1932-10-24

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

Mr. SPENCER:: What are the names and addresses of the soldiers who took advantage of the soldier settlement scheme in the four western provinces?


Mr. GORDON:: With respect to this question, I would ask that it be dropped from the order paper. I have given it some thought and I believe that to answer it would not be in the public interest.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Dropped.


DEPUTY MINISTER OP NATIONAL DEFENCE
Air. BARRETTE:: 1.	Has Mr. Desbarats, Deputy Minister of National Defence, handed in his resignation?
2.	If so, is it the intention to replace him by Colonel Lafleche?


Mr. BENNETT:: I think that question should be dropped.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Dropped.
Questions


NATIONAL BESEARCH COUNCIL AND CONFEDERATION BUILDINGS
Mr. GO BEIL:: 1.	What is the total cost of furnishing the office of Dr. H. M. Tory, President of the National Research Council, in the Research building, Sussex street?
2.	What is the price of each desk, chair, table, rug, etc?
3.	When were these furnishings purchased?
4.	What was the total cost of furnishing the office of Mr. George Gonthier, Auditor-General, in the Confederation building?
5.	What is the price of each desk, chair, table, rug, etc?
6.	When were these furnishings purchased?
7.	What became of the furniture formerly in the office of the Auditor General?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: The information sought by these two questions is contained in returns that have been tabled today, Nos. 382 and 383.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Questions 27 and 28
dropped.


BEAUHARNOIS POWER CORPORATION INQUIRY
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	What was the total cost of the so-called Beauharnois inquiry: (a) House of Commons inquiry; (b) Senate inquiry?
2.	How much was paid in connection therewith to Peter White, IC.C., as: (a) remuneration; (b) expenses?
3.	How much was paid to Arthur L. Smith, K.C., as: (a) remuneration; (b) expenses?
4.	How much was paid J. A. Mann, K.C., as: (a) remuneration; (b) expenses?


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: 1.	(a) $25,247.50; (b) $16,522.32.
2.	(a) $6,600; (b) $1,100.
3.	(a) and (to) $8,000.
4.	(a) and (to) $8,056.14.


MONTREAL HARBOUR BRIDGE
Mr. COTNAM:: 1.	What was the original estimated cost of the Montreal harbour bridge?
2.	What was the ultimate cost?
3.	When did construction begin and, when was the work completed?
4.	Who were the contractors?
5.	What was the discrepancy, if any, between the estimated cost and the ultimate cost?


Mr. DUPRE:: The following information has been furnished by the harbour commissioners of Montreal:-
1.	$12,350,554 not including interest during construction, etc.
2.	The capital cost as at 31st August, 1932, is $18,639,124.12.
3.	The first sod was cut on the south shore on the 26th May, 1925, and the bridge was officially opened to the public on the 24th May, 1930.

4.	Substructure-south half: Messrs. Quinlan, Robertson & Janin, Ltd. Substructure- north half: Dufresne Construction Company. Superstructure-Dominion Bridge Company.
5.	$6,288,570.12 inclusive of interest during construction amounting to $2,045,200.49, and legal and other unestimated expenditures aggregating $641,667.59, in all $2,686,868.08, showing an expenditure in excess of estimate of $3,601,702.04.


MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSION
Mr. LAVERGNE:: 1.	Is there a Mr. Harvie in the employ of the Montreal Harbour Commission?
2.	If so, what is his occupation?
3.	What is his salary?
4.	What additional amount, if any, has been paid to him?


Maurice Dupré: The following information has been furnished by the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal :-
1.	There is a Mr. Thomas W. Harvie in the employ of the Montreal Harbour Commission.
2.	General manager.
3.	$10,800 per annum.
4.	Automobile allowance of $75 per month, replacing automobile maintained by commissioners.


MONTREAL HARBOUR
Mr. LAVERGNE:: 1.	Who is the manager and controller of the Montreal harbour?
2.	When was he appointed to that post?
3.	What are his functions?
4.	By whom was he recommended and appointed?
5.	What position did he occupy previous to his appointment?
6.	What position had he occupied for the last fifteen years?
7.	Is he a civil engineer?
8.	Is he bilingual?


Maurice Dupré: The following information has been furnished by the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal:-
1.	There is no such official on the harbour staff. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. See answer to question No. 1.


MONTREAL NATIONAL REVENUE OFFICE
Mr. BARRETTE:: 1.	Are Messrs. Rowdand and Joubert on the same footing as assistants to Mr. McCaffrey, in the office of national revenue, at Montreal?
2.	If not, who has priority?
3.	What are the salaries of Mr. Rowland and Mr. Joubert?

Questions
4.	Did the French Canadian ministers and members of the Montreal district recommend one of their compatriots to replace the late Mr. Leroux?


Mr. RYCKMAN:: 1.	No.
2.	Mr. Rowland.
3.	84,500 and $2,800.
4.	Department has no information.


COLLECTOR OP CUSTOMS, MONTREAL
Mr. BARRETTE:: 1.	Is Mr. McCaffrey, collector of customs in the National Revenue department, still head of said department?
2.	If not, is it the intention of the department to replace him by a French Canadian?


Mr. RYCKMAN:: 1.	No. He is inspector of income tax in charge of the Montreal district of the income tax division of the Department of National Revenue.
2.	Answered by number one.


ANIMAL INSPECTION STATIONS, MANITOBA
Mr. BROWN:: 1.	What ports and preventive stations have recently been removed from the list of animal inspection stations in Manitoba?
2.	At what ports in Manitoba are animal inspection stations still retained?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: 1.	Animal quarantine stations, Gretna, Manitoba; inspection stations, Snowflake, Manitoba, Waskada, Manitoba.
2.	Animal quarantine stations, Emerson, Manitoba, Bannerman, Manitoba; inspection stations, Sprague, Manitoba.


TOBACCO DUTIES
Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	What were the existing duties on Canadian tobacco entering the English market previous to the agreements entered into at the last imperial conference?
2.	What are the duties in force as a consequence of the agreements of the last imperial conference ?
3.	For what period will the duties fixed by the imperial conference be in force?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	United Kingdom Tobacco Duties
Tobacco, unmanufactured, if unstripped, containing 10 lb. or more of moisture in every 100 lb. weight thereof	per	lb.Tobacco, unmanufactured, if unstripped, containing less than 10 lb. of moisture in every 100 lb. weight thereof	
per	lb.Tobacco, unmanufactured, if stripped, containing 10 lb. or more of moisture in every 100 lb. weight thereof	per	lb.Tobacco, unmanufactured, if stripped, containing less than 10 lb. of moisture in ever3r 100 lb. weight thereof	per	lb.Cigars	per	lb.Cigarettes	per	lb.Cavendish	or Negrohead	per	lb.Cavendish	or Negrohead, manufactured in bond. ..per	lb.Other manufactured tobacco	
per	lb.Snuff containing more than 13 lb. of moisture in every 100 lb.	weight thereof	per	lb.Snuff not	containing more	than 13 lb. of moisture	inevery	100 lb. weight thereof	per	lb.
The empire preferential rate applies to Canada.
Full rate
9s. 6d.
10s. 6d.
9s. 6id.
10s. 6id. 18s. Id. 14s. 7d. 13s. 9d. 12s. Od. 12s. Od.
11s. 4d.
13s. 9d.
Empire
preferential rate
7s.	5id.
8s.	2id.
7s.	5Jd.
8s.	3}d.
14s.	2|d.
11s.	5}d.
10s.	9|d.
9s.	4|d.
9s.	4|d.
8s. :	10|d.
10s. 9|d.
2. Article 7 of the agreement between the United Kingdom and Canada signed August 20, 1932, secures for a period of ten years to Canadian tobacco the margin of preference above indicated over foreign tobacco so long,
however, as the duty on foreign unmanufactured tobacco does not fall below 2s. Oid. in which event the margin of preference shall be equal to the full duty.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
Questions


FEDERAL STALLION BONUS SCHEME
Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: 1.	Who were the inspectors appointed for the province of Saskatchewan under the federal stallion bonus scheme?
2.	What are their qualifications?
3.	What are the names of the stallion owners in Saskatchewan whose stallions were passed as eligible for bonus?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: 1.	Dr. J. A. Sinclair, Dr. C. K. Geary, Col. J. J. Fry, Wm. McKirdy.
2.	Dr. J. A. Sinclair (V.S.): Recognized authority on horses; expert judge and horseman. Employed as required by Department of Agriculture since 1912; Dr. C. K. Geary (V.S.): Efficient horseman, thoroughly experienced in stallion inspection work; Col. J. J. Fry: Long experience as horseman, internationally recognized as judge of horses; Wm. McKirdy: Reputation as outstanding breeder of draft horses, expert judge, employed as required by Department of Agriculture since 1919.
3.	Aldous, R. B., Armitage, J. E., Black, Hector, Biesenthal, A. F. Wm., Blommaert, Ernest, Buchler, Ed., Buckles, Richard, Car-ruthers, Colin E., Carson, D. A., Chynoweth, Ed., Clark, Geo., Coles, A., Cox, Frank H., Currie, N. D., Delanoy, Jules, Duesterbeck, Herman, Dunning, J. A., Falconer, J. E., Fisher, J. J., Flamme, H. E., Fraser, Geo. T., Fraser, L. A., Gatzke, Alex., Gibbs Bros., Messrs., Gibson, Dr. J. G., Griffith, R. M., Roberts and Williams, Gudnason, W. G., Harrison, Austin, Herd, Geo. C., Herron, C.
0., Howell, Harry A., Huffman, Geo. M., Jackson, E. A., Javens, Phil., Johnson, F. A., Johnson, H. B., Johnstone, Jas. A., Lavoie, Adrien, Longmuir, M. S., Lorimer, Jos., Estate, MacIntyre, Jas. E., McEachern, D. A., McIntosh, J. & Sons, McLaren, Alex., McLean, Donald, McLeod, Ben, McRae, Wm.
A.	, McRoberts, Peter, Martin, J. E., Melfort Percheron Syndicate, Monette, L. N., Moore,
B.	H., Moore, J. G., Mosier, W. R., Murray, Victor A., Myers, Ace, Nickel, Theo. Jr., Nolan, Andrew, Patrtridge, Jas., Pattison, Kenneth C., Rear, C. M. Reid, Dr. D. D., Richardson, Jas. & Son* Ltd., Richlea Clydesdale Horse Breeders' Association, Ritchie, G. & Geo. Money, Roney, T. A., Seeley, Robt., Sinclair, Jno., Smith, Willis, Speir, Wm., Spooner, H. T., Stirling Butte Colt Club, Strange, Mrs. Ethel A., Stewart, J. A., Stutt, Geo. A., Suffern, J. A., Thompson, Geo., Turnbull Bros., Messrs., Wagner, Carl, Walter, Philip, Williams, Rhys, Wilson, David, Yellowlees, Jno.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, MONTREAL
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Is there a person by the name of Gilbert Viau employed by the Post Office Department at Montreal?
2.	If so: (a) since what date; (b) what are his functions; (c) what is his salary; (d) his address; (e) on whose recommendation was he appointed to this position?
3.	If he is not at present employed in said department, has he ever been employed there?
4.	If so, when?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Present period of employment commenced on February 7, 1927. (b) Final sorter into lock boxes city delivery branch, (c) $1,440 a year less 10 per cent deduction, (d) Information obtained in July last indicated he resides at 8186 St. Denis street, Montreal, (e) Selected from the list of candidates submitted by the Civil Service Commission.
3.	See answer to No. 1.
4.	See answer to No. 2 (a).



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. PLUNKETT:: 1.	Is the Minister of Marine the pilotage authority for the pilotage district of British Columbia?
2.	If so, what are the limits of this district?
3.	Is pilotage compulsory within this district? If not, what system of control applies to the district of British Columbia?
4.	How many licensed pilots are there in this district?
5.	W'hat was the gross revenue of the pilots for the year 1931-1932?
6.	What were the average earnings of each pilot for the year 1931-1932?
7.	What was the gross revenue of the district from the beginning of the fiscal year 1932-33 to the 30th September, 1932, and the average earnings of each pilot for the same period?
8.	How does this compare with the same period for 1931-1932?
9.	Do the earnings received by each pilot include contributions to the superannuation fund?
10.	What percentage of the pilots' earnings is put into the superanuation fund?
11.	Have the pilotage rates been reduced this year? If so, by how much and for what period of time does this reduction apply?


LAKE ST. JOHN COUNTY RELIEF EXPENDITURES
Mr. DUGUAY:: 1. Have any amounts been paid by the Dominion government to the province of Quebec, in 1932, as a federal contribution to provincial direct relief expenditures for Lake

Russian Oil
St. John county? If not, did the provincial government submit any accounts?
2.	Has any investigation been held by the federal government in respect to distribution of direct relief by the province of Quebec, in 1932, in Lake St. John county?
3.	If any investigation was held in 1932, what was the report of the investigators, and what action has been taken in connection therewith by the federal government?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. FAFARD:: For a copy of all telegrams, letters, correspondence, exchanged between all persons, corporations, or others, and the Dominion government, from January, 1931, to date, in connection with the lowering of pilotage rates on the St. Lawrence.



OTONABEE RIVER BRIDGE

Mr. BLAIR:: For a copy of all correspondence, plans, reports and other communications passing between E. A. Peck, M.P., and the engineers of the Department of Railways and Canals and all officials thereof, during the year 1932, regarding the construction of the bridge over the Otonabee river, known as the Lock's bridge, south of the city of Peterborough, at dam 22 on the Trent canal.



METABETCHOUAN, QUE., POST OFFICE

Mr. DENIS (for Mr. Pouliot):: For a copy of the letter dated April 2, 1931, which was attached to the letter of the assistant deputy minister of the Post Office Department to Dr. L. Duguay, M.P., dated October 2, 1931, in connection with the location of the post office of Metabetchouan, which was not included in the return No. 112, tabled on April 22, 1932.



RUSSIAN OIL SHIPMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: I wish to direct once more to the
right hon. the Prime Minister a question which I asked on October 20, the day he was absent from the house. May I read the question again:
In the absence of the Prime Minister I desire to ask a question of the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie). I see in this morning's press a heading, Second Soviet Oil Shipment Arrives. Would the government be good enough to give the name of the consignor and consignee of this second cargo of oil, and also indicate if it is now the policy of the government to countenance such shipments?
May I ask the right hon. gentleman whether he will be good enough today or tomorrow to reply to that question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will
put the question on the order paper. Part of the question involves the making known of the business of people-through the department, which this house has steadily declined to do, as I daresay the hon. gentleman knows.



TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN UNITED KINGDOM AND AUSTRALIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. BOTHWELL (Swift Current):: I wish to direct a question either to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It is reported that the trade agreement between the United Kingdom and Australia, entered into at the recent Imperial economic conference, does not contain a provision, similar to that of the agreement between Canada and Great Britain, regarding the sale of products such as wheat at world prices. I should like to know whether the government has any knowledge thereof, and whether it is a fact.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. gentleman will look at the supplementary volume tabled, I think he will find the trade agreement between the United Kingdom and Australia set out at length.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. E. MUNN (Vancouver North):: I
wish to ask a question of the Minister of the Interior. I notice by press reports that he has arranged for single unemployed men to be given employment in the parks of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, May I ask whether he would not include British Columbia in that provision.


Hon. T. G. MURPHY (Minister of the Interior) :: The arrangement embraces national parks, and men will be placed wherever it is considered advantageous to locate them.



WHEAT SHIPMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. P. QUINN (Halifax):: I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In this morning's Ottawa Journal there is a report published by the Winnipeg Free Press, as follows:
Canadian wheat trans-shipped at Buffalo or exported through United States ports will not receive the preference of six cents per bushel
Portsmouth Penitentiary

agreed to at the Ottawa imperial conference, according to unofficial but reliable interpretation of the British Customs Act.
Can the minister confirm this report?


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Obviously it is impossible for one to confirm an action of the British government. If the hon. member will let the question stand, when the proper time comes for the disclosing of any understanding between the two governments, this will be done.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. SAMUEL GOBEIL (Compton) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to draw the attention of the house to a statement of an Ottawa newspaper with reference to comments I made in the house, last Thursday.
The statement is absolutely contrary to truth. The " Droit " of Ottawa states that I mentioned that the fanners of my constituency obtain, ait present, for their butter a higher price than they obtained two years ago ; when I actually stated that the prices obtained for butter, today, by farmers, were higher than the prices obtained in other countries of the world.
As to the statement I made with reference to the speech of the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), the same newspaper states that I mentioned that the hon. member for Quebec East insulted the women of the province of Quebec by contending that they vote exclusively for Liberal members. The following, sir, is what I actually said, as it appeal's, at page 418 of Hansard:
The French women in my province vote Liberal because they love somebody and vote Conservative because they hate somebody.


Mr. POULIOT (Translation):: Because they dislike Toryism.


Samuel Gobeil: It is absolutely the contrary to what this newspaper published.



TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the
Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) if he is pre-

pared to make a statement as to the definite date when we may expect the legislation which is to be based upon the Duff report. I may say that there are quite a number of citizens in this city and outside who are anxious that this legislation should be introduced at an early date.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, there is an equal
number of persons who are desirous that it should be delayed in its introduction and the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) has just expressed approval in that sense. The legislation will be introduced when it is thought desirable by the government that it should be introduced having regard to the present condition of legislation on the order paper.



PORTSMOUTH PENITENTIARY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: Mr. Speaker, I think I should make
a statement as to the situation which exists at the moment in Kingston penitentiary. At noon to-day I received a report from General Ormond, superintendent of penitentiaries, who is in charge of the situation, to the effect that all is now quiet. All the prisoners are confined and are being regularly fed in their cells. Some loud speeches are being made by prisoners and there is considerable shouting and cheering, but apart from this there is no difficulty. It came to my knowledge that tear bombs had been used at the penitentiary and upon inquiry I find that on Saturday, when there was considerable noise, one tear bomb was exploded for the purpose of quelling the disturbance. I do not know whether or not it had that effect but certain it is that it had no, ill effects and caused no damage. The military guard has also been reduced from 150 to 50 men.
Inspector Smith, who has been acting warden at the institution, has been granted leave of absence along with the deputy warden. Both these men have been on continuous duty for the past nine days and are pretty well fagged out. The superintendent has made a temporary appointment of a warden under the provisions of section 39

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
of the Civil Service Act. Colonel Meglough-lin of Ottawa, until recently in command of the highland regiment in this city and an officer with a very fine war record, has been selected for this position. I do not know the gentleman personally but I understand he is thoroughly qualified. In any event he has been selected by the superintendent as temporary warden and under the provisions of the act can carry on for thirty days.
The report on the damage done is that it will run from S3,500 to $4,000. This damage consists mainly of broken furniture, beds and tables and the destruction of plumbing and the like. There have been three casualties but the physician in charge states that only one was injured by rifle fire; the other two were injured in the scuffle which took place, but all casualties are slight. This is the situation as it existed at twelve o'clock today.



IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, October 21, consideration of the motion of Right Hon. R. B. Bennett (Prime Minister) for approval of the trade agreement entered into at Ottawa the 20th day of August, 1932, between representatives of His Majesty's government in Canada, and His Majesty's government in the Lnited Kingdom, subject to the legislation required in order to give effect to the fiscal changes consequent thereon.
Mr. P. F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Sague-nay):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks I shall endeavour to dispel the impression Avhich some hon. members of the government have sought to create both in this house and throughout the countiy to the effect that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and other prominent members of the Liberal party tried to frustrate the go\rernment in the carrying on of the imperial conference and to make it appear that that conference Avas a failure. These statements have been circulated here in the house and ha\re appeared in the press of the country but in an effort to refute them I do not think I could do better than to quote the statement made by my right hon. leader and which appeared in the Toronto Globe of July 18 and the Ottawa Journal of July 21. The article in question reads as follows:
Foremost among the causes of the present prolonged depression are the barriers which fear and greed have erected across the natural channels of international trade. The world must trade to live, and it must expand its trade if it is to live more abundantly.
The Imperial economic conference, summoned at such a time as this, is a challenge to leadership along the steep and rock-strewn path of economic recovery. Its significance outweighs national and imperial considerations. It is a test of good-Avill in economic cooperation by the nations of the British commonwealth, whose association is strengthened by common ties of kinship, tradition and sentiment. In no group of nations are the auspices more favourable for the reduction or removal of many of the artificial obstructions to international trade.
In welcoming the conference to Canada, we hope it will broaden and deepen the channels of inter-empire trade and cooperation. We also hope that it will inaugurate an experiment in cooperation which will point the way to a more wholesome and profitable basis for the exchange of goods and services among the nations of the world.
A non-partisan view of that statement can be only that it differs considerably from the utterances heard in this house as well as the statements issued all o\rer the country to the effect that our right hon. leader and other members of our party tried to disrupt the conference. Notwithstanding the proud and laborious effort the other day of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) to show that "we have done well," I think it must be admitted that in this case the wish is father to the thought. It Avas more an expression of hope than anything else.
The most that can be said of the agreements born out of the imperial conference is that they offer potentialities, and such is the consensus of opinion of our leaders in business and industry regardless of their political opinions. The other day the Minister of Raihi'ays and Canals (Mr. Manion) tried to convince the house that all fair-minded Canadians should admit that the conference was a success. I have listened Avith a great deal of attention to the speeches delivered by those ministers of the crown who have thus far taken part in this debate, but so far they have failed to convince me and my belief is that they have failed to convince the country and even some of their own followers. The truth is that the Prime Minister alone seems to understand the real meaning of these agreements that have been submitted to us, the reason being that they are of his own making and his OAvn follorvers had nothing to do with them. For instance, we
476	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
find that the ministers from my province who have spoken in this debate, namely, the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) were not members of any committees which had anything to do with the drafting of these agreements. Possibly this explains why they made such an exhibition of themselves the other day when they tried to support these agreements.
It would seem, so much in many cases is the whole matter involved in and depending upon certain conditions and restrictions, that in this conference we have given something and we shall not receive much. By studying the treaty one can find out for oneself that its whole merit lies in its appearance and the blowing and bellowing that the Prime Minister in his usual way has done in regard to the whole matter. The more the tariff changes are examined, the less impressive they become, because they are, as I said before, only agents for potential better business if certain conditions are obtained. Tangible results are not expected before five years and as we say in the old French saying in my province: "Quand les poules auront des dents." We have evidence already to brush aside the Prime Minister's glowing statement when, the other day, he so eloquently commended these agreements to the house in these words:
And in the days to come, I do believe we and the generations which follow us will look back upon that conference as the beginning of a new and greater empire, bound together by common allegiance to the crown, by ties of kinship and friendship and by a common interest which our individual welfare bids us all strive to maintain.
Against that statement we have the expression of opinion of other people which might leave us in doubt as to the feeling abroad and at home. We have the expression of opinion of Mr. Lloyd George, which cannot be made light of. He wrote:
The result of the Ottawa conference will not be particularly helpful to inter-imperial trade. From the standpoint of world trade its influence may well be pernicious.
And he added in his own striking style:
"Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad." The public has been bitten with the rabies of national exclusiveness_ and Ottawa has proved to be no Pasteur Institute. The mad dog of protection barked and bit in every street, the crowded corridors of every office and even found their way into the secret conclaves.
Lord Snowden also states that his conviction is " that the tariffs and imperialist policies which the Tories are carrying through are more dangerous in their permanent effect than

the crisis of last year which was temporary and yielded to drastic treatment." He says:
Nothing in my political experience has been more disgraceful and dishonest than the misrepresentations of the results of the Imperial conference which are being circulated in the Tory press.
The same thing is happening in this country. We find in Canada certain newspapers, favourable to the government, showing some reserve as to the nature of the results that might flow from these empire agreements. " No one knows quite well how so radical an experiment will work out," is what we can read in some of the prominent newspapers of this country. Everybody knows the British press was not so sanguine as was our Prime Minister about the good effects of the conference on interimperial relations. Everyone knows that at one time the conference came very near to failure on account of the attitude of the Prime Minister who as usual tried to impose his own will at all costs upon everyone. But it remains for one who attended the conference as an adviser, whose reputation is worldwide, to write these ominous words. Sir Arthur Salter in the New York Times, wrote:
If Ottawa has laid foundations on which more may be built, it has indicated very clearly that the limits to what may be built are much more restricted than at least English imperialists have believed.
There were periods in the conference when the bonds of empire seemed to be very fragile. It is possibly for that reason the Prime Minister, in the closing speech of the conference, had to admit that he had been sometimes impatient and at times intolerant. This nobody who knows the right hon. gentleman doubts. This is history. No tearful eloquence could make us forget what actually took place, which was openly admitted by some of the participants in the conference, and the old French saying "un secret de poli-chinelle" has become singularly apropos in this case. Polichinelle, I might say, is the cousin of the English Punch and our own Webster described him as "insolent, blustering, quarrelsome." And note further:	"His
club, his laugh, his hoarse, nasal voice and his buffoonery amuse the Children." Polichinelle in the French farce has two humps, one in the front and one in the back. In looking at hon. gentlemen opposite since the results of the imperial conference have been submitted to the house, I would be tempted to observe that the hump they carry, the hump of protection is twice as evident as it used to be.
We were given to understand that certain reasons existed to bring about these empire agreements. Other reasons are to be found

United Kingdom
in the speeches delivered in Blackpool, England, and also in the British House of Commons by Mr. Neville Chamberlain, when he is reported in a newspaper issue of the 18th instant, as saying:
The ties of the empire have been wearing dangerously thin.
This was in the newspaper article from which the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) quoted the other day:
Canada has become to a great extent dependent upon the United States finance and in the absence of any preferential agreement with the United Kingdom she might have found it difficult to refuse a new offer of reciprocity from her neighbour to the south, which would definitely link their fortunes together to such an extent as would cause a divergence between Canada and Great Britain.
I am surprised at such a statement, for everyone knows that all over Canada today Canadians are just as loyal as they were before by their own free will, and will be more so provided they maintain their freedom of action and liberty in matters of trade and commerce. I wonder if the Prime Minister is not astounded at such a statement, a man who just on the eve of the imperial conference signed, through his brother-in-law, a treaty in Washington with the United States for the St. Lawrence waterways, definitely linking the fortunes of Canada and the United States for all time to come. Was this to make the ties of empire thinner or thicker? Does he believe that by so doing he is helping the empire? Surely if, according to Mr. Chamberlain, it is wrong to obtain financial assistance from the United States-and we are still doing it-it is certainly wrong to enter into an agreement with them which will cost hundreds of millions of dollars and give away forever our exclusive rights on our great waterway.
The claim has been put forth that the Canadian consumer would soon reap the benefit from the tariff changes. It has been said that British goods would be laid down here cheaper, and that Canadian manufacturers would be able to procure necessary materials for their industries at a smaller cost. Let us see. In certain cases the only difference brought about by the new agreements is to impose duties where they did not exist before. For instance, as regards the new duty of 25 per cent on cream separators, there was no duty before and we have not imported cream separators for three years from the old country. How do our hon. friends opposite believe this is going to help the farmer? I have listened with great care to the explanation given by the ministers from my province who have taken part in this debate, and although they
have endeavoured to explain these empire agreements, I have failed to see any real good coming from them to the farmers of my province.
I am also at a loss to see where in this agreement the right hon. the Prime Minister has made any provision to help the pulp and paper industry in this country, which as everybody knows is suffering severely at this time. In most cases the margin between the old rate and the present rate is so thin that the whole thing seems almost a joke. A closer scrutiny reveals that the changes in many instances are quite immaterial. Take high grade suitings, for instance. For the last two years the rate was 58 per cent; now it is 54 per cent; and at that it is double what it was under the Liberal regime. White cotton flannelette is taxed 40 per cent, a reduction of only three per cent, whereas under the Liberal regime the rate was only 16 per cent.
There is another item to which I wish to direct the attention of the house and of the country at large, and that is surgical dressings, including absorbent cotton and so forth. The British preferential rate used to be 12i per ment, intermediate 17J per cent, and the genera! tariff 20 per cent. Under this agreement the intermediate rate has been worked up to 25 per cent and the general tariff to 35 per cent. I appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite, why make these increases at the present time when we are still suffering from the depression in this country?
But that is not all. We find that both the intermediate and general tariffs on surgical and dental instruments have been jacked up to 10 per cent, while formerly these articles came in free, as I presume is the case in most civilized countries. Most of these instruments, as well as X-ray and other medical electrical apparatus is imported, and very few of these instruments are coming from England. The bulk is imported from the United States, France and Germany. I say, Mr. Speaker, that it imposes an undue burden on our hospitals, which are experiencing difficulties enough at the present time. It is also exacting a penalty from the medical profession whose devotion and self-sacrifice in these days of stress surely deserves another kind of recognition at the hands of the government. May I say that these new duties on human suffering, after all, would be especially resented in the province of Quebec where, quite naturally, the physicians have a French tradition and would be rather inclined to use instruments they have been trained with. This, Mr. Speaker, affects indeed one third of our population.
478	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
One could quote similar instances without end when one examines the agreement in detail. Imported goods under the Liberal, regime were subject to an ad valorem duty and a small sales tax, but since the advent of this protectionist Conservative government in Canada all sorts of complicated duties have been introduced: A specific duty of so much per pound or so much per yard; the dumping duty; the excise duty, and to cap all, an increase in the sales tax. All these mean an added burden on the backs of the consumers of this country. The only change that has been made affects the specific duty, and the reduction is one-quarter in the case of woollens and one-third in the case of cottons.
Looking over this trade agreement we find that it means greater protection. There are some two hundred odd modifications involved. In eighty-nine cases there is an increase in the duties against non-British countries. In forty-nine other cases there is also an increase against non-British countries, accompanied by a decrease in favour of the United Kingdom. There is one case of an increase against all countries, and eighty-one cases of decrease in favour of the United Kingdom. There are only two cases of decreases for all countries, and one single case where there is a decrease for the United Kingdom and a few other countries. On the whole, therefore, we have 139 items on which the duties are increased against non-British countries, and only 84 items on which there is a reduction favouring the United Kingdom without any increase against other countries. There is the true picture, Mr. Speaker, and who would say that it is not protection in its most unpleasant and amplified form-protection of the worst sort -the kind of protection which accounts for the depression after all.
Nothing has been more costly to the world than this policy of protection. Every nation that has tried it has suffered from it. Our neighbours to the south who were the first to adopt and apply protection in a big way know only too well what it has cost them. The trouble is that today they cannot make a right-about face. The United States has gone too far in the way of exaggerated protection, and thus it is we see that the country in the world that is richest in natural resources, and a country that has made possibly the greatest effort in the direction of social amelioration, is now in the grip of disaster. Were the United States to reduce tomorrow their tariffs by 25 per cent they would be ruined for the simple reason that they could not meet competition from the outside world. There is a definite indictment of protection. With the
[Mr Casgrain.]
most complete application of the doctrine, and with the advantage of the most perfect machinery, the United States has not been able really to protect its industries. The protection has been only temporary, and subject to constant increases in their tariff with an eventual issue that no one dares to predict.
As has been well said, beyond a certain point protection does not protect. It has only one effect indeed, and that is to weaken the commercial life of any country. Whenever a country closes its doors by this policy of protection, there is no more communication with the outside world; first, because other countries are bound to take reprisals, and secondly, because its products become too expensive. The first effect of high protection is to force lower prices up, and the others follow suit. Who will deny that the result is social impoverishment, since there is no progress of civilization unless it be accompanied by a lowering of the prices of goods which enter into the cost of production. It is one of the greatest mistakes of our times to think that higher prices mean greater riches. It is not true, Mr. Speaker. Every man, woman and child, while prices are being gradually put up, has a little less bread, a little less clothing, and so on. On the other hand, while we were thriving in the midst of prosperity, it was mostly because for the whole century prices of goods of production had been going lower and lower, which meant that the goods were available to an ever increasing number of people at a lower cost. That was progress, Mr. Speaker.
The last argument of the dyed-in-the-wool protectionist is the patriotic one. It is often the last resort of those who have no better reason to advance. It is the last resort of a scoundrel. In this case it is obvious that patriotism has nothing whatever to do with protection. The proof is easy. Victorious Britain had counted only on free trade, and under that policy she developed the empire. No one will venture to say that the English of the days of Queen Victoria were lacking in patriotism.
When we look at the press, do we find the newspapers all of one accord in approving this agreement? I find that The Farmers' Sun in its issue of October 13, 1932, says:
Mr. Bennett's imperial conference stands out as a triumph of the protectionist principle. Tariffs have not been reduced; they have been raised. Trade has not been created, it is simply to be diverted. "Canada First" has not been decreased; Britain has simply been induced to agree, for herself, to "Empire First." And to Britain, "Empire First" is to mean taxes on food, taxes on copper, taxes on manufactured

United Kingdom
products, taxes and taxes and taxes. Protection has been nailed on to Britain for five years with a flag-pole.
The agreement is a manufacturers' agreement. Ultimately, agriculture may benefit on this or that product; but this benefit must await the correction of the exchange and price situations. But the manufacturers are benefiting now and have been benefiting for months.
Until the imperial conference tariff schedules were made public, there was the hope that Mr. Bennett had learned the sanity of reversing his tariff policy. The agreements reveal that he has learned nothing.
He has learned nothing and forgotten nothing.
We are told that the purpose of these trade agreements is to promote imperial unity, imperial harmony and imperial trade. Is this the way to go about it, to make all nations pay tribute to the British Empire? Who can conceive of a plan of imperial unity and imperial harmony that is based on bargains that bind our hands for five years? These are causes of friction. The cure for all our ills is not 1o be found in the isolation of a group of nations. Any kind of zollverein, as has been stated before, leads to war, and it is very sad that the government of the day has seen fit to adopt this policy. For people as well as for individuals the best way is to go straight to one's neighbour, to look him in the face and offer a fair exchange of the products of brains and labour. This was the whole purpose of the Dunning budget brought down in the year 1930.
As was said before by an hon. member who preceded me, tariff walls form a gaol around us, and who cares to go there. Many speakers in this debate have shown the weakness of the articles in the agreement submitted to us. I shall not deal at any length with them. Suffice it to say that articles 13, 14 and 16 which have already been commented upon by the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rin-fret) provide certain restrictions and impose certain conditions upon the Canadian people, upon the administration of the excise act and the customs act. No sane person could accept the agreements before us, because by so doing he would be giving away the rights of the government and the Canadian people. It seems to me if we accept them we are giving away to another country the right to police our tariff, and to have a look in at the administration of the various governmental departments. Such practice would, I submit, be contrary to the law of this land.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well said.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I believe the agreements imply an abdication of the rights and privileges of the house and of the people of Canada.
They do away with our liberties as a free nation, and with the principle long evolved and recognized as to the supremacy of the dominions in their own affairs, and particularly in matters of trade and commerce.
I was surprised and sorry to witness the spectacle presented the other day by the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) when he attempted to support the agreement now before us. He thought he made out a case, but to my mind he merely made a mess of it. I do not believe the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) who is now in his seat did justice to himself; he gave a pitiful performance. His reference to our great and revered leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, was an effort to be clever, as were also his references to my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) as Bill and Ernest. Such references were trivial and impudent. Probably his familiarity was due to the fact that he is enamoured of his great friend "Pit" Bertrand of Quebec. That gentleman calls my hon. friend opposite Maurice, and in turn Maurice calls him Pit. The minister has hurt his case and that of his party by his manner of reference to Sir Wilfrid Laurier and to my leaders. I accept the challenge of the Solicitor General to meet him during the next general election on the hustings in the province of Quebec, and at such time I shall show up his conduct in the house, and the bad policies of this government. I say to him now that if he wished to be as bold' on the hustings as he was the other day in this house, I should invite him to come right away. I find however that he is bolder in the house than he would be on the hustings, because I learn he refused the invitation extended to him to appear at a meeting held last Sunday in Iberville when it was known that the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), and the member from the constituency in which Iberville is situated (Mr. Rheaume) were to speak.
Mr. DUPRE; I shall be very happy to meet the hon. member any time anywhere.


Pierre-François Casgrain: At the beginning of his remarks he was strong for an election, but possibly he made a faux pas. It may be that after his speech he was given a very sound spanking by the Prime Minister or others of the administration, because we know on the following day when he resumed his speech he was much quieter and made an effort to explain his position. I am of the opinion, however, that his explanation made matters worse. He came in as a lamb, whereas on the preceding evening he went out as
480	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
a lion. I should like to say to him that if he found it necessary to go out as a lamb, he should not have begun speaking by roaring and wagging his tail like a lion.


Maurice Dupré: That was said before by the hon. member for Quebec East.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Probably it was, but it applies very well to the Solicitor General in this instance.
As Liberals we have to differ from the agreement before us for the same reason that prompted the Liberal ministers in England to resign. I do not believe I have time to recite all the reasons given for the resignation of the Liberals, but the most prominent ones are the following:
First, far from removing the obstacles to international exchanges, these agreements add to them, in fact, by new duties or increased duties.
Second, these agreements imply an abandonment without precedent of the rights of parliament. The British parliament could not reduce certain taxes now without the consent of the dominions.
Third, these trade agreements limit the right of Britain to negotiate trade treaties with other nations.
Fourth, they add to the burden of the common people.
Fifth, they will be an obstacle to imperial trade and
Sixth, they present the danger of sordid bargainings between the different countries of the empire.
These reasons, as has been so well explained by my right hon. leader, have no less force on this side of the ocean than they have in England. We cannot ask of Great Britain what we in Canada would not submit to. The conference of 1926 decided that the basis of relations within the British Empire should be that of self-governing nations. We have the statute of Westminster to vouch for that. I believe the conference of 1932 has gone far, Mr. Speaker, in a deliberate effort to do away with autonomy within the empire. We are face to face with a central imperial policy, and with that before us I wonder what the future of Canada may be. One has but to read an article appearing on the 18th instant in the Toronto Globe to have some care for the future of Canada. That article, under the heading An Undefended Empire, is as follows:
Informal conversations at Ottawa during the recent imperial conference revealed to British ministers unexpected readiness on the part of Canada, Australia and New Zealand to recognize their obligations in the cause of empire sea defence.
[Mr Casgrain.]
Then, later on I find the following:
The dominions cannot neglect the prospect of an empire helpless to protect its trade channels in case of war.
I say that after these agreements have been signed and put into force within the empire we will have either to build and equip a navy, or contribute to the defence of the empire as was done on a previous occasion. For one, I do not like such a policy;, and it would not meet with the favour of the people in my native province of Quebec.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is dangerous.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I should like to have
had time to follow closely the agreements presented to the house, but I am afraid I cannot do so. This is but a further step taken by the government to try to implement its promise made during the election campaign of 1930 to the effect that it would end unemployment. They failed at the conference of 1930, they have failed up to the present in the year 1932, and now they try to get a renewal of confidence by offering the same promises, because after all one finds that in these beautiful and wonderful agreements which no one except the Prime Minister knows anything about, we have nothing but promises of things that might happen if and when later on some other thing should take place. When the Prime Minister asked the electorate of this country in 1930 to give him the opportunity of dealing with unemployment he said:
Canada is now in a critical condition. Unemployment exists on a scale which never before was known in the history of this country. All this by reason of the policies of the Ottawa government.
When he spoke this the number of unemployed in this country was stated to be about 200,000, to-day, after two years of his administration, the number is in the neighbourhood of 750,000. And we have the dole, this is the only remedy that this government has seen fit or has been able to apply to implement their promises to the people of Canada. All that by reason of the policies of the government in office to-day.
To sum up the whole thing, Mr. Speaker, in the agreements submitted to the house we have this satisfaction only, to be told that the Canadian Prime Minister seems to have had his way at the conference, and that the trade agreements are in line with the old Tory policy of protection. The Prime Minister it seems has erected, to his pride and glory, a monument at the expense of the

United Kingdom
Canadian people. This, sir, I will not accept, and having heard the speeches made on this side of the house I think I am safe in saying that they rather than the speeches delivered on the other side of the house, represent public opinion at large in this country and for these reasons I shall vote against the motion before the house.


