in accord with the policies propounded in this house by Sir Sam Hughes and other Conservatives of the same stamp. Such statements may appeal to a certain proportion of our population but I tell the government that those who have preserved the spirit and memory of Laurier will never allow such an
376	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
imperialistic venture to be traced back to our revered leader. Our leader of today has lived up to the traditions of our leader of the past.	.
My first objection to the agreement is that it discloses an effort to go back to what has been brushed away, to imperial parleys brought together for the purpose of dictating a common policy for the empire. We are here to do that for Canada; they have a parliament in Australia and one in South Africa-let us not pursue that imperial unity of which we have heard so much and of which so much has been forgotten in late years, but let us develop a national and individual character for every nation in the empire. The Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) referred to this as un plan national de commerce imperial, or a national plan of imperial trade; we might as well call it a blue sketch of a red landscape. A policy must be either national or imperial. If hon. members opposite want imperial agreements they may have them, but I stand for national agreements. Let us not try to mix the two because they do not go together.
My next objection to the agreements is because of their binding character. Although arguments along this line have been presented very ably to the house, especially by the former Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm)-he is honouring me now by listening to my remarks-I am not sure that this phase has been presented in such a way as to impress public opinion in order that there may be a realization of the exceptional character of the resolutions now submitted to us and of the agreements themselves. Reference has been made to article 9 of the agreement which contains a provision for the maintenance of the margin hetween the duties. This article has been referred to before and I shall quote only that portion which fits into my argument. It reads:
-so long as the margin of British preference shown in that schedule is preserved-
As has been demonstrated by the former Minister of Trade and Commerce, because of the principle involved in this article we will be embarrassed in our future trade with other countries of the world. This article states that we must maintain a margin in favour of products from the United Kingdom and in certain instances it will be impossible to set an intermediate or most favoured nation rate.
Article 22 states that the agreement shall remain in force for a period of five years and that it can be denounced only six months before the end of that period. In other words, we are bound for a period of five years to

maintain a complete and exacting budget for Canadian tariffs. We will be unable to make any changes notwithstanding what may happen throughout the rest of the world.
In my opinion articles 12, 13 and 14 dealing with the tariff board are most extraordinary. I say this is the first time any other country, even if it be the United Kingdom, has been given the right by means of a commercial treaty to dictate to the government of this country concerning certain Canadian matters. Article 12 reads:
His Majesty's government in Canada undertake forthwith to constitute a tariff board for which provision is made in the Tariff Board Act, 1931.
That is a most extraordinary pronouncement. The government in the past may have had reasons for delaying the appointment of these tariff commissioners; the government may have reasons for delaying further these appointments, but this delay would be within the discretion of the government or be a matter for discussion by the opposition. Under the provisions of these articles we are being dictated to by an external government and it makes no difference whether this dictation comes from the government of the United Kingdom, of France, or any other country. We are being dictated to: You will appoint your tariff board within a certain time. I may be all wrong about this, Mr. Speaker, but I think it is abominable that the government of Canada should be told in a trade agreement by another nation that they shall do certain things of a local character. The next move I suppose on the part of Great Britain will be to have what gentlemen they want on that board. That would not be any worse. Why put this in a trade agreement at all?
But there is worse than that. Article 13 says:
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 the 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.
Have I read that aright, Mr. Speaker? If so, not only are we being dictated to by another government to appoint a board entirely local in its character, but here are the instructions by which the board is to be bound. At the request of His Majesty's gov-