Mr. ALFRED SPEARMAN (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, there has been perhaps no event in recent years, with the possible exception of the general election of 1930, which has aroused in so many people of this country-I am not speaking for the moment of other countries-such keen anticipation, and such fervent and anxious hope as did the late imperial conference held in this city, the results of which are now before us for our acceptance or rejection. In 1930 this country was well upon the downward path that has led us into this apparently bottomless pit of economic depression. All the nations of the world were closing and barring their doors against our trade. The prices of agricultural and other primary commodities were falling and had reached a point below the cost of production. Unemployment had become an acute problem and was on the increase, business generally was declining and approaching stagnation, and everywhere throughout this country the cry arose: Give us a man. Give us a leader who will lift our feet out of this morass and place them again upon the broad highway that will lead us to prosperity; will assure to the farmer higher prices for hi3 commodities and a wider market, to the unemployed work and wages, to business generally increased trade and certain dividends. And this man soon was found in the person of the then leader of the opposition, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). He was swept into power upon a tidal wave of popular enthusiasm, a compound of these mingled hopes and fears. May I say this for the present Prime Minister, that he proved himself a man of courage and of action. He lost no time in putting into effect some of the promises he had made. He raised our tariffs, he commenced the blasting process. But it must also be said, Mr. Speaker, that these policies did not bring to us the results that he anticipated, that the people hoped for. We excluded foreign products it is true, but we did not succeed in opening foreign markets. The prices of primary products continued to fall, they reached a level far below that of 1930, and indeed in some cases below any previous record. Unemployment increased, it doubled and trebled. Business generally continued to sink, and an utter collapse 537X9-31
of our entire financial structure has become within the limits of practical possibility. I am not at the moment attributing praise or blame to any man or any government, I am however, describing conditions as I believe they are, as I believe they will be admitted to be by any one in this house or in the country. The people of this country are naturally courageous and hopeful, and in the imperial conference, they saw a new ray of hope, they looked towards it with hopeful expectation that was almost pathetic in its intensity. So when the conference assembled the stage was set, and the leaders from the various parts of the empire came together in an almost universal atmosphere of good will, to face perhaps one of the greatest problems, and one of the most onerous responsibilities, as well as one of the most inspiring opportunities ever offered any group of men. Today we are considering in these agreements the immediate and tangible results of their efforts.
In the time at my disposal it is obvious that I cannot do more than touch upon a few of the main phases of this vast and complex subject, and do it very briefly and inadequately. Under these circumstances I make no apology for speaking in the main from the point of view I most directly represent, that of the western farmer, not overlooking however the general interests of all concerned.
The matters considered and dealt with by the delegates were many and various, but I think it would not be unfair to judge as to the ultimate success of the conference by its effect and bearing upon two main questions; first, the extent to which it will tend to increase prices and widen markets for the primary products, and second, the extent to which it will reduce unemployment and provide work and wages for our people. Other matters were considered, many of them quite important, but these two I have mentioned are fundamental, and it is as they apply to these, as they offer some prospect of affecting in some degree one or other or both of these problems that I think we should judge and accept or reject the results.
Before I touch upon the agreements themselves however, which are the tangible results of their efforts, may I interject a few preliminary remarks? My own attitude towards the conference has always been wholly friendly. I have shared with the people generally the hopes that they felt, although I had no exaggerated expectations of what might be accomplished at this time. But I recognized in the conference a great opportunity, and to no part of Canada and no class of people was the opportunity greater,

482	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
were more benefits possible, than to western Canada and the western farmer. It is true that I at no time held the opinion that much could be done in the way of tariff preference to help the wheat farmer, on account of a huge empire surplus and other factors to which I shall allude if my time permits. But I did hope that much might be done in respect to live stock and meats, butter, bacon and the other products of what we term mixed farming, which must assume greater and greater importance in our western economy in comparison with wheat; not only because of the great surpluses of wheat which have accumulated, but because of decrease in soil fertility, the increasing weed menace and other factors which are already manifest in Manitoba, the oldest of the prairie provinces, and which are rapidly becoming prominent in the other provinces also, and which indicate for the coming years changes in some of our methods of farming.
While I recognize all this, I recognize also that there were some great and complex problems to be solved. I think it is fair to say that in the making of trade agreements there are certain main principles that underlie them all, and these principles are as simple as they are fundamental, although in putting them into actual effect many difficulties may be encountered which are both acute and varied. In the first place, there are those treaties made between nations the products of which are not competitive but complementary, such as those nations where one may lie in the tropics and another in the northern or temperate zone. There no great difficulties are encountered. Then there are treaties as between, on the one side, a nation which is densely populated and highly industrialized, and on the other a nation which is in a relatively primitive stage of development and which produces in the main foodstuffs and raw material, each supplying what the other lacks and requires. There again the matter is comparatively simple. Such was the case with Canada and Great Britain in earlier years. Such is the case in some degree today as between, on the one hand, the United Kingdom, and on the other South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. They all present their problems but those problems are not by any means insuperable. But when we come to Canada of the present day the situation is wholly different and it calls not only for a high degree of statesmanship and wisdom on the part of leaders but also for breadth and clarity of vision, as well as some intelligent self-sacrifice on the part of producers, whether primary or industrial. In

Canada today not only do we produce for export large quantities of food and raw materials far beyond our domestic requirements, but we are also industrialized to such a point that we produce in great variety manufactured goods sufficient for our domestic needs and enough for export as well. This being the situation, we no longer have as we once had a natural market open to other countries. No longer is trade the easy matter it once was, a matter simply of exchange as between articles which one country produces and articles which another country has to offer. Today, in the main, we do produce and in ample quantity the very goods that Great Britain would sell, and to a large degree Great Britain can increase her sales here only by displacing a similar quantity of Canadian goods. There is the situation, and there is no use in our attempting to fool ourselves by trying to convince ourselves or other people that these are not the facts or that the problem does not exist. And side by side with that we must recognize another fact, namely, that in Canada, amongst our primary producers, and particularly in western Canada, with its scattered population and its wide areas of arable land already brought under cultivation, its variety and quantity of natural resources, we must produce for export great quantities of food and other primary commodities far beyond our own needs, or else we must repudiate our debts and reconcile ourselves to living much more within ourselves, and with a greatly reduced purchasing power. This applies not only to our relations with the mother country but to our relations with other countries as well. Thus, when a few years ago we entered into agreements with Australia and New Zealand, it was inevitable-we knew it then, and experience has confirmed it-that no matter under what government, Conservative, Liberal or Farmer, such treaties could be entered into only for the most part at the expense of agriculture and for the direct benefit of the manufacturers. We knew then, and might as well have admitted it, that Australia and New Zealand would have no interest in any agreement that did not permit them to sell a greater quantity of their products, such as meats, wool and butter in the Canadian market and in competition with the Canadian farmer. We knew that; and yet, such is the irony of fate, a government rose and a government fell partially on that issue; and hardly had the new government entered into the seats of the mighty than it brought about another treaty based on precisely the same principle as the one it.

United Kingdom
had opposed. It was inevitable; it could not be otherwise. And, as I have said, it made no difference what government might be in power, Conservative, Liberal or Farmer.
But when we turned to dealing with the mother country, the situation was different. Conditions were the opposite and we knew that Britain would be interested in no treaty which did not permit her to sell a greater quantity of her manufactured goods in this country. We knew that in doing so she might open up in Great Britain a wider market for our primary commodities, and we said to the manufacturers of this country, as they had said to us in former times, "Take the wider view, the broader vision, and recognize the indirect benefit that may be yours." Right here may I refer to an opinion-perhaps that is too strong a term; certainly it is not an intelligent opinion but a groundless thought -expressed both by speakers in this house and by certain sections of the press, who declare that criticism of this agreement or of similar matters comes from a section of the country which would destroy industry within Canada. I have not met that class of people; possibly such foolish persons may exist, but I am inclined to think that they exist only in . the imagination of those who make such a statement. What we do think, however, is this-paraphrasing words used by the ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce the other day and using words which I, myself, have used time and time again, in discussing this matter with my own people and amongst manufacturers: Better for you to share a market that has purchasing power than to monopolize a market that has not. And in our own country, at least in western Canada, under the conditions I have described, we cannot have that purchasing power without export, and we cannot export unless this country takes in turn the products of a country which will open its market to us. There was the situation, simple and yet complex.
Before I come to the actual agreements themselves-and you will recognize that I can treat them only in a very general way, partially because of the time limit and partially because of the handicap under which I, in common with the rest of the house, am now labouring-I have stated that my attitude towards the conference has been always wholly friendly. I realize the tremendous responsibility that devolves upon any member of the house who casts his vote against the agreement. I realize that. I realize that the general duty impending in Great Britain is to come into force on November 15, unless some agreement is entered into between now and
53719-31J
that time, and that rejection of this agreement brings us under the general terms of that tariff, so that our position will be far worse than it was before. I recognize that danger. I recognize, too, this fact. Here we had a conference composed of many of the best men from the different parts of the empire, men not only of outstanding position-I have met some of them and I have read of others, and I know their reputation

but men of high intelligence who approached their problem in sincerity. With all the information available, with the aid of all those officials to whom such reference has been made, these men spent five or six weeks of intensive discussion and examination. This was the result of their efforts, the best they could offer, and I, for one, would hesitate long and earnestly before I would say, "No, you are all mistaken, you. are all wrong. I am wiser than you and I. recognize that this will not bring the effect you expect; therefore it is not worth my consideration." As I say, I should hesitate to take that attitude, and in seeking honestly and earnestly for a reason why I should support this agreement, I am confronted with this fact, that we have no information, that we cannot have that information unless prior to the vote being taken-and here I strongly support and endorse the request made by the leader of the opposition and from my own corner of the house-these schedules and the articles containing the gist and meaning of the agreement itself be examined and passed upon in committee before we are asked to cast our vote. We have been told, and must recognize it as a fact, that the meaning of the agreement, the effect of the agreement does not lie in sounding phrases. It does not lie even in the statement of certain principles. It lies in the manner and extent to which these principles are carried into effect, and that they may be made or nullified by the details of the items themselves. Lacking that information and pending any possilbe action of the government which will enable us to deal with it more intelligently, I can speak only in a general way.
Before dealing with the schedules, may I say first that I recognize that we are making concessions to Great Britain in return for which we are to receive certain concessions. I did not expect, nor do I think I would be fair in expecting, that these schedules as a whole would be in favour of this country. I think that would be almost foolish optimism. I am not impressed nor have I ever been impressed by arguments based upon averages and percentages. To my mind such arguments
484	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
can be most deceptive, they may say anything or nothing. Therefore, I shall not labour nor shall I, with apologies, follow my hon. friends in labouring the question as to whether or not there are so many items in which reductions have been made and so many other items where increases have occurred in the British preferential, intermediate or general tariffs. The meaning of such an argument depends entirely upon other factors which we have not now before us and can have only in committee. Until we are able to know the importance of the item itself, the quantity which may be imported into this country, a statement of averages and percentages means little or nothing.
In going through these items I have arrived at certain general impressions. My first impression is that they may have the effect and in some cases I think they will have the effect of a partial diversion of trade from foreign countries to Great Britain. To the extent to which they do that, I wholly approve. I think I can speak for almost the entire population of this country and for every hon. member of this house when I say that a diversion of trade as from countries which will not deal with us to a country which will and which is our natural market, brought into effect without increasing our own costs and without injury to ourselves, is something of which we should approve and support. I support and approve of that. However, after a very superficial examination I have come to the conclusion that any diversion of trade to Great Britain will be followed by an almost equally increased protection to our own manufacturers.
I shall deal first with the textile items. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) has stated that he did not feel that any of us would expect that any substantial reductions could be made in the case of textiles. With this statement I am not in accord. Before and up to 1930 when this government came into power textiles entered this country under a duty then far too high. The protection given at that time was totally unnecessary but that protection has been since increased and enhanced. May I illustrate my point by relating something which occurred a few years ago. In company with a number of my colleagues, and as was then customary, I went to examine and inspect the cotton works in Valleyfield, perhaps one of the finest factories on the North American continent. Our host was a gentleman well known in this country and not unknown to the cotton industry and to hon. members of this house. In welcoming us he commenced his oration by a remark
IMr. Speakman.]
to which I have referred already and stated that he recognized in his audience men who wished to destroy the Canadian industry. He then went on to show the advantages under which the Canadian industry was carried on in Valleyfield. He pointed out that that particular factory was one of the largest and most up-to-date on the North American continent, that they had the cheapest water power in the world running past their doors and that an ample supply of cheap, dependable labour and raw materials were available under advantageous conditions. He then went on to argue that the industry was entitled to substantial tariff protection. I was asked to speak for the visitors, and I should like my remarks then to be considered as my plea today. I said I was prepared to consider fair protection for the industry if it was necessary but that I was inclined to accept his own statements. I said that under all the advantageous conditions he had related I thought they could get along very well with little or no protection. Before 1930, and still more so today, I was convinced that we were in line with what is reasonable when we expected substantial reductions in cotton and woolen textiles along with substantial preferences to the mother country. We felt that as soon as the attitude held by the Minister of Trade and Commerce was taken at the conference almost 75 per cent of the field of negotiation was eliminated, leaving but 25 per cent.
Substantial preferences are given in the linen schedules, as has been stated by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but the United Kingdom already has this trade. The trade returns show that at the time this agreement was entered into Great Britain supplied a large percentage of the linen goods used in this country. I find on a number of these items that the privilege of bringing in cheaper goods from Great Britain is given only to our manufacturers. They are being doubly helped. They receive greater protection in some lines and lowered costs in others. I have no objection to the greatest possible decrease in the cost of manufacturing but I do object to the manufacturer being given that added advantage while the consumer is met with the statement: "Behold what has been done for you." I am afraid the manufacturers will consider it unnecessary to hand these decreased costs on to the consumer and if the farmers and consumers of this country expect that that is the principle underlying these schedules then I am afraid they will have to realize that they have been sold a gold brick.

United Kingdom
The steel schedules are stated to be important, and they are. I think some substantial diversion undoubtedly will be made. In dealing with these schedules I remind the house that in connection with them, as well as with every other schedule I speak subject to the reservation that without sitting in committee we can speak only generally and to some degree in a hazardous way. Subject to this reservation I would say that in this case, as in some others, as much additional advantage is being given to our manufacturers as is given to the British manufacturers and the result may well be an increase to the consumer of the cost of of steel goods.
I shall illustrate my point by taking up one item-in fairness I must say that this item is not representative, it stands out by itself-that of cream separators. This is an article of common and essential use to every dairyman in this country, one of the men whom it. is intended to assist by this agreement. Previously this article entered the country free of duty but it is now to be subject to a ten per cent intermediate tariff and twenty-five per cent general tariff. Upon looking up the trade returns I find that no cream separators are purchased from Great Britain. Certain lines are manufactured in Canada and others are brought in from the United States, Sweden, Finland and other foreign countries. There is 'only one of two results which can be obtained under this item. The first is that the price level will remain as it was and our Canadian manufacturers will obtain almost the entire market. There will be no diversion of trade because if Great Britain could not sell at the price level on which we were purchasing from other countries, she would not be able to sell to us at the same price under the terms of the agreement. If she was not interested in the old price level, she will not be interested now. The other alternative is an increase in price brought about by our manufacturers being free from foreign competition. There may possibly be some diversion to Great Britain due to the increased price, she may become interested should the prices rise, but this will be at the expense of the dairyman whom we are trying to help. So far as I can see there are no other alternatives and in my opinion that item is wholly bad. However, I do not look upon it as being a really representative item. In the time at my disposal and from the information I possess, I may say, generally speaking, that is the impression these schedules leave in my mind and I have searched and studied them as carefully as I can.
Now we come to the concessions given to us, the assistance given to this country, because I stress again that it is only fair to remember that the schedules represent the price we pay, not the advantages given to us. I shall pass over the advantages accruing to the apple industry and to lumber, copper and certain other products, not because of their lack of importance but because of my lack of knowledge and time to deal with them. I understand that certain advantages accrue to those industries under this agreement, and to the extent they do accrue I am glad and I shall be willing to give them my support.
I shall come now to those articles with which I am more familiar, in which I am more directly interested and of which I have some knowledge. The first of these is wheat. I might say that they are, in the main: wheat, live cattle, meats, hams and bacon, dairy products, poultry products, all of importance and growing in importance. At the commencement of my remarks I stated that in my opinion no tariff preference could assist us in the marketing of our wheat because of the empire surplus that we have. We, under any conditions and circumstances, must sell a portion of our product in the foreign, that is, the European market. The quantity of grain offering upon the European market will remain exactly what it was before. There may be less of our own and more of that of other countries, but the sum total of wheat offering on the world market will remain exactly what it was. The competition of the world will be concentrated there and the price will be set by exactly the same factors as obtained before. By a provision in the agreement itself the price thus set by that competition, which competition remains exactly as it was before, will be the price which we receive. As a matter of fact, if the interpretation suggested by the press is correct and if this preference only applies to wheat shipped through Canadian ports, a disadvantage must obtain as against that wheat which finds its way through foreign ports such as Buffalo and other ports. We may find ourselves -with the price slightly reduced, slightly worse, through this agreement through increased freight rates, but I cannot see that it would be any better.
When we come to the others, as I stated before, the opportunity is much greater; the prospect is more hopeful. We come to hams and bacon. I think there that a definite advantage is given to the ham and bacon producers of this country. The situation is
486	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
briefly this: the pig industry of the mother country is in a parlous condition. They have at the moment a commission inquiring to see what may be done to assist that industry and set it on its feet. One can hardly imagine that commission will report without suggesting something which will be of value and that the British parliament will not pass something which will assist the pig producer of Britain. We are entitled to be put in exactly the same position to the extent of 250,000,000 pounds as is the British producer. As has been said, no one knows just what form that assistance may take and no one can imagine its extent, but we can be assured that some assistance will be given; that it will be of advantage to British producers and that at the same time it will be of advantage to us within the limits of our quantitative agreement.
We come now to poultry and dairy products. There the situation is somewhat similar. There, again, the poultryman and dairyman of Great Britain are in a parlous situation, in a difficult situation. There, again, an inquiry is going on to see what may be done to set those industries upon their feet. There, again, we are assured that whatever is done, we shall have one of two things: either a preference as against outside nations, leaving possibly Great Britain with a preference against ourselves, or we may have somewhat the same quantitative arrangement as prevails with the ham and bacon industry. In either case I think we are assured we shall be given some advantage as against our outside competitors. In the meantime, until that inquiry has terminated and a decision is reached, we shall have free entry for those goods for three years or until the commission reports and action is taken. I cannot see other than that, given certain conditions to which I shall now allude, this should be of definite advantage to the mixed farmer of Canada, and as such, and with conditions as they are today, with no other hope offered, that cannot be dismissed with a gesture.
May I refer now to what I consider to be the most important phase of the whole matter, the greatest weakness which confronts us, and the factor which, if not dealt with, will entirely nullify the effect of the agreement itself. I have spoken of those advantages and in speaking of them I had in mind what was said by the Prime Minister some time ago when he said or was credited with saying that unless some action was taken by Great Britain as against Russia, unless the dumping of Russian products was stopped,

this would nullify any possible advantage we might obtain through a tariff preference. That may or may not be; I am not arguing that at the moment, but may I suggest to him that there is today a factor which has not been touched. I refer to the question of exchange, which, if allowed to remain as it is, wholly nullifies any effect of the agreement. What is the position? Hon. members know how it was in connection with shipping cattle. A cooperative organization went into bankruptcy on that account; it lost from $15 to $18 a head on every live steer. The same thing applies to everything we sell; we have to lose from 20 to 30 per cent. How are we placed? Australia and 'New Zealand are given the same preferential advantage as we. We must compete with them and within the wall of preference, how is it possible to us to compete with them? It was stated a few days ago in connection with another subject, namely, the relative prices obtained by wheat producers-in Australia and Canada, that the wheat producer of Australia received three shillings a bushel or, in our currency, seventy-two cents in addition to which he had a bonus of nine cents a bushel, or a total of eighty-one cents. On the other hand, the Alberta farmer receives twenty-eight cents a bushel for at least as good wheat. It may be argued that the eighty-one cents have not the same purchasing power as the twenty-eight cents on account of the depreciation of the Australian currency. There is something in that, although not as much as its proponents would indicate. There is a slight drop, but may I suggest this: take an Australian farmer and a Canadian farmer each with a $4,000 mortgage on his farm and 4,000 bushels of wheat to sell to apply to that mortgage. The Australian farmer will have about $3,300 to apply to his mortgage while the Alberta farmer will have approximately $1,100. Except for the bonus of nine cents, the same situation applies to every farm product we export to Great Britain in competition with those dominions. They have a tremendous advantage over us. During the election we heard the Conservatives tell the people that the dairy farmer of Canada could not live in competition with New Zealand butter in this country; that in spite of the cost of bringing it here, the Canadian dairy farmer was becoming bankrupt and ruined because of that competition. Now with the exchange far worse against us, we are expected to meet that competition in Great Britain. The idea is ridiculous. Let us say that we may arrange for some quantitative arrangement to meet the situation and let us turn to the country whose goods we must

United Kingdom
displace, whom we must supplant as a competitor. I shall speak of Denmark as illustrating that type of country. What is its position? Denmark has been wise enough to retain its currency upon a parity with sterling so that there is no difference in exchange.


Mr. YOUNG:: How does she do that?


Alfred Speakman: I cannot go into that in the five minutes I have at my disposal. What is the effect of that? The effect is that Denmark has as great an actual advantage over us as we have an apparent one under this agreement. That is the actual result. It is recognized by this government when they apply a dumping duty based on exchange aganist Great Britain. It is recognized every time goods are imported from countries whose currency is depreciated as against our own, and yet they shut their eyes and close their minds to the same situation as it affects our own goods in the British markets and the markets of the world. Until that matter is dealt with, this agreement to my mind will mean nothing to us because we cannot place our products in that market nor can we compete with the other dominions whose opportunities are equal to our own.
May I interpolate here a remark I should have made a moment or two ago, that if the time comes when we overcome this difficulty and are prepared to take advantage of these agreements, one thing is essential, and that is that we must have in this country some form of marketing board which will organize and control our export trade in order to ensure to the consumers of Great Britain that continuity of supply and that uniformity of quality of which they are already assured so far as the products of Denmark and other countries are concerned, and without which assurance Britain will not transfer her business to us. But that is by the way.
I come back to this question of exchange. May I say that the greatest weakness, the greatest disappointment, and the greatest mistake that the conference made was when they overlooked and ignored this all-important question. I say overlooked and ignored. It is true that they accepted the responsibility of considering it and appointed a committee for the purpose. They put at its head the one man in the present government who knows most about it and who is most sincerely interested in it, and then that committee brought in a resolution of pious and unmeaning platitudes. I have heard that same minister refer to matters coming from our comer of the house as pious and unmeaning platitudes, but if he drew up that report, it certainly was the most pious and unmeaning of all for he told us nothing save what everybody knew, simply pointed out a problem with which everybody is familiar, and then carefully refrained from offering the slightest suggestion as to how that problem should be met. To add insult to injury, the papers that supported the government and said that they did right on all counts, said of this particular committee:	It is well, because they have
done nothing which can create an obstacle against the success of the coming world conference. And certainly they did not.
In the two minutes remaining to me, I want to conclude with this thought. I am not yet decided whether I shall or shall not support this agreement. I say that quite frankly. I have many arguments in my mind in favour of it, and .many arguments against it. I am hoping, still hoping even at this late stage, that the government, realizing the position of men who would like to be friendly towards the agreement, will give them the opportunity of knowing what they are to vote upon, give them the details without which no one can give a really intelligent decision. I am withholding a statement of my point of view as to voting with the hope that this will be done. If it is not, then I shall simply have to use the best judgment I have on the little information I have received.
If I do support the agreement one argument in my mind would be this: Believing as I do that the effects of the agreement will be absolutely nullified by the exchange situation, and believing that even this government will be forced to a realization of that fact before very long, to put the agreement into operation will bring nearer the day when the government will tackle that problem in earnest and attempt to solve it.
I have attempted, Mr. Speaker, to lay the situation before the house as I see it, fairly, impartially and without personal prejudice or political bias. I hope that I have succeeded. I believe that the facts I have cited as to the conditions and the difficulties and as to the principles underlying the treaty are facts which we must all admit. In view of the fact that this conference and these agreements were forced upon this country by those conditions, I shall not judge them with the same severity as though the markets of the world had been open to us at the time this agreement was brought into effect. That would not be fair. I shall continue to apply myself to this problem in the same unbiased way, and I sincerely trust that the government may even yet see fit to give us that information, because without it-I am not of a suspicious
488	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
mind-the government is certainly left open to the suspicion that the details will not stand close examination. If the government will give us this information, I believe that every member of the house will apply himself to the best of his ability no matter what side he takes, to do what he thinks will be best for this country, for the empire and the world.


Mr. T. A. THOMPSON (Lanark):: The
question before the house, Mr. Speaker, at the present time is whether or not the parliament of Canada will approve of the conclusions which were arrived at by the delegates who were assembled in this city at the Imperial economic conference a short time ago.
I have listened very carefully to the addresses which have been delivered by hon. gentlemen opposite, and I have failed to hear anything from them but condemnation of the agreement. There is scarcely a man among them who has spoken who has found anything commendable in them. The tactics of hon. gentlemen opposite suggested to me that they were playing for some political advantage, and as speaker after speaker on the other side arose and condemned these agreements I read between the lines a fear on their part that some good would come from them and that the Conservative party and the Prime Minister would get the credit. Their tactics, I submit, are not worthy of the traditions of the Liberal party. There has been no crisis in our country's history when the Liberal party did not lay aside their politics and come to their country's assistance. Sir John Macdonald never could have gathered the scattered provinces that now comprise this Dominion and welded them into one harmonious whole had it not been for the assistance that he received from the Liberals of that day. Canada could not have prosecuted the war as she did had it not been for the assistance she received from those Liberals who left their party that they might better serve their country. Contrast such an attitude with the attitude of the opposition at the present time when Canada, in common with every other country of the world, is struggling for her economic existence, striving to extricate herself from the mire of the greatest depression that the world has ever known; and in such a crisis these agreements receive nothing but knock after knock from the Liberal party. It is a glaring case of fiddling while Rome burns.
Great credit is due to the Prime Minister of Canada for having brought the conference to the city of Ottawa, thereby gathering

together here the brightest minds and the best brains of the British Empire in an honest endeavour to unravel the tangled web of economic conditions in which the British Empire in common with the rest of the world is struggling. Probably none of the delegates present at that conference went home feeling that they had got everything that they desired for their own country, and if they had done so, the conference would not have been a success. It was only by every part of the empire making some concession to the rest that it was possible to arrive at any definite agreement.
I listened with keen interest to the speech by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) when for nearly four houre he laboured in a fruitless effort to discredit the provisions contained in the agreement now before us, and to try to persuade the house and country that the treaties would bring only higher tariffs and special privileges for a favoured few. I was astonished to hear him state that if returned to power he would place the tariffs back to where they were when the Liberals left office, and that he would give a British preference of 50 per cent. I want to say to him that if that policy were carried into effect every textile mill in Canada would be closed, and industry would be crippled. The greatest sufferers would be the farmers.
We are looking for markets, farmers cannot sell their products to their neighbours. Their sales depend upon the purchasing power of men and women engaged in industrial life, and who are non-producers of agricultural products. If a workman in a town or city has steady employment and good wages he creates the very best market the farmer can obtain. Industry and agriculture are not enemies they should not be flying at each other's throats. They are partners in the development of Canada and the success of one means the success of the other; they must stand or fall together.
Much has been said during this debate about high and low tariffs, and hon. members opposite would have us believe that the fiscal policy of this government has had something to do with the low price of commodities. I want to say that tariffs are nothing more or less than instruments in the hands of governments whereby on a basis of equality one country may deal with another. And these tariffs must be changed from time to time as other countries change their tariffs to suit the everchanging conditions of trade. Tariffs must be regulated. We know the United States have raised their tariff to an extent whereby

United Kingdom
Canadian produce is practically shut out. Would any thoughtful man suggest that we should leave our markets open and make ourselves the dumping ground for the surplus products of our neighbours? To a great extent the deliberations during the conference were in the interests of agriculture. We had lost our market in the United States, and were looking to markets within the British Empire.
Tariffs do not interfere with the prices of commodities. A high or a low tariff will not raise or lower the world price. The old law of supply and demand still rules, and so far as agriculture is concerned, stimulated as it has been by excessive war prices and the introduction of more efficient farm machinery, there has been a production which has greatly out-balanced world consumption. I state further that a comparison of prices obtaining in Canada and in other countries would show that we are enjoying prices relatively higher than when hon. members opposite were in power.
Already we have witnessed one result from the Imperial economic conference at Ottawa, namely, the notice of termination by Great Britain of the Anglo-Russian treaty. In that connection I should like to read an article appearing in the Toronto Mail and Empire of May 20:
The opposition argument at Ottawa that Great Britain would never implement the imperial trade agreements by stopping Soviet dumping in the United Kingdom has been promptly answered from Westminster. The British government has given the Soviet Union the necessary six months' notice for the termination of the present Anglo-Russian Trade Treaty. In making this announcement, Mr. J. H. Thomas, Secretary for the dominions, said that continued importation of sweated goods from Russia would violate the United Kingdom's agreements with the dominions to prevent importation from any country that would stultify those agreements.
When questioned by Labour opponents, Mr. Thomas declared no investigation was necessary to convince the government that Soviet goods have been and are being dumped in Great Britain. Mr. Thomas was referring to Article 21 of the Anglo-Canadian agreement, whereby each party to the agreement undertook to prohibit imports from any foreign country where state control of industries and commodity prices resulted in the dumping of goods under cost. The effect of Britain's denunciation of the trade treaty with Russia will be to cut off the importation of large quantities of lumber, fish, grain and other products heretofore sold in Great Britain below cost.
The trade in such commodities will be automatically transferred to Canadian producers and producers in other parts of the empire. Mr. Charles A. Selden, the chief European correspondent of the New York Times, cables his newspaper that the announcement made by
Mr. Thomas in the British House of Commons "signalizes one of the most important victories won by Premier Bennett of Canada."
The condition described in this newspaper article is a direct result of the deliberations of the Imperial economic conference. Millions of dollars worth of goods which have been supplied by Russia to Great Britain at less than cost will now be supplied by Canada and other parts of the empire at a fair market price. Through the provisions of the agreement now under consideration-the farmers of Canada, by having a sheltered market in Great Britain for their wheat, their cheese, their butter and other products, will be greatly benefited. The statement has been made by some hon. members opposite that the farmers are not satisfied with the trade agreements. Speaking in this house the other day the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn) stated there were no more Conservative farmers, intimating that they were dissatisfied with the agreements. I am as closely in touch with the agricultural communities of this district as is any hon. member in the house, and I say that the farmers are not dissatisfied; on the other hand they are well pleased. I state further that I would not be afraid to take this trade agreement in my hand and go before the hard-headed, honest farmers of Lanark county and by an overwhelming majority receive their en-dorsation.
All I have to say in conclusion is that the motherland and the dominions, after deliberation by the ablest men in the Brtish Empire, have arrived at an agreement that has been the dream of the leading statesmen of the empire for a quarter of a century. They have laid the foundation upon which there will be built in the future a noble structure of interimperial trade that will be the admiration of the whole civilized world. I claim: that if I were to vote against these agreements I would not be dealing fairly by my country.


Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa):: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely trust that the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat will not hold it against me if I do not follow him in the exposition which he has just given as to what he believes should be done for the-purpose of saving Canada from the condition in which it finds itself at present. May T say that the object of the imperial conference held in Ottawa this summer, or what the ordinary man on the street thought its object to be, was to secure wider markets within the empire. With that object I do not think
490	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
any one can find fault. Canada being a component part of the empire, there seemed no reason why, particularly in a time of stress like this, the members of the family should not get together, and in closer cooperation -because misery loves company-do what they could to get out of these distressing conditions. But at the same time there does not appear to be any good reason why under such conditions the countries of the empire should entirely cut themselves off from the rest of the world.
But what a sense of deception filled the hearts of the Canadian people when the results of the conference were made known! What have we? These trade agreements for three, five and ten years! What had they for the famished and thirsty people of this country in their present need? They asked bread, the Prime Minister has given them a stone, a monument to his own fruitless endeavour as an imperial bargainer to cure the ills of the Canadian people. Sir, the Prime Minister was bound to the stake of his preelection promises. For two years he had been harrassed and obsessed with these extravagant promises of 1930 to secure wider markets. No wonder that in despair he flung himself into the making of these agreements! But nothing can dispel from the memory of the Canadian people the distressing fears they entertained in the dying days of the conference when they understood it was likely to be a failure. No wonder the Prime Minister finally came out from under the bag of spoils which he has tabled in this honourable house in the agreements now under consideration.
But, sir, for that bag, what price did he pay? Time will prove better than any assertion of mine what advantage he has secured for us and what price we must pay. Presently, we are too near those events to appreciate fully and visualize their significance and effect. But even at this stage we [DOT] can safely say that, proceeding as they do from a "principle not too sound politically-I use that term in its proper sense-and not too sound economically, the Canadian people can expect to derive little good and advantage therefrom. The principles involved are a negation, or complete curtailment of our political liberty, none the less deplorable because self-imposed by a complacent majority.
Many years ago, Sir Wilfrid Laurier described the empire as a galaxy of nations, and until the birth of these trade agreements no better definition could be given. A galaxy of nations! the empire the heavens, the component parts of the empire the stars, each 
separate, having its own identity, independent one of the other, travelling in well-ordained channels, but all gravitating around a common centre. Canada, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Southern Rhodesia, all enjoying responsible government, mistresses of their own destinies, jealous of their own rights and privileges, Canada particularly proud of its own modern garb, a la statute de Westminster, but all bound in a common tie.
These political liberties were not acquired without long and weary struggles. They represent the concerted efforts of many generations, and in some instances the price was high. Today, whether we be of Canada or South Africa, we are proud of our status, and we were ready to sit with the other countries at the family table under the eye of the mother country, to enjoy the well-earned fruits of these long labours. No one in those days dared challenge our loyalty to the empire, let no one do so today.
Speaking in this honourable house as one of those whose mother tongue is that of millions of inhabitants of this fair land, as one whose blood is the same as that of those millions, I say that our hearts beat in unison with the hearts of those who wish the empire well; our souls, like the souls of our millions of brothers in this fair land, are filled with the same ardent desire for the empire's maintenance, our hopes and ambitions are no less ardent than the hopes and ambitions of our brothers for a united empire. Those little white crosses side by side in Flander's fields mark the last resting places of thousands of the descendants of those who fought with Wolfe and Montcalm, showing that the bonds of empire in Canada have not weakened. Our loyalty is not less sincere, our prayers and our endeavours for a greater empire are no less earnest than the prayers and hopes of those who propose these agreements now under review.
And we have a perfect right to criticize them, we of the Liberal party who sit on your left, Mr. Speaker, in the light of the principles and doctrines which are our own, and which, let it not be forgotten, are at the foundation of our political and economic liberties today, the principles of a democratic party, of a party that seeks the greatest good for the greatest number, the Liberal party. The Prime Minister has made it clear that these agreements constitute the glorification of protection. He has succeeded in grafting this bud on the old British free trade tree. He is a past master in many arts and sciences,

United Kingdom
but the future will show what kind of botanist or amateur farmer he is. How the old tree will react, it is hard to tell. Will the rugged old British oak just cramp and stifle the bud, or will the old stock, poisoned by the bud's viciousness, suffer, dry up and disintegrate?
I say that we of the Liberal party have a perfect right, nay, an obligation and a duty, closely, very closely to scrutinize these agreements and to say to the Prime Minister, as did the Latins of old:
Timeo danaos et dona ferentee; or, as the famous French fabulist Lafontaine said:
Ce bloc enfarine'ne me dit rien qui vaille.
I said a moment ago that these agreements constituted a curtailment of our political liberties. I am positive that there is not a single British subject in this fair land today who would not strongly support any measure conceived for the purpose of keeping closely knit as they are today the bonds of empire. I am sure that the ten millions of red-blooded Canadians would go any limit to assure the maintenance of empire bonds of the strongest kind. But at the same time I am sure that few, if any, are those supporters and admirers of empire bonds who would sacrifice willingly any of their political liberties to support a scheme of empire trade conceived on such principles as of necessity must undermine the very stability of such bonds.
If we approve of the present scheme we constitute ourselves, all of the component parts of the empire, into a separate unity in the world organization. We build tariff walls around the empire so high that we cannot look over them; so high that no other nation of the world can look over them; we constitute ourselves into some glorified entity, something like a mother bear and her cubs in her winter cache.
By accepting these agreements we decide for three, five or ten years to divest ourselves of our political liberty to frame our fiscal policies as times, conditions and circumstances may warrant. If we accept these agreements, then for three, five or ten years we voluntarily place, our hands in the shackles and our feet in the stocks and lose our economic liberties. For such length of time we shall be debarred from making any bargain with any nation in the world in respect of the same subject, no matter how much more beneficial it may be for us. And is it to be in such abnormal times, when conditions are so upset, when minds are so unsettled, that we shall enter into long term agreements about matters that so vitally affect the political and economic structure of this country? There is all the
difference in the world between the making of these agreements with the empire and the making of separate agreements with separate countries, as was done under the Liberal regime. Here we give away the whole of our economic life. We give the 360 degrees of the circle to its centre. We tie up exclusively with one party all that we have. There is nothing left for us to deal in; there is no other party to deal with. But vicious a principle as that is, it goes further than that.
I cannot too often repeat it: It is the tying-up of Canada, hand and foot, to a system of protection, incompatible with the financial and economic structure of England, incompatible with the financial and economic structure of Canada, and exposing Canada and the empire to retaliatory measures of the worst kind.
The daily bread of a nation is trade, trade and more trade-expansion and more expansion. Restrictions on these desires and wants create resentments and hate, and war is on the threshold. Tariffs are barriers; tariffs are wars that stem the flow of trade and interfere with expansion. Resistance to expansion in the economic world is resented as much by nations as resistance to territorial expansion. These, it may be said, are consequences or events the happening of which is doubtful. But though improbable, they are unfortunately only too possible. History shows that nations' cupidity in the way of more territory, or that nations' thwarted desire for greater trade have been the cause of war.
The life of these agreements is said to be three, five or ten years. But what is our state of health to link us up in such a manner? According to the report of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1932, we find at page 7 the state of our health. We read that Canada's foreign trade during the year ended March 31, 1932, amounted to $1,166,069,000 compared to $1,723,641,000 in 1931, and $2,393,212,000 in 1930, or a decrease of 32-4 per cent compared with 1931 and a decrease of 51-3 per cent compared with 1930. But that is not all. I find at page 10 also that Canada's domestic exports in 1932 decreased as compared with 1931 by 27-9 per cent. A fine state of health to be in! A fine state of health for Canada to be in to bargain with somebody to the exclusion of all other parties. Our total decrease in trade in 1931-32 as compared with 1930-31 was $551,507,000, and our total decrease in trade with the United Kingdom for the same period was $131,000,000. And are we to be asked to tie up exclusively for three, five
492	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
or ten years with that customer, no matter how closely we may be bound by ties of blood and sentiment or anything else? We are being asked to tie up exclusively for three, five or ten years with a client with whom for years we have done the least business. At page 10 of the report I find the following:
In 1932 the United States and the United Kingdom supplied Canada -noth 79-2 per cent of her total imports. The United States since 1882 lias supplied the dominion continuously, year by year, with the largest proportion of its imports, amounting to 60-8 per cent in 1932 compared with 64-5 per cent in 1931.
Page 11 of the report contains the following statement:
The United States has occupied first place in Canadian export trade during the past six years.
I do not contend that we should deal exclusively with the United States but surely a treaty could be arranged with the empire which would not disregard totally some of our best clients.
There are many reasons why I have the greatest reverence and sympathy for dear old England and if the terms made by the Prime Minister are considered mercenary, I have had nothing to do with them. Our imports in 1932 from the United States were 60-8 per cent, while in 1931 they amounted to only 64-5. Our imports from the United Kingdom in 1932 amounted to 18-4 per cent, and in 1931, 16-5 per cent. In those two periods our imports from the United Kingdom were 18-4 per cent and 16-5 per cent respectively, while our imports from the rest of the world amounted to 81-6 per cent and 83-5 per cent. Our exports to the United States in 1932 amounted to 40-8 per cent, to the United Kingdom, 30-2 per cent and to the whole world 69-8 per cent. Page 10 of the report contains the statement that Canada's domestic exports to the United Kingdom in 1932 decreased by 33'1 per cent as compared with 1931. I have no hesitation in saying that the whole plan is economically unsound, both for Canada and for the empire. It is too radical. I am driven more and more to the conclusion with all due respect that it was entered into for the sole purpose of endeavouring to save the Prime Minister's face.
Then we must consider the state of health of the two contracting parties. If the law of eugenics was recognized in contractual law, these agreements would be contra bonos mores. But more than that, in the present state of world affairs, these agreements are unsound and strike at the root of responsible government as heretofore understood in British institutions.