United Kingdom
emment in Great Britain the Canadian government will cause a review to be made of certain duties, and the view of the board is pronounced in advance. Again I say that if it were only on account of the existence of articles 12 and 13 dealing with the tariff board we should be very cautious indeed before we give our sanction to these agreements.
But there is still worse. After we have been dictated to about the tariff board there are further dictations about the Department of National Revenue. I have been in a government four years and I know that the Department of National Revenue in Canada based on its experience, has a very, very distinct sense of autonomy, and I know that even in council before any changes in policy in the Department of National Revenue can be brought about such changes give rise to a considerable amount of discussion, but here in this agreement, at the dictation of the British government, we have consented to changes in the policies of the Department of National Revenue. I notice that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman) is listening to me. I am very sorry that after he took so many precautions to increase immeasurably his influence over the policies of his department in the famous session of 1930, he has given up all that at the dictation of the delegates from the United Kingdom. Here is what article 16 says:
His Majesty's government in Canada undertake that customs administration in Canada shall be governed by such general principles as will ensure-
Then follows a list of principles. Here in a trade accord we are being dictated to by the British government as to the general principles that from now on shall govern our customs administration. That is the limit. Even if I were not speaking here as a Liberal, but were simply making the examination of an independent mind, my very Canadian instincts woidd stir me up against such provisions as I have indicated here concerning the tariff board and the Department of National Revenue.
Going on to article 17, I find that His Majesty's government in Canada also undertake to do something else. They undertake to give sympathetic consideration-that is not so bad, but the principle involved is the same-"to the possibility of reducing and ultimately abolishing the exchange dumping duty in so far as it applies to imports from the United Kingdom." This is an extraordinary situation. We have regulations concerning the dumping duty which are very general in
character. When goods are dumped from the United States, South America or England, we are bound to protect our people against dumping, but under this article, while the Department of National Revenue will be free to exercise dumping regulations against other countries, it must refrain from exercising them against goods coming from the United Kingdom. There again I say we are being dictated to on a matter of policy, not so much governing trade exchanges between Canada and another country, but actually concerning the character of our Canadian policy respecting the tariff board and the Department of National Revenue.
I might stress the point further and read to you article 19 where provision is made for Canada entering into trade negotiations with non-self-governing colonies. Why should that be there at all? We have the right surely to trade with every part of the world. Why should we have dictated to us the terms which, if we want to enter into trade agreements in future with non-self-governing colonies, must govern us, and the reservations we must follow as set out in article 19. Whilst we are so very clear in the undertakings that we give to the United Kingdom on all these points, we have as a counterpart the famous article 21 which governs the policy which the United Kingdom government will follow in respect to the dumping of products in England. I shall not read article 21 because it has been read many times already. My knowledge of English may be very limited but I must say this: While all these very, very important-I will not say concessions-but abandonments of our autonomy are being consecrated in the different articles I have mentioned, on the other side of the bargain the terms of the article which is supposed to protect us are so vague and ambiguous and equivocal that I venture to predict that within a not very long period of time they will be interpreted in many different ways in different parts of the empire. This afternoon at the beginning of this sitting the Minister of Trade and Commerce requested our good friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) to read a Chinese inscription on a label to which he was referring. Well, Mr. Speaker, the language of this article 21 comes as near to a Chinese inscription as anything I have read in English. I hope it will mean what the Prime Minister says it will mean, but I cannot help being very much impressed by the difference that appears in the language of the articles where we are submitting to dictation and the language of this article in which the
378	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
British representatives are very careful not to engage or compromise themselves in any clearer -way than their diplomatic training induces them to do. If we are protected under article 21, so much the better. But I can only express my regret that it is couched in such vague terms, and that it may easily be-I will not say misinterpreted-but interpreted in good faith as a business proposition in such a way that it may not mean what it is supposed to mean. The exact interpretation will be very hard to arrive at when the situation which this article is supposed to cover arises in the future.
My second objection to the accord, then, is its binding character. My third objection is to the protectionist character of it all. It has been very clearly pointed out that the preferences are being given not so much by reducing tariffs as by making our tariffs higher against the rest of the world, and so far as that is concerned, I am not sure but that we are simply running around in the vicious circle in which this country has been running for the last two years ever since the Prime Minister made his appeal to Canada at the last election. His policy then was Canada first, and immediately after the election, or a month afterwards, we met promptly, supposedly to deal with the unemployment problem, but actually to establish higher tariffs in this country against the rest of the world. Now we are faced with another proposition. There is a certain method of ventilation installed in the system of a high protectionist wall. But it is the same principle applied by the empire at large against the rest of the world, and as far as I am concerned I believe a revival of trade cannot be established by creating high tariffs. On the contrary trade improvements must be expected from an entirely different direction. That is a further reason why I cannot support these agreements.
The fourth objection is a very obvious one, namely the danger of creating ill feeling throughout the world against Canada and the empire at large. What would you think, Mr. Speaker, if several countries in Europe met together-France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Germany-and in a parley similar to the Imperial economic conference agreed to disregard the rest of the world and establish trade within themselves? What would you think, Mr. Speaker, if the Argentine, Brazil, and the other countries in that beautiful part of the world banded together for the purpose of trading within themselves and disregarding outside nations? You would say

that such a policy would be injurious, and that in reply retaliatory schedules should be set up against those countries so banded together.
Mr. LaVERGNE : That would have applied to the British preference given by Canada in 1897.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I wish my hon. friend to understand my argument, I am not objecting to a preference between Canada and Australia, or between Canada and Great Britain, but I do object to a pact that brings together all these nations and which on the ground of trade creates a challenge to the world. Judging from reports from other European countries I am afraid it will be very difficult- I hope it will not be impossible-for representatives from this government to go to France, for instance, or any other country in Europe and establish trade treaties. They will have difficulty because of these agreements which practically shut off the possibility of trading with countries other than those comprising the British empire.
My only solace, if I may use that word in dealing with the matter, is that if the principles involved are bad, fortunately the accomplishment has not -been as large as the Prime Minister would have the country believe. I have -been told by a very competent man that there is considerable window-dressing in these reports-and that a very large number of items mentioned therein relate to goods which are not likely either to be exported from Canada to somewhere else, or from Great Britain to Canada. One point which impressed me when reading the schedules is this:	While the items concerning
manufactured products are, in the main, straight-forward and without reservations, we find that those concerning agricultural products are handicapped by some sort of reserva-ticn or special consideration. The most extraordinary example is that of bacon.
Last night the former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) read article 6 of the agreement, but I believe I should do well to read it again. In doing so I shall attempt to indicate by inflection of my voice the extraordinary character cf the reservations contained therein. Article 6 is as follows:
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