Where do the people and the consumers of Canada, where do the people and the consumers of Great Britain come into these agreements? Where do the parties to these agreements get their authority so to bend the peoples of the empire? By what virtue have they arrogated unto themselves the right to be constituted the guardians, trustees or committees of the peoples of the empire in the matters now under review? Surely the government of Canada cannot claim any mandate from the Canadian people to enter into such conventions. Were these conventions before the people in 1930? Nothing was mentioned although many promises were made by the Prime Minister, all still unfulfilled. If there has ever been a system-I do not think that expression will be considered unparliamentary -whereby power was taken away from the people of Canada, it was that adopted by the Prime Minister during the elections of 1930. I ask hon. members of the government by what mandate of the people do they endeavour to put this matter through the Canadian parliament? The mandate which they obtained in 1930 could not be obtained today. The Canadian people want better proof, as is demonstrated by the fact that the elected member for South Huron (Mr. Golding) has taken his seat in the house. The fact that that hon. member is today a member of this house should be forever in the mind of the Prime Minister to remind him that he and his followers have no mandate to place before the Canadian parliament the conventions presently under review. The government made these matters an issue in the campaign in South Huron and to' my recollection there has never been so clear a signal of defeat as that given by the returns in that election.
The increasingly high walls of protection which have been built and which, because of a complacent majority in this house, will continue to be built by the Prime Minister and his followers bear upon their face that warning, "mene mene tekel upharsin" or the handwriting on the walls, be they so high! There will be a destruction and crumbling down of those walls as soon as the Canadian people again have an opportunity of recording their votes.
The Prime Minister may endeavour to put these matters through our house with all possible haste, the authority in power in Great Britain may want to do the same, but where is the Prime Minister's mandate? He obtained a mandate to end unemployment because of the promises he made that he would do so as soon as he was returned to power; he obtained a mandate to open wide

United Kingdom
the markets of the world, but he never had a mandate to do that which these agreements seek to do. And in England, sir, the party at present in power, so far as I have been able to understand, never had a mandate from the British people to do what they are endeavouring to do. The evidence and proof of this is in the present disaffection in a national government in England constituted for the purpose of saving the dear old motherland, of saving the empire from ruin and destruction, and thereby saving all of its component parts, of which we are one. Thus there is no mandate in Canada, no mandate in England to do the things which are sought to be done in this haste. For what purpose? For that of saving the Prime Minister's face on account of the many promises which he made in 1930 and which were responsible for his coming into power.
I am willing to cross swords with the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) if he is ready to do so and I say to him: So far as the capital of this dominion is concerned, I am ready to meet him. I say this to the whole of the party that sits to your left, sir, that I believe the safer path of statesmanship for the building of the commonwealth along enduring lines should surely be, as the Liberal leader has said, to get the verdict of the Canadian people in a general election. And if the Solicitor General will try this in Ottawa, let him name the date.
We believe that through the 1926 conference the empire was moulded into a group of nations of equal status, independent the one from the other, free to determine their own policies, whether political or economic, but always bound by unbreakable bonds of their own making, to an empire which they loved and revered. I had great faith in these perennial reunions of the nations of the empire. I believe it was a marvellous spectacle and example to the world at stated times to see the motherland in conference with her grown-up children, all well able to earn their own livelihood and to take care of themselves, yet mindful always of their family ties and respectful ever of their mother. My confidence and belief in these conferences was increased by the result of the 1926 conference.
The proceedings at the 1930 and 1932 conferences, the nugatory results of the 1930 conference, with its tempestuous atmosphere and the, at most, doubtful results of the 1932 conference with its quasi-mercenary attitude of the fully grown children towards their mother, met by the subtlety, cunning, shrewdness and long experience of the mother in such dealings, have left me rather dubious as to the
wisdom of further conferences if conducted in that manner. My vision of an empire, the one I have often dreamed of in my short years, is the one we presently have or have had since the coming into force of the statute of Westminster, one whose bonds were those of natural love, esteem, affection, respect and trust, the one whose bonds called in 1914 for their defence so many millions from all corners of the earth; and not one,, the bonds of which would be, as under these agreements, covenants imbued only by mercenary sentiments and greed, and of doubtful effect. A thousand times should I prefer weaker links in the present bonds, than bonds of silver or of gold, because the former, though weaker, would, as in the course of human life, give and take, but never break, whilst those bonds which these agreements seek to place about us will gird us for three, five or ten years, and by their very essence may, under some strain, not give, not take, but with a catastrophe at some momentous time, snap, and bring with this consequences too formidable presently to visualize.
I said a moment ago that at this conference the parties had met in an atmosphere different from that of 1926. In 1930 the eldest child was rebuked and went home without his reward. Old Mother England is a dear old mother, but canny and sagacious. She is old in years, but her intellect is keen and bright. Not only has she for many long years dealt with children who had just reached their majority, but she had, long before the birth of those budding statesmen, been trained in the art of diplomacy and of international relationships, and I think it may safely be said that old Mother England was seldom, if ever, known to have come out second best in any matter of trading. Always the other parties went, away, for the time being fully satisfied, only to realize in time that the bargain was not all they had thought it to be for their benefit. No one better than old Mather England can drive an honest, if you will, but a stiff bargain, and I am rather convinced that when our budding statesmen see in time what they have bargained for, they will realize that the eggs were not so fresh and the horse was not so sound. When the proper time comes-and the Solicitor General may call it any time-the people of Canada will proclaim that if the 1930 conference was "humbug," this one was a "gold brick" for Canada.
But the conference was not called solely for the purpose of making trade agreements with dubious results. It was called for the purpose of solving the distressing economic conditions in which Canada and the world now
494	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
find themselves, and, so far as Canada is concerned, increased and aggravated by the fiscal policies of the Conservative party now in power. The proof! Since the Prime Minister, doctor of many arts and sciences, has been called to Canada's bedside, Canada's ills and troubles have increased; Canada's pulse, as indicated by the returns of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) has become more and more feeble; Canada's blood pressure, as revealed by the reluctant statements of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) has gone away below normal and is still being depressed; Canada's respiration has become more and more feeble, as shown by the bulletins of the Ministers of Air, National Defence and Public Health, and soon Canada will need no pensions, as Canada, if the present regime is continued, will soon be dead.
Canada's public works work no more. In the city of Ottawa most of the people in the Public Works department have been discharged. Canada's natural resources are no longer exploited; the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Murphy) excelled in the art of alchemy, has chloroformed them. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman) has no more revenues because the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes), at the direction of the Prime Minister, has cut off all his imports, by raising tariff walls. The doughty Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) will soon be without a portfolio; the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Duranleau) is up in the air, talking radio with the toreadors. I am reminded of the facetious translation of Virgil:
Pater Eneas sic orsus ab alto
Ainsi le Pere Enee, assis sur un taureau.
The Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) has but his genial smile to set off against his department's deficits. People can't write; they have no money to pay the stamp tax. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) is busier than ever- the busiest minister in difficult times, the least worked minister in normal times. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, the last hope, the last trench, with a blank cartridge, is endeavouring at the Prime Minister's request, to blast a way into the markets of the world.
And the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre)! Solicitous of Canada's welfare, he spoke too much and said too little. Again I repeat, let him try the cudgels with my good colleague from the city of Ottawa (Mr. Aheam) and myself.


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


Mr. J. R. HURTUBISE (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the speeches that have been delivered since

this debate opened on the motion of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) to have the trade agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom approved. It was my great privilege as one of the members of the house who is among the younger in experience, to hear the recapitulation of the party policies which have been preconised for years and applied: under different parliaments. My right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) has described in a very clear and concise manner the effects of the new trade agreements on the consumer, on succeeding governments and on our imperial and international relations.
I very deeply resent the remarks of the Prime Minister with reference to the personality of my right hon. leader. During the conference I was following the activities of all those concerned, and particularly those of my leader, and my friends both Conservative and. Liberal have made remarks to me complimenting the Liberal chief upon his noble attitude. I shall not repeat what has been said by my friend from North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette) as to the gracious message that my leader sent to the Right Hon. Mr. Baldwin and Mrs. Baldwin on their arrival in this country, nor shall I repeat the message that my leader published at the opening of the conference and which was read by my hon. friend the member for Charlcvoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) today. Let me say that without knowing the purpose of my leader's attitude, in my humble way and in my own corner I was practising the very same thing. I have held twenty-five or thirty meetings throughout my constituency, not for the purpose of talking politics, but to advocate peace, patience, harmony, and respect for established authority. That is why I resent so keenly the remarks which the Prime Minister made.
I have the honour to represent in this house a constituency the main industries of which are lumbering, mining and agriculture, and I cannot let this opportunity pass without expressing my opinion as to how these new trade agreements are going to affect us. The population in my district has quit waiting to see prosperity come around the corner. The program of the short session in 1930, following the promises that were made by the Prime Minister during the election campaign, the upward revisions of the tariff that were made in 1930, 1931 and 1932, and which were supposed to bring higher prices for farm products and an invigorating stimulus to our industries, giving work to thousands of people -all those promises and plans have proved a failure, and today the unemployment figures

United Kingdom
have reached the peak of 750,000. The farmer is bankrupt and our industries are still, whatever hon. gentlemen opposite may-say to the contrary.
Now hon. gentlemen opposite expect us to vote for another upward revision of the tariff. They believe that the people of Canada are going to swallow these new agreements holus-bolus, on the promise of the Prime Minister that in about two years we are going to reap great benefits therefrom. That is impossible. We already know the opinion of South Huron.
First I should like to say a word or two about our pulp and lumber industry. I should like to congratulate the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) for the deep interest he has shown in the betterment of that particular industry in our district, but I believe that his credulity has led him to spend too much time and energy for nothing. He should have considered first how handicapped we are in the province of Ontario with our high crown and stumpage dues and the scandalous tinkering with timber limits, also the effect of high tariff policies on that particular industry. Let me quote two paragraphs that appeared in our local paper, the Sudbury Star on Saturday last:
Suspension of the embargo on the export of pulpwood from crown lands and other areas under lease from the crown for one year is recommended by the Port Arthur city council.
A resolution will be forwarded to the provincial government. It also asks that mills and contractors be compelled to pay a fair wage to men employed in the woods. A provision that the principle of collective bargaining be recognized in setting wages and working conditions was rejected.
And the following despatch comes from Fort Frances:
Urging the reduction of crown dues on pulp, the Fort Frances Board of Trade this week passed a resolution for presentation to the provincial government. It is said that whether the paper mill here operates this winter or not depends on the dues. The paper company has already contracted for 20,000 -cords of pulp-wood to be purchased from settlers.
What is the use of the hon. member for East Algoma spending so much energy and counting so much on the trade agreements when there is embarrassment in provincial matters?
There has been a gradual decrease in Canadian lumber exports. The following table from the Trade of Canada reports will serve to show in dollars and cents the decrease between the years 1929 and 1932:
Exports to
^	United Exports to
Year	Kingdom United States
1929	
$8,501,878	$72,312,2711930	
8,384.690	70,855,7501931	
6,933,294	47,119,3041932	
4,673,692	28,427,487
Hon. members will note that there has been a tremendous decrease in our exports of lumber. We must remember that our natural market for lumber and pulp is in the United States. Any action by the Canadian government to antagonize that or any other market will bring disastrous results. By placing an embargo on Russian lumber the government of the United Kingdom will meet with difficulties. By the time these agreements are in force the doors of Russia and other countries will be practically closed against British Empire trade. Only a short time ago the United States placed a duty of $3 per thousand feet against our lumber.
What may we expect from these agreements? I sincerely believe not the slightest benefit will be derived. We must realize that on the one hand the United Kingdom admits our lumber free, whereas on the other hand there is a tariff of from 10 to 20 per cent against foreign countries. In practice we have to compete with other countries, and especially with Finland which enjoys an advantage through exchange conditions. As stated by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) at page 392 of Hansard:
Finnish lumber will go into Great Britain for nearly 25 per cent less than our lumber can go in.
The lumbermen in Ontario realize fully the uselessness of the new agreements.
During the conference the hon. member for East Algoma made many statements, and among other things he said that after the conference 10,000 people would have work in the northern bush. At the close of the conference he stated that camps would soon be opened, and that the only thing then to be done was the holding of a conference of lumbermen in Toronto -to put the finishing touches on the arrangements. That meeting was held, but nothing further has been done. I believe the lumbermen in the northern districts have lost confidence in the agreements so far as they apply to the lumbering industry.
I should like now to direct my remarks to the mining industry. We have been told by the Prime Minister of the bargains he has made concerning copper, lead and zinc. The following table will serve to show the duty imposed against foreign countries:
Preferential General Rate	Rate
Copper (refined or not, ingots, bars, blocks,
slabs)	
Free	2 pence lb.Zinc	
Free	10 per cent lb.Bead	
Free	10 per cent lb.
As we are producing copper and zinc in great quantities in my constituency I sincerely trust that some benefit may be derived from these agreements. There is considerable
496	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
increase in the production of copper in Canada, and incalculable amounts are available. For the past few years, however, there has been a continuous decrease in exports, and I doubt very much whether the new agreements will help.' The following table will serve to show the total value of capper exports from the years 1929 to 1932, and will give a comparison of the exports to the United Kingdom and to the United States:
Total	To United	To UnitedYear	Export	Kingdom	States1929. ..	. . $28,646,684	$1,623,376	$23,829,4521930. ..	. . 39,628,652	657,117	35,739,1951931. ..	.. 23,483 044	259,587	22.834,7071932. ..	. . 19,802,750	3,051,022	14,398,526
We have been told that the duty of four cents per pound imposed by the United States has caused the decrease in copper exports. We must remember however that the decrease began in the year 1930, because we find that while in 1930 the exports were valued at $35,739,195 those cf 1932 were valued at only S14,39S,526. The Ontario Refining Company of Sudbury which at one time employed 3,000 men has been closed since 1930. I conclude therefore that the duty has not been the cause of the decrease.
Under the new agreements products of the mines will be faced with the same difficulties as wheat. They will have to compete with world prices. By the agreement now under consideration we will lose our best customer, namely, the United States. There is no doubt about it; we only have to read and study article 4 of the treaty. It is very plain, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to have to compete with world prices on these products. We have to do so now, and I cannot see how these new agreements are going to benefit us.
Ait six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Joseph Raoul Hurtubise: 
Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Speaker, it is now over a week
since the debate on these trade agreements commenced and I can assure you that I have given very close attention not only to the speeches made but to the statements and arguments which have been advanced, particularly by hon. gentlemen opposite. I must admit that tonight I find myself in an increasingly awkward position because of the fact that the more one hears from hon. gentlemen opposite the less one knows of what definite plan, policy or opinion they have to offer in connection with these trade agreements now before us.
Commencing with the speech of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), practically every argument he advanced was contradicted before he finished his remarks. The only conclusion one can come to is that lacking any definite argument he

498	. COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
sought >by a multitude of words to cover up that lack. Not only does this inconsistency appear in his remarks, but it is present in the statements of various hon. members opposite. The leader of the opposition stated that this government forced the government of the United Kingdom to change its fiscal policy; the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) stated that the government of the United Kingdom forced this government to take the stand which it did take in connection with these agreements. The leader of the opposition stated that the government of the United Kingdom forced Canada to a tariff investigation; in one breath he worried at the increased price to the consumer in the United Kingdom and in the next he complained that the farmers of Canada who were to supply the foodstuffs to the consumers of the United Kingdom would receive no benefit. The leader of the opposition referred to a speech which he delivered at Seaforth during the South Huron election in which he outlined his attitude towards the agriculturists. I have read the press in this connection and the only statement referring to agriculture made by the right hon. gentleman was that he could not express an opinion on these agreements because all he knew was what agriculture obtained from them. If, as he stated there, his great concern was agriculture, surely it was not necessary to delay saying something of approval. He intimated that agriculture at least was receiving something. The right hon. gentleman has stated that he does not believe in bargaining, but rather in negotiation. I have looked up a number of dictionaries and I find that "to negotiate" means "to bargain."
I think the best description that could be given of the right hon. gentleman's attitude towards this whole debate is that it is a matter of words, and very often words of the' same meaning.
In connection with this same inconsistency we have one of the right hon. gentleman's chief lieutenants suggesting to the government that in negotiating the St. Lawrence waterway treaty it would have been well to try to make a deal with the United States for a decrease in the tariff against fish from the mari-times. That is a straight case of bargaining. We have the spectacle of the leader of the official opposition and one of his chief lieutenants taking opposite attitudes in the same debate. The leader of the opposition stated that the Liberals never have advocated protection, yet the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore) has said that he is a protectionist.
Time will not permit my giving more details of this series of contradictions, but

perhaps the best example of all is this: There is sitting in the ranks of the opposition an hon. gentleman who has always stood high in his party, who has always been recognized as one of the most astute politicians in the ranks of the Liberals-I refer to the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell), my predecessor in office. What has he stated? He accuses the government of "swiping" in broad daylight the policies of his party, yet his leader made the following statement, which appears on page 274 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I say the principle embedded here is wholly indefensible and is undeserving of any support from any part of the British
Empire.
One hon. member accuses us of stealing their policies which, according to the description of his leader, are indefensible and undeserving of any support.
After listening not only to this debate but to the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne I have come to the conclusion that it is eminently fair to say that there is one thought which runs through the speeches of hon. gentlemen opposite, delivered both in and out of this house and appearing in the press, and that is that attempts should have been made to obtain wider markets by the reduction of tariffs. This has been their refrain, both in and out of season. No definite, specific example has been given as to how this will be brought about; just general statements have been made. The climax of all these speeches was,
I think, reached in the remarks of the leader of the opposition when on Monday last he took part in this debate. He worked very cleverly up to this climax; his words were well chosen; he was the actor who was trying to impress not only the members of the house, but also and perhaps more particularly the people in the country, and his climax was reached with almost a look of anguish on his face as he uttered these words: "I feel the dark shadows of the closing gates." The leader of the opposition did not tell us where those gates were situated, but I think, in observing the look of anguish on his face, he was perhaps referring to the dark shadows of those closing gates placed at the exit of the valley of the shadows of humiliation, and he was on the wrong side. If, however, *he had reference to the gates of commerce,
I am free to admit, as I am sure the majority of the people of this country must admit that, no other member of the house can speak with greater authority on the question of the closing of the gates of commerce, because more was done to close the gates of commerce

United Kingdom
against agricultural exports from this country during the tenure of office of hon. gentlemen opposite than in any other similar period in the history of this dominion.
Because this has been their chief argument at all times during the past two years, I intend to take a few minutes to answer that criticism of this government. During the tenure of office of hon. gentlemen opposite the tariff of the United States was increased as follows:
United States Tariff Increases
Wheat-to 42 cents a bushel.
Tighter cattle-to 2J cents per pound. [DOT]
Heavier cattle-to 3 cents per pound.
Sheep over one year-by 50 per cent.
Sheep under one year-by 200 per cent.
Beef-by 300 per cent.
Bacon and hams-to 3J cents per pound.
Butter-to 14 cents per pound.
Cheese-to 7 cents per pound.
Eggs-to 10 cents a dozen.
While this was going on-and I shall go into this in more detail as regards other countries-why did hon. gentlemen opposite, by a lowering of tariffs, not prevent these gates from being closed? We all agree that it seems easier to do some things before -they are done than to cure them after they have been done. It is^no wonder there was the feeling of the dark shadows of closing gates. The result of the tariff that was thus ,put up against our agricultural -products entering the United States was this: during the tenure of office of hon. gentlemen opposite, the export of cattle from Canada to the United States decreased, due -to tariffs being placed against our cattle or, in other words, due to a closing of the gates of commerce, from 250,536 -head to 54,716 head. In connection with eggs there was a similar situation. During their tenure of office the exports of eggs from this country to the United States, after the United States tariff had been raised against our agricultural! products, decreased from 61,051 dozen to 1,489 dozen, in one year.
A similar situation existed with regard to other countries. Time does mot permit our dealing with each agricultural product, but I shall take some of the outstanding ones, especially those with which we have dealt in the trade agreement with the United Kingdom, because it was ne-cessary, those products having been sh-ut out of certain markets before we came into power, for us to make a special effort to secure a wider market somewhere else.
In France, during the tenure of office of hon-. gentlemen opposite the tariff on cheese was raised to $3.56 per hundred pounds and our exports decreased from a very considerable trade to absolutely no shipment at all. This 53719-32J
was a case where the gates were absolutely closed in one country against our agricultural products. The French tariff against our condensed milk was raised to $2.15 per 100 pounds and our exports again decreased from a very considerable trade to nothing whatever. This is another case during the tenure of office of hon. gentlemen opposite who preached so much about getting wider markets by the reduction of tariffs -but who sat in their places doing absolutely nothing while these markets were completely shut against us and the gates closed.
In Germany their tariff against wheat was increased to 78 cents a bushel and on fresh apples to $2.50 per barrel. The result was that our export of fresh apples to Germany was reduced 3200 per cent, or from 32,769 barrels to less than 1,000 barrels. Here again the gate was almost completely closed against this agricultural commodity. The German tariff was raised against our cattle to $2.90 per 100 pounds, the result being that our export decreased from a considerable shipment to none at all after this tariff had been imposed. The German tariff against our oats was increased to $1.30 per 100 pounds, during the tenure of office of hon. gentlemen opposite the result being our export of oats dropped from more than 6,000,000 bushels to 74,000 bushels, or to practically a closed market. The tariff in Germany on our -honey was raised to $7 per 100 pounds and the decline in exports was from 461,028 pounds to 160,696 pounds.
In Italy, during the tenure of office of hon. gentlemen now in opposition the duty on wheat was raised to 86J cents per bushel, the result being that our exports decreased from 12,155,688 -bushels to 5,827,018 bushels, a decrease of 200 per cent or more.
In Belgium the duty against our cheese was raised to 91 -cents per 100 pounds, and our exports decreased from more than 24,000 hundredweight to a little better than 1,000 hundredweight, or decline of 1,500 -per cent. As regards condensed milk their tariff was increased to $1.26 per hundredweight, and our exports decreased from 2,685 hundredweight to nothing, another gate which was completely dosed during the tenure of office of hon. gentlemen opposite. Yet, although they sat still doing nothing during t-hat time, we hear them crying now that they want us to get wider markets by a reduction of tariffs. They had their opportunity.
In Czechoslovakia the duty on wheat flour was raised to $3.90 per barrel and our exports decreased by 250 per cent or more.
This is the picture, in the shortest form that I can put it before the house, of the markets as this government found them whe*
500	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
it came into power. A promise that we made during the election, and that has been well kept, was that we would give the markets of Canada to the farmers of Canada. What has taken place in connection with the market in Canada for our agricultural products as a result of a tariff that was placed against other countries shipping their products into Canada, especially countries that had put a prohibitive tariff against our agricultural products? This is the result, as shown in a table of car arrivals of seven commodities on twelve principal markets of Canada. These commodities are apples, celery, grapes, lettuce, onions, pears and plums, and the increased number of domestic carloads of these products sold in Canada was as follows:
Increased number of of carloads shipped to domestic market
Apples	 444
Celery	 45
Grapes	 278
Lettuce	
Onions	 269
Pears	 7
Plums	 3
Canned fruits	
Onions	
Canned vegetables	
Barley	
Buckwheat	
Oats	
Peas	
Rye	
Wheat	
Bran, shorts and middlings.. .. Oatmeal and rolled oats	 Maple sugar to United Kingdom Clover seed to United Kingdom.
Flax seed	
Tobacco leaf	
The decrease in the number of carloads imported in the same year of these same commodities was as follows:
Decreased number of carloads imported
Apples	 40
Celery	 405
Grapes	 515
Lettuce	  442
Onions	 294
Pears	 100
Plums	 38
That is the first outstanding instance of this government's attempt to do something in respect to these particular commodities. We attempted to widen the market for our agricultural products. We started in where we had power to do something, and that was in the markets of our own country.
Not only that, but we find our exports to foreign countries increasing very much in spite of the handicap that we had to work against by foreign markets being shut against our products. I will name some of the most important products in which we have increased our exports:
	1929-30	1931-3J
lbs.	4,254,466	7,263,489bush.	26,422	195,813lbs.	17,249,042	22,477,523bush.	14,817,071	24,337,678bush.	186,558	741,041bush.	6,406.181	13,841,300bush.	43,808	66,056bush.	1,526,368	4,359,813bush.	177,006,369	191,315,933cwt.	1,988,356	2,018,332cwt.	407,050	798,840lbs.	13,212	29,284bush.	41,794	97,146bush.	772,831	1,046,474lbs.	6,811,391	8,222,922
That was the second step. We did increase our exports to foreign countries, and in that way also we widened our markets.
But further, hon. gentlemen opposite, and no one will say that they are prepossessed in our favour, in various speeches in this debate have blamed the right hon. leader of this government for having, when in the United Kingdom in 1930, by some magical power that hon. gentlemen opposite think the Prime Minister possesses, forced the fiscal policy of this country on the United Kingdom; at least,
they claim that that was the reason for the increases made in the United Kingdom tariff against farm and other products. If that be true, we are quite willing to admit it because of the results, and this is the third instance in which we have widened our markets for agricultural products. Here are figures comparing our exports to Great Britain before and after the Import Duties Act was passed by the United Kingdom, for the five months ending August, 1931, as compared with the same five months ending August, 1932. The figures speak for themselves:

United Kingdom
Exports to Great Britain
Agricultural and Vegetable Food Products-
Fruit juices and syrups	
Bran, shorts and middlings	
Flour of wheat	
Tobacco, unmanufactured	
Animal and animal products-
Cattle, one year old	
Poultry, dressed	
Bacons, hams, shoulders and sides	
Cheese	
Fibres and textiles-	_
Socks and stockings, all kinds	
Raw wool	
Wood, wood products and paper-
Wood, unmanufactured	
Planks and boards	
.. ..Gals	Cwt	Bbl	Lbs... ..Head .. ..Lbs	
Cwt	
Cwt.
Doz. pairs .. ..Lbs.
M. ft.
Wood pulp
Cwt.
Paperboard, n.o.p
August,
118,839
8,837
851,485
1,404,558
12,413
48,322
21,015
282,061
1,426
455,714

August,
1932.
204,367
456,743
960,627
3,708,562
15,048
216,182
163,437
379,623
8,536
1,002,169

I have a longer list here, but I think I have read sufficient to prove my point. That is the third instance in which this government has got wider markets as a result, as admitted by lion, gentlemen opposite, of the attitude taken and the speeches delivered by the leader of the present government when in the United Kingdom in 1930.
I come now to the items before us in this trade agreement, and I will take them in the order in which they appear in the agreement. The first is wheat. In this connection I think perhaps the speech of the right hon. leader of the opposition will stand as a record from a man who admitted himself that he understands plain English. "If any English is plain surely the wording of this article is, and yet the right hon. leader of the opposition gave it every possible construction that could be given. For the benefit of hon. members I will read what article 4, which deals with first sale of wheat, says:
It is agreed that the duty on either wheat in grain, copper, zinc or lead as provided in this agreement may be removed if at any time empire producers of wheat in grain, copper, zinc and lead respectively are unable or unwilling to offer these commodities on first sale in the United Kingdom at prices not exceeding the world prices and in quantities sufficient to supply the requirements of the United Kingdom consumers.
Nothing could be clearer than that. We produce more wheat than could supply the whole market of the United Kingdom, and we therefore made an agreement that we would sell wheat to the United Kingdom at world prices. There had to be some basis for stating what this world price would be, and it is stated in this article what that basis is. It is the first sale; that is the sale made to the importer of our wheat into the United Kingdom. Otherwise it might be interpreted in
such a way by the miller or the broker purchasing wheat from the importer in the United Kingdom that he, miller or broker, should get his wheat at the world price rather than the importer. Let me now quote the interpretation put upon this by the right hon. leader of the opposition:
She (Canada) has to go first into the British market or lose the benefit, if any, of this preference.
The article does not say that the wheat must first be offered to the United Kingdom; it does not say that they must offer for sale first to the United Kingdom. All it says is that the first sale as I described before is the one that sets the price to the United Kingdom will be o., the basis of the world market price.
Mr. VALLANCE. It is the same thing.


Robert Weir: Absolutely different. The right hon. leader of the opposition says that if we wish to sell our wheat to France or Belgium we must first offer it for sale to the United Kingdom. That is not what the agreement means at all.
The next statement of the right hon. leader of the opposition in connection with wheat was this, as reported in Hansard, page 272:
They have to be offered on first sale. As I have said, if there is scarcity in other parts of the world, off goes the duty so far as Great Britain is concerned if any of our wheat producers begin to offer their grain for sale in other countries and are unwilling to offer their first sale in the British market. What is the next condition?
In the first place, the words are Changed around to positions other than those they occupy in article 4. Here the statement is made that we first must offer for sale to the
502	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
United Kingdom, and that is not the interpretation properly to be put on this clause. Then the right hon. gentleman states further in Hansard, page 272:
They will find in Europe-
And in this he refers to the people who have wheat for sale.
[DOT]-some other centre which will become the world centre and they will ship their wheat there, with the result that there will be keener competition than ever at this world centre, and the world price of wheat will go down.
That simply means that if the world centre for wheat prices were changed from one country to another the price would be reduced. Surely no serious minded hon. gentleman would suggest that a change in the world centre for the wheat market would have any effect on the price.


Mr. VALLANCE:: It would.


Robert Weir: There is nothing magical about the buying or selling of wheat on the world market. It means simply this, that the only wheat that we or outside exporting countries can sell is the wheat which is consumed by individuals or by live stock or is used for seeding purposes. When a country is buying wheate-and we are assuming that country to be financially sound-it will buy wheat at the level of the world market, wherever that world market or centre is. So that nothing could be more absurd from a business standpoint than the statement made by the right hon. gentleman.
Then let us see what further the right hon. leader of the opposition has to say:
Supposing there is a scarcity in Great Britain-
I ask hon. members to watch this statement:
*-we have immediately to rush our wheat into the British market, but any advantage we might get out of the scarcity in Britain at present will be offset hereafter by the fact that the only price we can obtain for it is the world price if wheat be plentiful elsewhere.
If there is a scarcity of wheat in Great Britain she will buy her wheat at the world price on the world market. The scarcity would not occur over night. If there were no preference the price paid by Great Britain would not be affected. They would still buy their wheat at the world price on the world market. The only possible difference would be this: Here is a country outside the empire, and we are a country inside the empire with a preference of six cents a bushel on wheat. Just to see how it would work, supposing that preference were removed. We are then on an equal footing when there is a scarcity of wheat in Great Britain; would there not be
(Mr. R. Weir.]
greater temptation for strong competition than there would be if the country outside the empire had to meet the advantage enjoyed by Canada of six cents a bushel before it could compete? That country outside the empire would have to absorb the six cents before it could ship wheat to the United Kingdom.


John Vallance: May I ask a question?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Unless the hon. member consents the question cannot be asked.


Robert Weir: Let me advise hon. members opposite that if they do not wish to lose the services of their leader, the right hon. leader of the opposition, they should not allow him to expound at greater length on wheat marketing. If they do, the Winnipeg Grain Exchange or some other institution will take him from them.


John Vallance: I should like to ask-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Robert Weir: The condition of wheat marketing at the present time has probably been brought more forcibly to our attention because of the meetings in western Canada held by heads of pools and provincial governments. I believe they make the request that an international conference should be called with a view to restricting the acreage in the production of wheat. The only thing which could bring them to that conclusion would be the feeling that there is more wheat in the world at the present time than could be sold to countries importing that commodity. I do not say there is more wheat than could be consumed, but they must feel that there is more wheat in the world for sale than there is any hope of selling, especially in view of the present purchasing power in the world, and the increase in production of the majority of importing countries. Therefore they feel there should be a restricted acreage.
The question then on this basis, before wheat growers of various countries and before the people in western Canada who, I think, are best capable of sizing up the situation, is one of choosing between a reduction in acreage to reduce the total yield of wheat, or the survival of the fittest. If it is a matter of a reduction in wheat acreage, I ask what is going to be done with the acres not being used for the production of wheat. That land will have to be used for some other purpose, and that is why during the economic conference we paid particular attention to and laid stress upon the quota in connection with the shipment of bacon to the United Kingdom. We felt that if the farmers were cutting down on the pro-

United, Kingdom
duction of grain and the shipment of wheat they would not let their land lie idle; so far as possible they would devote their energies to the production of some kind of live stock. We felt that the live stock production which they could get into most easily was pigs and sheep. Inasmuch as the sheep market in the United Kingdom can at the present time be supplied by other parts of the empire we felt it was in the interests of Canadian agriculture to offer the greatest opportunity for the development of our pig industry and for the benefit of our pig producers.
Let us deal with the other side of the argument, that the production of wheat must result in a survival of the fittest. Could anything be more advantageous to the wheat farmers of Canada-if indeed it is a case of a survival of the fittest-than that he should be given a specific preference? We must remember that other countries desiring to ship grain to the United Kingdom have to pay a toll of six cents per bushel. That is one of the particular reasons we were anxious to have the preference placed on Canadian wheat. Not only that, but what happened in 1929 and what made it so difficult for Canada to sell her wheat in the market of the United Kingdom is well within the memory of hon. members-especially the Russian and the Argentine competition. This preference and trade treaty will remedy this.
Reverting to bacon, I have some further comments. After reading the article in the agreement concerning bacon, and after reading that the United Kingdom had promised that after she had received her report from the pig commission she would take steps, as early as possible, to raise the price of bacon in the old country by quantitative restrictions, the right hon. leader of the opposition used the expression:	"if this means anything." In one breath the right hon. gentleman questions the honour of ministers of the government of the United Kingdom, despite the fact that Right hon. Sir John Gilmour, at that time iMinister of Agriculture and Fisheries, stated that on behalf of the government of the United Kingdom he pledged the United Kingdom government that the report of the pig commission would be submitted as early as possible, and that the steps necessary to restrict the import of bacon into the United Kingdom would be taken as early as possible.
There could be no better assurance than that. If that assurance does not mean anything, if it is not one -worth while, I do not know what assurance could be. Why did we stipulate the quantity of bacon, and name 280,000,000 pounds or 2,500,000 hundredweight,
-a hundredweight being one hundred and twelve pounds? This is the reason: Before and during the conference there was discussed in the old country the possibility not only of putting a restriction upon bacon from foreign countries entering the United Kingdom, but of a bacon and meat restriction frcm the dominions. That is best shown by a reading of the Australian agreement in which there is an agreement to quantitative restrictions on beef, mutton and lamb for 1933. I realize if our farmers are to go into bacon production they must not have a wall held in front of them which would have the effect of allowing them to increase production only to the extent of 50,000,000 or 100,000,000 pounds per year for export. So that they might have some assurance of permanency we were able to get this amount of 280,000,000 pounds. And that does not mean the limit. There is nothing said to prevent their going beyond that amount, until the Bi-itish government acts on the report of the pig commission, but this amount is fixed. In this connection may I point out that the hon. member for Melville, discussing this question the other night, made the statement that this stimulation of bacon production would cause Poland to produce more, Czechoslovakia to produce more, Sweden, Denmark and Russia to produce more, and the result would be to depress the market. But that would not be the case if there was quantitative restriction, because it would be no advantage to them to produce *hogs for the United Kingdom when they are ito be held down to a specified proportion of what the United Kingdom imported.
In that connection the hon. member for Melville criticized me for an increased bacon production policy initiated two years ago. I will repeat, as I have done here on two other occasions, that in that policy I did not advocate greater pig production. I did the opposite.
I did everything I could to emphasize the fact that farmers were going to produce more pigs whether we would or not, on account of the high price of bacon in comparison with the low price of grain. But I felt that if it was inevitable that there would be greater hog production; inexperienced people would not produce the quality necessary for export and therefore there would be a great quantity of hogs that could not be exported, and the piling up of these would depress our market. Our policy made it easier for them to get the right kind of pigs. I did that for this purpose. There are in Ontario, especially in central and western Ontario, people who produce pigs of a bacon quality unsurpassed even in Denmark. Some counties in Ontario produce as high as ninety per cent bacon and select bacon
504	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
hogs, and we did not think it fair to them to allow people to go into the increased production of bacon, without or against our advice, producing hogs of a quality that would be detrimental to and would offset the work these people had done in scientific bacon production.
The next item that I will touch upon briefly is apples. We cannot supply the whole market of the United Kingdom with apples, so in relation to that product we have a different basis from either bacon quota or wheat preference. Our preference on apples is 4s. 6d. a hundred, that is roughly $1 to $1.25 a barrel. Our chief competitor in apples in the United Kingdom is the United States, and over half their apples are not of high quality. Anyone who has given this subject any thought will readily see that a specific duty is more effective against the lower grade article than the higher grade article. The result is that, on apples being sold by the United States to the United Kingdom at prices in the neighbourhood of $1.25 to $2 a barrel, this duty will be almost prohibitive; so it is estimated conservatively that it will give us an increased market in the United Kingdom for approximately 500,000 barrels.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has spoken for forty minutes.
Mr. GEORGE W. McPHEE (Yorkton): Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) has given us the same speech that he delivered in South Huron, and the people of South Huron gave the answer. If the hon. Minister of Agriculture is correct in saying that markets have been increased for the Canadian producer, why is agriculture in Canada in the condition in Which it is to-day? Some time ago the minister recommended a sow policy; now he recommends reduced acreage for wheat.


Robert Weir: No.


Mr. McPHEE:: He did not say it in so many words, but he intimated it. That statement of the minister, Mr. Speaker, is the best answer to his whole argument. If the Canadian producer of wheat is going to get the benefit of six cents a bushel in the United Kingdom market why does the minister recommend that the Canadian farmer cut down the acreage of wheat?


Robert Weir: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member may not be interrupted without his consent, unless it is a question of privilege. Let us see what it is.
IMr. R, Weir.]


Robert Weir: The question of
privilege is this: I have been quoted as saying that I advocated restriction of wheat acreage, which I did not.


George Washington McPhee: Inferentially my hon. friend said that. Now let us analyse properly these agreements. To do so it is necessary for us to go back to 1930. Before 1930 we had eight years of prosperity in this country. Wheat sold in Canada then at $1.10 a bushel, butter at 30 cents a pound, eggs at 25 cents a dozen. My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture and the right hon. leader of the government (Mr. Bennett), taking advantage of the condition of unemployment, went up and down this country saying that the panacea for the troubles we were suffering from was higher tariffs, and the people of Canada took them at their word and put them in office. What do we find to-day after two and a half years of Tory high tariff methods? Wheat not $1.10 but 30 cents; butter not 30 cents a pound, but 10 cents; eggs not 25 cents a dozen, but 7 cents; butter 10 cents a pound; axle grease 20 cents.
Then we had the imperial conference fiasco of 1930, summed up as humbug. Then we have the imperial conference of 1932, the foundation of these agreements.
What is the agreement, in effect as respect to wheat? That the United Kingdom will impose a duty of six cents a bushel on wheat coming from foreign countries, in order to give Canada a preference in its market. The article in the agreement which deals with that is as follows-for the purpose of my argument I wish to put it on record:
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 Kingdom at prices not exceeding the world prices and in quantities sufficient to supply the requirements of the United Kingdom consumers.
The other night the hon. member for Long Lake (Mr. Cowan) made this statement: Where is Canada going to sell her wheat if not in the United Kingdom? I am not surprised at loose statements coming from that quarter, but I am surprised that the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Willis) should take up the statement as he did. He offered a hypothetical parallel-300,000 bushels of wheat leaving Canada, 300,000 leaving Russia, both destined for Liverpool, and when they land there the Russian would pay six cents a bushel, or $18,000, to get his cargo into Liverpool. The only thing wrong with that statement is that it is all wrong. Does my hon. friend

United Kingdom.
think the people of Russia are fools? They will know beforehand that there is this six cent duty against Russian wheat going into Great Britain. What are they going to do about it? Will they stop growing wheat? Not at all; they will simply unload that wheat in Holland and in other importing countries of Europe. The result will be that they will sink the world level of prices of wheat still lower so that the Canadian seller of wheat will receive a lower price than ever for his product.
In answer to the question as to where Canadian wheat will go, if not to Great Britain, let me ask this further question: Where has it been going? I have here the figures for the last three or four years, giving the exports of Canadian wheat. These figures are given for the years from 1927 to the present time. In 1927 Canada exported 255,000,000 bushels of wheat-I am giving simply the round figures. Of that quantity, 120,000,000 bushels went to the United Kingdom and 133,000,000 to foreign countries. In 1928 we exported 305,000,000 bushels, of which we sent 135,000,000 bushels to the United Kingdom and 229,000,000 bushels to foreign countries. In 1929 we exported 210,000,000 bushels, of which 84,000,000 bushels went to the United Kingdom and 126,000,000 to foreign countries. In
1930	we exported 207,000,000 bushels, and of this quantity we sent 77,000,000 bushels to Great Britain and 129,000,000 bushels to foreign countries. We come now to the year
1931	under the present government, and we find that in that year we exported 194,000,000 bushels, of which 63,000,000 bushels went to the United Kingdom and 131,000,000 bushels to foreign countries. In the fiscal year 1932 we exported 191,000,000 bushels, and of this quantity we sent 65,000,000 bushels to the United Kingdom and 126,000,000 bushels to foreign countries.
Is there any doubt about those figures? If there is, I will ask my hon. friend to consult the reports of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the year 1932 and at page 15 he will find the figures for 1931 given. He will find that these figures I have quoted are accurate.
Wool piece goods.. Wool overcoating. . High grade suitings Hosiery, wool.. .. Blankets, wool.. .. Axminster carpets..
Now what is going to happen in the other countries which we have caused to be penalized as a result of the tariff being put up by the United Kingdom against foreign exporters? The result is, Mr. Speaker, that we shall have a trade war, because other countries are not going to lie down and be quietly penalized. No; they will retaliate against us. Let me ask hon. gentlemen opposite a question with respect to lumber. Will they say that as a result of this agreement the United States government will not put up their tariff still higher against us? And what about my hon. friends from Prince Edward Island who sanction an increase in the duty on apples from the United States? What will they say if the United States retaliate and double the present exorbitant duty on potatoes going into that country? My hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) represents a fishing province. Will he say that as a result of this agreement the government of the United States will not put up still higher their duties against Nova Scotian fish going into the American markets?


Mr. DUFF:: Swordfish from Louisburg.


George Washington McPhee: I will address thyself more particularly to the question as it relates to western Canada. Notwithstanding the fact that the Canadian producer, under this so-called magnanimous agreement, is allowed to sell his wheat only at the lowest possible price at which the world will permit him to sell it, he is bled to death on every item of the tariff schedule. As one man said, he has to pay through the nose for everything he buys in consequence of having to buy his goods in a highly protected market. Let me put on Hansard a statement showing the increased cost of living to the farmer, the consumer of western Canada, as a result directly of this agreement we are now considering. I will give in each instance the Liberal tariff as it stood in 1930, the Conservative tariff under the present government before the conference, and the conference tariff:
Liberal tariff	Bennett tariff	
1930 Dunning	before	Conferencebudget	Conference	tariff24|%	62%	59%24|%	105%	91%241%	66%	63%224%	88%	77%201%	100%	72%224%	100%	78%
Everything that the farmer has to buy has agreement and a worse government, and the been increased as a result of this iniquitous only recompense he gets is the permission to
506	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
sell his goods at the lowest possible price at which the world will permit him to sell. Butter is 10 cents a pound and axle grease 20 cents a poimd.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hot air free.