United Kingdom
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 hundredweight per annum.
Perhaps hon. members in the house have indulged in a few games on what are known as Tom Thumb golf courses, where one tries to po.p the ball into a hole. Before that is possible, however, you have to go up an alley, through a door, up a trench, over a fence, around a sharp curve, and over a bunker. After one has done all that he tries to pocket the ball. I am afraid that is what our bacon will have to do before it reaches England. In the first place we must receive a report. That report may be favourable or unfavourable. Whatever it is, it will regulate the supply of bacon, a regulation which will be most em-barassing. When that is done, His Majesty's government may submit to parliament-perhaps they will not, but they may-regulations controlling the supplies of bacon and hams. Then the article continues:
Provision will be made for free entry of Canadian bacon and ham of good quality up to a maximum of 2,500,000 hundredweight per annum.
The expression is "Canadian bacon and hams of good quality"-that is the bridge to be crossed after climbing the fence and going through the door. And after all that, if our poor bacon has not come to a state of desecration it can still be offered for sale, but there is a maximum amount fixed over which we cannot go. That is one example of the concessions made on Canadian agricultural products. As I have said, there is a very specific set of reservations concerning it.
Now we come to cattle, and the regulations concerning cattle are contained in article 5. We know that for a long time there has been great difficulty in placing Canadian cattle in the British market. I am not an expert on live stock, but if my information is correct I understand the situation has been considerably improved. I do not see anything in the treaty, however, which will make further improvements. Let us consider article 5:
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,
And so on. The expression is "modify the conditions"

but modification in what direction, and according to what principle? What is to be done about it? The suggestion is that action is to be taken on lines already agreed upon in principle between Canada and the United Kingdom. Well, if that arrangement had been previously made by both governments, why mention it in this treaty? Why have the country believe that something new is taking place, when cattle will be going into Great Britain on terms already agreed upon by both governments before this agreement was thought of? There again I do not see anything in the concessions concerning cattle which can be of any interest to cattle raisers in western or other parts of Canada.
I find that in connection with condensed milk, canned fruit and articles of the kind, reservation is made as regards sugar duties. It strikes me, speaking as a layman, the sugar duty might be placed so high that any fruit canned in sugar would receive no advantage from this agreement.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has spoken for forty minutes.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I believe I have a few minutes more. I did not rise before five o'clock.


Mr. MANION:: Go on.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Had time permitted I should have surveyed the reservations concerning tobacco. The duty on potatoes has been removed and the Prime Minister stated he hoped that as far as they were concerned the regulation would be effective in years to come. He admitted, however, it would not bring any result now. The remark has been made about butter that if we were unable to meet the competition of Australia or New Zealand in Canada it is not likely that we could compete with those dominions in the British market.
Then there is wheat; and this will be mv last word. I want to point again to article 4:
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 States at prices not exceeding the world prices and in quantities sufficient to supply the requirements of the United Kingdom consumers.
There again is a very important reservation.
To conclude my remarks, may I say that ny reason for rising was not only to offer these arguments against the agreement, but inasmuch as I am paired with the hon. Secretary of State and will not be at liberty to vote upon this agreement, I wanted to make very clear what my stand was.


Hon. MAURICE DUPRE (Solicitor General) :: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I heard my
disfinguished friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) ask if we had any arguments to
380	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
offer, cr whether we were too proud to fight. May I reply to him that he is at the same time right and wrong? I admit that we are proud, proud because we have made a fight for Canada and because we have succeeded. I heard him say also: "It is rather ungrateful on the part of the Prime Minister to say that some people put obstacles in the way of the conference." I admit that I had tears in my eyes when I heard the hon. member say that he himself had prayed for the success of the conference. When I came back from abroad I remember the sort of prayers I heard about when I arrived in my city of Quebec. They were the prayers of the Liberal press, of Le Soleil and Le Canada, and this is the kind of prayers that appeared under prominent headlines in the papers: "The conference will adjourn without doing anything"-"Ministers of the Bennett government are going to resign"-"Disagreements prevail in the conference," and another one, often repeated, "The conference will be a failure," or "a fiasco."


An hon. MEMBER:: It sounds like a
litany.


Maurice Dupré: And while the Liberal leader was remaining quiet, while his principal lieutenant, the member for Quebec East, was smiling, everything was done by the lieutenants of the Liberal party to wreck the conference. And the whole opposition offered by the Liberal party at the present time is due to their disappointment and resentment because we have succeeded where they have failed.
I heard, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader in his eloquent address say this: "Canada wants empire markets and also world markets." On this theory I think we all agree. May I respectfully remind him that this is exactly what we are trying to do; but we have to start at the beginning, and we thought we might start by entering into agreements with members of the same family and afterwards enlarge our markets with the rest of the world. This advantage we have secured in exchange for preferences which our Liberal friends would have granted, but without exacting anything in return. The difference between their policy and ours is that we are believers in the policy of the quid pro quo, of the give and take, donnant-donnant. We may be wrong, we may be right. The country will decide, and we are ready to go before the country to find out who is right and who is wrong.
LMr. Dupre.]
On motion of Mr. Dupre the debate was adj ourned.
On motion of Mr. Manion the house adjourned at 5.45 p.m.
Thursday, October 20, 1932