George Washington McPhee: I will answer the hon. gentleman later; let me finish the list I am giving. Prior to the conference, cream separators came in free of duty; to-day they are subject to a duty of 25 per cent. The Minister of Agriculture will go back to Saskatchewan among the dairymen of that province and will say to them, "It is true, Mr. Farmer, that I could not get any higher price for your dairy products than the world market price; but keep on milking your cows and I will recompense you by adding 25 per cent to the cost of the machine by -which you separate the cream from the milk". Take barbed wire: there you have an increase in the price of 10 per cent as a result of the duty. Barbed wire has come into this country free of duty during the last twenty-five years, but the Minister of Agriculture, in his zeal for the farmers, will advise them to use more barbed wire. Hon. gentlemen from eastern Canada know nothing about barbed wire in comparison with the farmers of the west, owing to the small farms in the east and the number of railings that are available. But out in our great western country we are obliged to use a large amount of barbed wire. The Minister of Agriculture will go to the grain grower and say to him, "True, I could not get a higher price for your wheat than the world price, but I will recompense you by charging you 10 per cent higher on the quantity of barbed wire you use to fence your wheat fields".
Of the 223 items mentioned in the schedule, in connection with this agreement, the tariff has been increased on 139. Not only has this government gone mad in connection with high tariffs but their officials seem to be sitting up nights in order to conceive some new scheme to make still harder the lot of the poor Canadian importers.
I should like to give the house a few details in connection with the shipping of a email gift by a gentleman in the United States to his friend in my city. The gentleman in the United States, an American citizen, purchased a small piece of furniture to send to his friend as a gift, for which he paid $12.50 in American currency. This was eight or ten months ago and at that time, under the policies of this government, the Canadian dollar was worth only seventy-seven and a half cents in the United States. When this article reached our customs house, what happened?

I have the customs entry before me to prove my statement. Notwithstanding the fact that our money was at a discount of twenty-two and one-half per cent on the American market, the difference in value between the two currencies was added to the price of the article, making the import value $15.30. This gift, not a purchase, was taxed forty-five per cent duty plus four per cent sales tax and the recipient was forced to pay $7.76 in order to obtain a gift purchased in the United States for $12.50. Is it any wonder that every importer and business man of consequence in this country is harsh in his condemnation of the tactics of this government?
I have before me a statement with reference to the tariffs as they affect this country made in Gailgary a week or so ago by a gentleman from Great Britain.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not in the Calgary Eye Opener?


George Washington McPhee: No. This gentleman, Mr. H. Morris, is the manager of J. and N. Phillips and Company, exporters of Manchester. Upon his arrival he made the following very apt statement:
During the last three years we have exported less of our goods to Canada than for many years before, and this is due to a great extent to conditions in the dominion and to your ridiculous tariff policies. If your wheat belts are down the whole of Canada is down, and all the two-penny-half-penny manufacturers of eastern Canada cannot alter the situation. These tariffs are responsible for the high cost of living in the dominion and you people out in the west have to pay through the nose for all you get as the result.
Let me give one other illustration. This report of an interview with Sir Arthur Balfour appeared in the Winnipeg Evening Tribune, a Conservative paper. Sir Arthur Balfour is one of the leading British industrialists and economists; he is the head of one of the largest firms of steel manufacturers in the world, has served on numerous government commissions and economic delegations and has been decorated for his services by a number of European countries, so that there can be no doubt as to his qualifications. He says:
I think that tariffs have gone too far. They have their use and place, but when they are applied to inefficient as well as efficient industries, they go too far. We have been ignoring altogether the effects of our actions on our neighbours.
The following despatch from Germany quotes the former president of the Reichsbank as follows:
Hamburg, Germany, Oct. 20.-Hans Luther, former president of the Reichsbank, said to-day in an address to the overseas club that foreign

United Kingdom
countries must take the initiative toward reestablishment of free trade to enable Germany and other debtor nations to pay their creditors. Such measures as lifting restrictions on foreign currency, and consolidating short term credits will fail, he said, so long as customs barriers remain.
In closing this phase of my argument may I place on Hansard a statement by one of the world's greatest economists, Sir George Paish, as follows:
The basic industries of every country to-day are those whose products enjoy an international market. With prosperous basic industries, nations are prosperous. With their basic industries in depression, nations are in difficulties.
And again:
Restore the basic industries to prosperity and every nation will regain its prosperity.
He continues:
If the nations will now remove the mental, political, and artificial obstacles which they have erected so vigorously in recent years to the exchange of the world's products, the grave danger confronting them will steadily disappear, and they will enter upon a new period of greater trade expansion than they have ever experienced. In this way and this way alone can tile world's present unemployment and financial problems be solved.
And in conclusion:
How is it possible for anyone in any country to have any confidence in the future when every country is engaged in greater or lesser degree in shutting out the products of other countries, and by so doing shutting in its own products? And this too at a time when nations are in debt as never before and need ever-widening markets in which to sell their products in order to honour their obligations.
The poem by James Russell Lowell entitled "The Present Crisis," although written fifty years ago, is applicable to the present time. I should like to quote one verse for the benefit of the right hon. leader of the government. It reads:
For mankind are one in spirit, and an instinct bears along,
Round the earth's electric circle, the swift flash of right or wrong;
Whether conscious or unconscious, yet humanity's vast frame
Through its ocean-sundered fibres feels the gush of joy or shame;-
In the gain or loss of one race all the rest have equal claim.
I come now to another phase of my argument. I should like to refer to a statement made a few days ago in the parliament of Great Britain by Mr. Neville Chamberlain, the Imperial jingoist. He said:
The ties of the empire have been wearing dangerously thin. Canada had become to a great extent dependent upon United States finance and in the absence of any preferential agreement with the United Kingdom she
might have found it extremely difficult to refuse a new offer of reciprocity from her great neighbour to the south, which would definitely link their fortunes together to such an extent as would cause a divergence between Canada and Great Britain.
Where did Mr. Neville Chamberlain get the inspiration which caused him to utter that libel against the Canadian people? Was it from his contact with the jingoists of Canada around the imperial conference table? Let Neville Chamberlain come out to Canada ; let him meet the widows, the sisters and mothers of the 60,000 glorious dead of our country, and then say that the ties of empire are slipping. He took good care to wait until he crossed the Atlantic before making such a statement. Let him come back to Canada and visit the military hospitals at Ste. Anne and other places in Canada where men are suffering, broken in body and mind because of their efforts in defence of the empire, and make the statement that the bonds of empire are slipping. Let him come to this parliament of Canada where 245 members, the elected representatives of the Canadian people, without one dissenting voice, vote $50,000,000 a year as a partial contribution to the disability suffered by thousands of Canadians in the great war and would make it four times as much if that would bring those people back to health and strength, and then let him answer the question as to whether the bonds of empire are slipping in this country.
When the conflagration broke out in 1914, thousands of loyal Canadian citizens, in common with other loyal sons from other parts of the empire, flocked to the seat of war to assist the mother country in that struggle. By their meeting on the blood-stained fields of Europe, by the hardships which they endured, by the common obstacles which they had to surmount, by the common death which many of them died, they have given the answer to Neville Chamberlain that all the Chamberlains between here and the nether regions cannot alter the fact that Canada is loyal to Great Britain and the British crown.
Then we have the other insinuations in this parliament that because we oppose these agreements we are not loyal to the motherland. The other day the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) stated that my hon. friends opposite had secured from Great Britain preferences that we never could obtain. What is the attitude of the Conservative party in this country towards British preferences? Let me go back to 1897, to the first time in the history of Canada that a real preference was granted by the Canadian parliament
508	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
to Great Britain. That was a 25 per cent preference. What was the official attitude of the Tory party of that day? Let me put on Hansard the words Sir Charles Tupper, then leader of the Conservative party, uttered in this house on April 26, 1897, as reported at page 1291, of Hansard of that year. This is what he said after discussing the preference:
Now what is the result? The result is that this tariff goes into operation, and the hon. gentleman knows that the industries of this country are already paralyzed in consequence. While hon. members gloat, vindictively gloat, over the destruction of Canadian industries, I was reading the wail, the sorrowful wail, of those industries in the Montreal Gazette where one manufacturer after another declared that their industries were ruined, that their mills must close, and that they saw staring them in the face a return to the deplorable state of things that existed when the hon. gentleman who last addressed the house -was in charge of the fiscal policy of this country. I say that a deeper wrong was never inflicted upon Canada.
That is the official statement of the Conservative party with regard to the British preference.
Mr. LaVERGNE : Hear, hear.
Mr. MoPHEE: Let me tell my hon. friend the Deputy Speaker, who should at least keep quiet while the debate is going on-
Mr. LaVERGNE: Surely I can applaud the hon. gentleman!


George Washington McPhee: -that the record of the Liberal party in this country with regard to the British preference from 1897 down through the succeeding years when the preferences were still further extended, culminating in the Dunning budget of 1930, gives the lie to those who say that because we criticize these agreements, agreements conceived in political sin and shapen in economic iniquity, we are disloyal to the motherland and to the empire.
An hon. gentleman to my right, the hon. member for Antigonish-Cuysborough (Mr. Duff) reminds me of something that I had almost forgotten. The Liberal party in this country, let me tell my hon. friends opposite, was true and loyal to the British crown when the Tories of Canada were burning our parliament buildings. The Liberal party in this country was true and loyal to British institutions when the Tories of Canada were pelting with rotten eggs the representative of the sovereign of England. The Liberal party in this country was true to Great Britain when the Tories of Canada were signing the only annexation pact ever signed in this country. Let us hear no more of this nonsense about Canadian loyalty.

Let me refer in this connection to an editorial that appeared in the Toronto Globe on October 18 under the heading, An Undefended Empire. It reads:
Mr. Hector Bywater, naval correspondent of the London Daily Telegraph, has made the disclosure that "informal conversations at Ottawa during the recent Imperial conference revealed to British ministers unexpected readiness on. the part of Canada, Australia and New Zealand to recognize their obligations in the cause of empire sea defence."
I should like to ask the government what this means. It has not been denied; it has not been contradicted; therefore we must assume it to be true. Is it a fact that those who have foisted upon the people of Canada this iniquitous agreement are going still further to place us in the position of building up a military caste to enforce the tariff policy which they have brought forth in connection with this agreement? What is the answer? I shall ask the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) or any other member of the government to give the answer when he rises to reply.
The other day the Solicitor General, I presume in an unguarded moment, stated that they were ready to appeal to the country, to let the people decide.


An hon. MEMBER:: No, he did not.


George Washington McPhee: Well, let me change it around. It may seem easier for my hon. friends opposite to understand it the way I put it- let the people decide. Let me tell my hon. friends opposite that whenever they are ready to appeal to the country, just as surely as day succeeds night, whenever the next appeal to the country comes, whether it comes soon or late-and pray God it may be soon for the good of Canada-around the Tory party the black robe will be wrapped, its funeral requiem will be sung and the intelligence of the people of Canada will carry it to the grave of its political incapacity, unwept, unhonoured and unsung.


Mr. C. H. DICKIE (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the political address of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat (Mr. McPhee) I feel that an apology is almost due to this house for my attempting to speak on this question at all. The arguments that have been advanced by the ministers on this side of the house seem to me to have been so conclusive as to make it almost a waste of time for me to speak, but as this debate has become a free for all I rise lest those who have sent me here might consider if I remained inarticulate that I acquiesced in some of the views that have been expressed from the opposite side of the house.

United Kingdom
This debate, Mr. Speaker, has gone far afield, from the trenches in Flanders to Mahatma Gandhi, and1 even to high heaven. The ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has told us that he interceded with high heaven on behalf of the Imperial conference which recently sat here. He prayed that it would be successful. In view of the remarks he made later on in his address I am perhaps safe in assuming that he felt as a nurse once thought her patient felt when he was very ill. He had been a very careless man, and when he was coming out of the anaesthetic *after an operation he noticed that the blinds of his window were down. He asked the nurse, "Why have you the room dark?" She replied, "There is a fire across the street, and knowing you as well as I do, I thought perhaps if you saw the fire when you recovered consciousness you would come to the conclusion that the operation was unsuccessful". I would like to know the exact wording of the intercession with which the ex-Minister of Justice appealed to high heaven. What is the use, Mr. Speaker, of his talking such nonsense in this house when we all know that it was the wish [DOT]of hon. gentlemen opposite that that conference would be a failure. We all know how they derided our leader when he came back from the conference in London in 1930 which led to the conference recently held here. The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) all through his speech exhibited his spleen, and you could see the disappointment in his face over the fact that the conference had been a success. This country is going through very serious times and the government is trying to do something that will benefit Canada and the mother country and the other dominions of the empire. We can talk politics as much as we like, but every man within the sound of my voice to-night must realize the seriousness of the situation which confronts Canada at the present time. We in the past have sown the wind and now we are reaping the whirlwind. It will require the very best brain power we have in this country to extricate Canada from the position in which she finds herself due to the present state of world affairs.
I thought when the right hon. leader of the opposition was delivering his speech what a wonderful opportunity he had lost. If he had risen and simply said, "Mr. Speaker, though this treaty contains some features with which I am not in accord I realize that it is a well-intentioned and earnest attempt to try to do something for Canada and the British Empire, and therefore I and my party will stand shoulder to shoulder with the government and
give it a fair trial and see if it does not accomplish something for Canada",-if he had done that, he would have been acclaimed throughout Canada. But he missed his opportunity. If he had risen to the occasion as did his honoured leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in 1914, Canada would have thought more of him than it does at the present time.
The right hon. leader of the opposition prates about world markets. Where are the world markets that we have not attempted to enter? Take the United States. We all know what happened under the Fordney-McCumber tariff. The cattle men of the southwest and of the western United States protested against Canadian cattle and Canadian live stock entering the Chicago market, and the Fordney-McCumber tariff was enacted against the importation of Canadian cattle into the United States. That ruined scores of cattle men throughout the western prairies and in Ontario as well. That tariff made it absolutely impossible for Canadians to export their cattle and other live stock to the Chicago market. The United States did that, not in any spirit of retaliation at all; they were simply following one of their principles, the principle of holding their own market for their own producers. But it is well known what ruin that brought to the cattle industry on the Canadian prairies. Later on, after the dairy branch of the cattle industry had succeeded in regaining a little of the ground that had been lost, the late Liberal government made a treaty with Australia and New Zealand, and again our dairymen got a setback and our herds began to decrease. We are now looking for some way to bring back prosperity to our people who are engaged in that branch of agriculture.
The right hon. leader of the opposition talks about world markets and breaking into them. How would you break into the market of our good neighbours across the line? They are following the line of tariff policy which suits them, and we have no reason to criticize them. But look what happened to Canada as a result of the Hawley-Smoot tariff. We had been shipping $30,000,000 worth of lumber to the United States annually and that country had also been our best market for our copper, zinc and lead. Almost overnight the United States imposed a duty of $3 a thousand on our lumber, at the behest of the lumbermen of Oregon and Washington, and that meant an embargo on Canadian lumber shipments to the United States. They also imposed a duty of four cents a pound on copper, and further duties on zinc and lead which pre-

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
eluded the shipment of any of these metalliferous products to the United States. They did that, not from any desire to retaliate against us for something that we had done, but because the lumbermen and the miners of the United States had said that they must have the United States market for American producers. So we are now out of the United States market except for our wheat which we send over there under a tariff of 42 cents a bushel, and our wheat is used to raise the grade of their flour, which is then shipped and sold in the markets of the world in competition with Canadian flour and when exported a 99 per cent rebate of the duty is allowed. I may say that the privilege is very much abused.
The vociferous member who has just taken his seat (Mr. McPhee) did not tell us how much wheat we shipped into the United States under that tariff of 42 cents a bushel. We did ship a large quantity there, and he includes that as among shipments to foreign countries when it was actually shipped to the United States to raise the grade of their flour to beat us in the markets of the world. What can we ship to France today with its embargo tariff on wheat? It is impossible for us to ship our wheat there. The wheat question is a very, very serious one, and I wish someone in this chamber knew the answer to it. No wheat farmer in Canada can succeed with wheat. at 28 cents a bushel. You can give them their old fetish, free trade, or tariff for revenue, or take the tariff off entirely, and they cannot succeed with wheat at 28 cents a bushel. Therefore something must be done. What can be done? We do not know. The Imperial conference which sat at Ottawa I believe did the best that could possibly be done. It at least assured us of a market in Great Britain, although not assuring us of any stated price for our wheat. It would have been impossible for it to do that. When the terms of these agreements which have been entered into between the different dominions of the British Empire, which comprise one-fourth of the world's population, are given a chance to succeed, as I believe they will, an impetus will be given to world trade generally, and as times become better the price of wheat will improve, and there will then be some chance for our western farmers. At the present time their plight is appalling. We are going to succeed. We will pull through, but- we will require the services of the best brains in this country and in the empire.
We know how near to disaster Great Britain was when she went off the gold standard; we

know, further, that throughout the world times are bad. We know that one of the greatest reasons for present economic distress is the burden of debt under which the world is struggling. I do not know how the world will pay its debts. We in Canada have held our heads high; we have met every obligation, and 'by so doing are honoured throughout the world. Had England adopted the policy of that ungodly country known as Russia and repudiated all her debts, there would be prosperity in the British Empire.
We are playing the game; we are playing it fair and laying our cards on the table. When we enter into treaties with British dominions or with the mother country, what is not said is just as important as what is said. We will play the game with each other; that is the foundation upon which we shall build a superstructure which will enure to the advantage and benefit of the whole British empire.
We have heard many statements made on behalf oif that old man of the sea, free trade. What woidd have happened to this country if during the depression we had had a policy of free trade?


Edward James Young: Better times.


Charles Herbert Dickie: Every manufacturer in Canada would have gone out of business; our country would have been flooded with products dumped from Czechoslovakia and other countries. Before I left the west I noticed1 some pottery from the country I have mentioned, and I wondered how freight could be paid and the price remain so small. The articles to which I am referring sold at little or nothing. We cannot compete with people in that country, nor can we compete with the people of Germany or France, because we have a higher standard of living anid better wage scales than obtain in those countries. We are trying to maintain our higher standard, and I 'believe we shall be able to do so.
We talk about blazing our way into the markets of the world. The only way we can do so is to show that the British Empire is self-contained and deal within the empire, just as the American states deal within themselves. By so doing eventually we will get 'back on solid ground. Free trade is a lost canse throughout the world. If theoretically it is correct- and I am not making that admission'-certainly it is not practicable and could not be economically sound in a little country of only 9,000.000 people lying adjacent to another country with a population of over 120,000,000 operating under a protective tariff. We know what has happened in the past. The American

United Kingdom
people would not take any of our manufactured goods. Finally they shut out our lumber, copiper, zinc and lead. Do we suppose for one minute that we could enter their markets with our manufactured products? Not at all. Overnight duties wouild be put on which would stop our goods at the border. How, then, are we to trade advantageously with our neighbours? They are doing what they have a perfect right to do. We found, however, that we had to look somewhere else for our markets. At an earlier time we had an extensive trade with the United States. In the year 1925 we imported nearly $900,000,000 worth of goods from that country, and suffered an adverse balance of trade to the extent of $350,000,000. That is enough to ruin any 9,000,000 people -on the face of the earth. They bought our pulp, paper, timber, lumber and commodities of that nature, and in return we bought manufactured products. Our workmen went to the United States, and worked in American factories to manufacture the articles bought by Canadians.
Finally the worm turned. When this government assumed office it saw the fallacy of such practices. The wonder is that we were not bankrupt long before. We saw our difficulty earlier than England did. She was suffering from an inundation of products from Germany and other countries to whose markets she could not get access with, her manufactured articles. To remedy the difficulty we put on duties which prevented goods coming from the United States as readily as they had come in the past. The Americans gave us credit for our actions; they realized how foolish we had been when, throughout the long years, we had been buying their manufactured goods. The best of our bone and sinew was migrating to the United States to work in factories so that goods might be manufactured and sent back to Canada. Our money and our people were going to that country. However, matters could go only so far. and they went a little farther than they should have gone. With their immense industrial improvements and their labour saving devices they find themselves with an idle population of 11,000,000 with whom they know not what to do. I do not know how they will ever find work for that great number. Those people went to the United States when she was at the peak of production, and supplying the world. Finally the world has adopted the policy originally taken by our neighbours to the south, and is not buying. Therefore it is impossible to say how that 11,000,000 people can be put to work. Certainly work must be found or chaos will inevitably be the
result. That country will be the stamping ground for soap box orators, communists and agitators trying to stir up in the minds of the people opposition to the government.
This government has attempted to remedy the condition, and I believe a very earnest effort was made during the Imperial economic conference to effect improvements. I believe therefore it is with very bad grace that my hon. friends opposite do not acknowledge the earnestness of the effort put forth at the conference. I believe they should have thrown their lot in with us and said, "Let us give this a trial; we will stand with you. We will not abjure our party principles, but will stand behind you and see if the conference will bring some of the benefits you are claiming."
There are articles in the agreement in connection with which there will be criticisms, and properly so. It was impossible for Canada to get all she would have liked, and it was likewise impossible for England to get everything she wanted. It was a case of bargaining and granting concessions, making arrangements which would help the world and the British Empire. Many of the criticisms offered are not well taken. We listened to two well reasoned and moderate speeches, one by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore) and the other by the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm). It was apparent while listening to these men that their hearts were not in their work. I am convinced they believe the treaty will be of benefit to Canada, and they as much as said so. I believe the hon. member for North Bruce, one of the outstanding men in the house, was giving up for party something which would be for the benefit of mankind. One could see his heart was not with the opposition, and the hearts of many hon. members opposite are not against us.. Liberals and Conservatives have a common cause; for God's sake let us forget the political claptrap such as characterized the remarks of the hon. member who preceded me. Let us talk common sense, get together and see if we cannot lift this country out of the depression so that the people who are walking the streets may have something to do-. We would do much if we put our heads together and forget party politics for a while. If the right hon. leader of the opposition will forget them for a while I assure hon. members he will be more popular. To the man on the street the term "politician" is anathema. We should 'be ashamed to be mere politicians, under present conditions. People are getting tired of stump speeches, they want results, they want energetic men. There are honest, able men on both sides of this house. In the comer to my right
512	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
are men who are absolutely sincere, but who are trying to forge weapons, such as inflation of currency, with which I do not believe anything useful can be achieved. However, they believe in what they preach. The majority of those opposite me believe in the proposals advanced by the Liberal party, but they are not good enough for the people of Canada at the present time.
My time is about up, and I will conclude by saying only this: I consider that the recent Imperial conference in Ottawa, was one of the greatest events in empire history in recent years. Eminent people met from all parts of the empire, with the firm desire to do something, willing to make concessions, to give in order to get, with the purpose of binding the empire into a harmonious whole. I consider that conference and its results a wonderful tribute to the great leader of the Conservative party in Canada, who gathered these people together whose deliberations were so harmonious and whose conclusions were unanimous. I believe we are now turning the corner. We do not yet see the clouds breaking and the sun shining on the economic horizon, but the brighter time is coming, and we should get together and do our very best putting politics aside, in a united effort to lift Canada out of the morass in which she is struggling. Think of a country of nine or ten million people having such a burden of debt to pay to the United States as we have, about $2,000,000 a week, I think, including the municipal, provincial and national debts; going there to pay interest on money we borrowed when we should have been laying some up for a rainy day. We sowed the wind and we are reaping the whirlwind. I listened to the very excellent speech of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) this afternoon; we are all delighted to listen to his honest, sincere expressions, and I wished he might be right, but I can hardly see how his theory of having our dollar bear a fixed ratio to the pound is going to lift Canada out of the depression or give us a better price for our wheat. That $2,000,000 a week interest has to be paid in the United States in gold. With such a scheme as he proposed, I am afraid our Canadian dollar would very quickly drop to the equivalent of the reduction on the British pound, somewhere about seventy cents, and we would be paying a premium of thirty cents on the dollar to our American creditors. I am afraid such a proposal is fantastic. We must bend our shoulders under the load, economize as best we can, and eventually we will reach the plateau of prosperity.
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster) (Mr. Speaker, I should like at the outset to
[Mr. Dickie.i
make an observation in regard to a remark of the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Man-ion) the other afternoon. I was rather surprised when he flung the accusation across the floor of the house that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) would be praying to be in the position of the government. It is not long since the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) said to the leader of the opposition and to the Liberal members generally that we were going around the country thanking heaven that we are not in power. Perhaps some members of the government now wish to heaven that we were there instead of themselves.
It is only natural and to be expected that when the Prime Minister laid these agreements before the house he would put them in the best possible light. Personally I congratulate the Prime Minister on the way he presented them and on his speech generally. But I have a fault to find with the interpretation and impressions that have gone forth regarding that speech and the agreements as a whole. The idea seems to be suggested that this is the greatest gesture of free trade that has ever been offered the old country in Canada's history. I cannot agree with that, because I remember the Dunning budget, which offered greater freedom of trade than the agreement now before the house.
I shall not go into the items in too much detail, but I will mention six: wool piece goods, wool overcoatings, wool hosiery, wool blankets, cotton printed goods and white cotton flannelette. Those are all articles used generally and in large quantities by the people of Canada, and it is rather remarkable that the greatest reduction of all, on which the government perhaps should be complimented, is a reduction of 24 per cent on tiles for the roofs of houses.
One of the first acts of the Conservative party when it came into power was to abrogate the Dunning budget. If the trade agreements now before us were to constitute a great gesture before the world for freer trade, then I believe they could have gone much further downward than they have done, be-couse there are many articles on which the duties are now two, three and even four times higher than under the Dunning budget.
Referring to the Prime Minister's statement that outside countries must contribute if they want to trade with the empire, I fear that statement might very well provoke retaliation and perhaps combines on the part of other countries. Rumours of this we have heard already, some countries threatening not to use Canadian or British ships.

United. Kingdom
The Liberals have been asked to accept these agreements in the proper spirit. I would like to remind lion, members of the manner in which these agreements were presented to the house. First we were told that the policy of high protection was the policy enunciated by the Conservative party prior to the election of 1930. Then we were informed in no uncertain terms that at the conference of 1930 the high protection policies of the Conservative party were advanced by the present government. The right hon. Prime Minister further stated: "We have succeeded where the Liberals have failed"; and again, "we"-with the emphasis on the "we"-"have done well." Such language, Mr. Speaker, I claim is partisan and not conducive to national spirit.
There have been many references on the part of hon. members to loyalty to the empire. I think that kind of talk should be eliminated. I do not believe any hon. member should accuse any one person or party of having more loyalty or less, than another because each of us here is a Canadian, and we are proud of it. That talk of loyalty to the empire is very much to be deprecated. Would any hon. member dare to accuse the Labour or Liberal leaders in the old country of being disloyal to Great Britain or the empire because they have seen fit to oppose and criticize these agreements? The Labour party there have plainly stated that they will not support this agreement, and if returned to power, they assert, they will abrogate the treaty entirely. Will any hon. gentleman accuse such men as Sir Herbert Samuel, Arthur Henderson, Philip Snowden and others of equally high standing of disloyalty to the motherland or to the empire, merely because they have made such statements? Of course not. Then why accuse hon. members in this house of such a base thought? Why accuse them of disloyalty either to Canada or to the empire merely because they stand up here and dare to criticize the agreements that have been signed? And just remember that it was the same Philip Snowden who, when resigning, is credited with saying that the agreements were being rushed through before the full story at Ottawa was known.
I should like at this time to join my protest with that of the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) when he said that nothing bad been done at the conference in regard to unemployment. It was an economic conference, but economics was the one thing that was not discussed. Unemployment, the gravest problem facing not only Canada but the entire world today, received no attention. There was, however, one delegate who had in mind something different from trade agree-53719-33
ments. Trade agreements had only recently been signed with New Zealand and a little earlier with Australia. I refer to the Hon. Mr. Bruce, who made some very pertinent remarks at the opening of the conference. He said:
Our accomplishment, however, is not limited by what we can achieve in the realm of intraempire trade. I believe that in monetary policy we can take action which will be a contribution towards the restoration of prices, confidence and stability.
Today the world is not suffering from any lack of commodities. The production of wealth has, with the aid of science, attained to a point never previously reached and is sufficient to provide a standard of living higher than has previously existed. Yet we have millions of people unemployed, and the general standard of living is declining. This position is a challenge to our civilization. To fail to find a solution is an indictment of statesmanship in the empire and throughout the world. AH peoples are looking for a lead on this problem. Let us here at Ottawa attempt to give it. There is no reason why we cannot within our own group of nations, associated as we assuredly would be with other nations whose monetary policy is closely linked to ours, take the first steps to restore world trade. Such a development would gain the adherence of many other countries and with the strength thus gathered the way would be paved for the solution of what is perhaps the greatest problem that has ever baffled mankind.
Here was one delegate who evidently expected that more matters than trade agreements were to be discussed. As I have already said, trade agreements had only recently been signed with New Zealand and Australia. Having in mind all this and also the fact that practically every person who has given a rudimentary study to the subject of economics will and indeed does admit that tariff barriers have stifled the trade of the world, with the result that standards of living for millions of the people of the world have disappeared, let us ask ourselves seriously this question: Has Ottawa shown the world a way, or is this just another high tariff policy of the Conservative party, fastened upon the Canadian people for five years and also binding the hands of future parliaments for that length of time so far as world trade is concerned? That is the question as it appears to me. Has the conference given a lead in the matters Mr. Bruce spoke of, or is this merely another trade agreement binding future parliaments for five years in regard to trade not only with the colonies and the motherland but, as well, with the countries of the world at large?
I wish to dwell for a moment on the effect of tariffs generally. Tariffs in the early days were introduced I believe as a source of revenue. Later on, tariffs were divided some-

514	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
what, partly as a source of revenue and partly to afford reasonable protection to some industries. But now we have a direct change from all that. We have a diversion of trade, as indicated iby hon. members to the left of Mr. Speaker, coupled with the provision that all other outside countries shall pay tribute if they wish to trade within the empire. Some years ago competition was considered the life of trade, and competition in those days was very necessary to trade. In my opinion it was necessary for two reasons-to keep up the quality of goods and also to keep down the price of goods to the consumer. But competition has been entirely eliminated today; tariff barriers have changed this very considerably. There is no competition in business today, at least in most modern businesses. What with trusts, combines, cartels and large companies, competition, as I say, has been entirely eliminated. And this in my opinion has been one of the contributory causes of putting wealth into the hands of the few. One could cite many instances of combinations that have eliminated all competition in the commodities used by the masses of mankind, such as aluminum, glass, soap, threads, cotton, gasoline, cement, flour and, I was almost going to say, coal. I think I will mention coal because, from the price charged here, it is evident, to me at any rate, that a combine does exist. Large concerns get around tariffs nowadays very easily; they place factories or large units in each country and ship from each of these places, thus avoiding tariff barriers or restrictions. I am not as much concerned as the Prime Minister with the fate of these industries, because their very last thought or idea is the welfare of labour or of mankind. Their very first thought, their first and only thought, is wealth-wealth for themselves.
May I say, sir, that many reports reach us in British Columbia about the solicitude of the Prime Minister with regard to trade with Russia. I have here an article which I think describes the situation fairly well. It is written by Mr. H. Napier Moore. Speaking about part of the proceedings, he says:
The ultimatum, of course, was from Mr. Bennett and required Britain to denounce her trade treaty with Russia. Mr. Moore says; "There was a scene. There was another the next day when Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Runciman and Mr. Chamberlain urged the Canadian prime minister to think of their political position at home. . . . Mr. Bennett intimated that if they were in an embarrassing position with Russia they had got themselves into it and that it was up to them to get out of it; that he had to think of his own position, too, and particularly what he deemed to be the interests of Canada."
FMr. Reid.]
I have heard hon. members deprecate dealings with Russia. I have here an article with regard to what is transpiring at the moment in the old country:
A coincidence which can not but embarrass Conservative members of the National government was a speech last night by Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland, Labour minister in the last Conservative government, who, on returning from a visit to Russia, declares in effect his conviction that the policy now adopted is wrong, and says that much as he dislikes some aspects of the Soviet regime, he is in "favour of increasing trade with Russia as much as possible." He proceeded to express the conviction that permanence of the Soviet regime was assured and advocated not only increased trading with Russia, but assistance with the capital she urgently needed.
This is an old country authority, Conservative at that, speaking about increasing trade with Russia. He continues:
It has become immediately apparent that the government's action in denouncing the Russian agreement takes precedence over all else in public importance. Domestically there are bound to be repercussions for many thousands of workers in the industrial midlands and the north depend at present for their livelihood on Russian orders. The Labour Herald declares that nearly 50,000 would be thrown out of work in Lancashire alone if these orders ceased.
Mr. Thomas made it clear in the terms of the communication sent to Russia that Great Britain desired more trade with that country. I think that fact should be impressed upon hon. members to your right, Mr. Speaker, and especially upon the Prime Minister, who the reports say almost wept at the thought of trading with this socialist country, as he described Russia. I am not carried away with such lamentations. I find it very hard to understand how he could plead with tire British delegates not to trade with Russia while at the same time negotiations were being carried on by the aluminum interests of this country for the exchange of their products for Russian oil. The statistics show that the imports of crude petroleum, not in its natural state, amounted to 4,323,515 gallons valued at over 8195,000, of which over 2,500,000 gallons valued at $110,000 came from Russia. I wonder what the Prime Minister means by saying to Great Britain: "For heaven's sake cut off your trade with Russia," and then permitting the aluminum interests in Canada to enter into such trading negotiations. If it were coal it might not be so bad, because at the present time the consumer in Canada is being charged more for British than for American anthracite. This seems to be a deliberate hold up and steal and should be looked into. Such conditions should not be

United Kingdom
permitted to continue during times of stress. British anthracite is being 'landed at cost of around $8 per ton, while it costs $12 to land a ton of American anthracite, yet the consumer is being charged $18 per ton for British anthracite while he pays only $14 or $15 per ton for American. When I hear these lamentations about trade with Russia my candid opinion is that I wish there was more of it -and remember, we have lots of wheat.
Mention has been made of cartels, combinations and trusts, but this is the same aluminum company wrhich appeared before the tariff board set up under tfhe Liberal regime and asked that a tariff be imposed upon aluminum goods coming into Canada from their own company in the States. Why was that done? So that they could further exploit the people of this country. That is what has happened and will happen again under the protection given to our industrialists. More will be exacted from the people; more profits will be made, and the working man will be the last to be considered.
There are one or two matters upon whjph I should like to touch regarding the agreements but, as I say, it would have been better had the items been considered first so that we could have had explanations of many of them. The first matter to which I shall refer is the cattle embargo. I am glad that this embargo has been lifted, but this thought goes through my mind: What would have happened if there had not been trouble between the Irish Free State and Great Britain? The delegates from the Irish Free State were here to tell the people of Canada that that market was there. In passing, may I say it seems strange that we get the worst of it in our agreement with the Irish Free State. We permit the goods from that country to enter Canada under the British preferential rate while our goods are to be subject to the lowest tariff. At the present time the lowest tariff on agricultural products is prohibitive. The lowest tariff on barley is seven shillings per hundredweight, and on oats, five shillings -two of our principal commodities.
I paid a great deal of attention this afternoon to the speech of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir), and I noticed that he took up considerable time criticising, or lambasting, as I should say, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell). The minister never delivers a speech, either inside or outside of the house, without making these two gentlemen the objects of his tirades. He stated that there were just three uses for wheat-to supply human needs, for seeding purposes, and for the feeding of 53719-33*
live stock. What then is the cause of the present low price of wheat? Last year the dumping of wheat by Russia was given as the cause of the low price, but no one has mentioned the dumping of wheat by Germany, which is purchasing considerable wheat from Canada and dumping her own wheat into Great Britain because her own producers or farmers receive a bonus on their exports of wheat. The minister has mentioned three uses for wheat, but I am giving another-it can be bought up by one country in order that it may export its own wheat and so receive a bonus.
Nothing was done at the conference with regard to price levels. This matter of great importance should have been dealt with. If at all possible there should be one unit of value. Mr. Moore says:
The British delegates felt that Canada was responsible for wrecking the London conference of 1930 and that this dominion had acted unfairly in raising the duties against Britain before going to the bargaining table that year and offering, as a great favour, to take them off again,-or a part of them. Also, they knew that

This is very important as bearing on this matter.
-Canada alone among the countries of the world made regulations to ensure that Britain should obtain no trading advantage from the decline of the value of her currency. And they found at the conference that Canada was disposed to give little and demand much.
Above all others, the question of a unit of value should have been discussed. If there is going to be an equality of trade there should be a unit of value acceptable alike to all countries in the empire.
There are many of the agricultural items about which I am in doubt, but I should like to refer particularly to honey and prepared milk products. I notice that nothing has been said in the Canadian agreement about the entry of honey or prepared milk, if we except condensed milk. In the Australian and New Zealand agreements honey, prepared milk and condensed sweetened milk are mentioned, but in the United Kingdom-Canada agreement, while we have sweetened condensed milk no mention is made either of honey or of other prepared milks. This is significant, and when the time comes the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) may give us an explanation. I have in mind the three large combines which control the sweetened condensed milk trade of this country. I am just wondering whether something has not been put over our farmers' associations who have milk powder and evaporated milk to dispose of; because to me it is significant that those two articles are left out. If, as the Prime
516	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
Minister has stated, we are to receive the same benefits, it is strange they are not mentioned at all.
I now come to an item in the tariff which affects British Columbia, and that is eggs. While it is very acceptable to have a preference on eggs entering the old country, I am not convinced of the great advantage offered the poultrymen of British Columbia, due to the high freight rates on the feed which they use, thus increasing the costs of production. To show that these ideas are not only my own, may I quote an article in which the Deputy Minister of Agriculture of British Columbia speaks along the same lines. This was at a large meeting of poultrymen held in New Westminster, where among other matters affecting the poultry industry the quantity of eggs going from China was mentioned. It will surprise many to know that 40,000 tons of prepared eggs went from China last year to the British market. Mr. Munro, speaking of the arrangement that we have entered into now, says:
"You cannot profitably supply the export market," said Mr. Munro, "unless your problem of feed supply is worked out. There is no doubt that present excessive domestic rates on feed grain to this coast are a barrier to the development of the poultry industry."
Mr. Ruttledge, of Chilliwack, for twenty-three years a prominent and successful poultry rancher, questioned whether the industry could flourish as it should without an adjustment of freight rates on feed grains. He said:
"Undoubtedly we are being taxed to bonus the wheat grower," said Mr. Ruttledge. "I feel that in excessive charges for feeds which I use I pay a bonus of $500 a year to the wheat farmers. The difference between the export rate on grain from the prairies and the rate which we pay for feed grain is, any way one looks at it, a bonus to the wheat grower. We pay it to the railway, and the railway pays it to the wheat grower.
"In the face of the present unemployment problem, the freight rate situation with respect to grain to Vancouver is worthy of investigation. If grain goes abroad and is handled mechanically from the cars to the elevators and the ships and few men are engaged on the process, the freight rate is low. But if we buy the grain for feed, employ a great number of men to hande it, distribute it and feed it to thousands of flocks of poultry throughout the coast area, we are taxed excessively for the privilege."
Nothing is said in the schedule about the entry of prepared eggs or frozen eggs, yet China alone shipped last year some 40,000 tons of that product.
With regard to fish, it is true that some consideration has been given to fish products, but let me mention one incident that occurred this year by way of showing how some

canneries get around the difficulty. Some 28,000 sockeye salmon were brought from across the line and canned in canneries by Chinese help, and these will probably go out to the old country marked "Canadian" under any preference enjoyed by Canadian manufacturers. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we are close to the boundary line there, and the boundary line is close to the mouth of the Fraser river. Those fish were caught in United States waters by United States citizens and brought into this country. They were canned, as I say, by Chinese help. They will go out as Canadian fish. That is one way in which those people will get around any preference given to Canadians.
Regarding agriculture, the result of the conference seems to have resolved itself _ into this:	We have provided something; it is up
to you farmers now to go and help yourselves. It reminds one of the old saying that God helps those who help themselves. But to the industries the agreement says:	We will help you to help yourself to
the Canadian public by the protective tariff. There is an article that I should like to read to the house. It will show how Mr. Morris outlines the result in regard to at least one item in the tariff. He says:
"I say that your retail prices for textile goods of all kinds in Canada are outrageously high.
"Virtually everything in textile costs the Canadian consumer buying from your retail stores double what they cost in English stores.
"This is due solely to the ridiculously high duty on textiles, especially on British-made textiles.
"All your Canadian prices are based on the imported price plus duty. The duty being high, it follows that the price must be outrageously high."	.
Mr. Morris took one line as a case in point. It is a cotton cloth which his firm has sold across Canada for years and which for several technical reasons "cannot be made in Canada." It is sold by the firm in forty-two countries of the world.
In Germany, he said, the same exact cloth pays a duty of three cents a yard. In Canada the duty is twelve cents a yard. How the Canadian duty is made up he explains in detail.
First, there is the dumping duty on exchange, which works out at fourteen per cent. Manchester pays in gold for its raw cotton and chemicals, so that the sterling price is proportionately higher than if the finished article were also sold on the gold basis.
The Canadian customs charges the difference between the quoted price of the pound, in Canadian dollars, and the fixed rate for duty purposes of $4.40, and this works out at about fourteen per cent on present quotations.
Then there is the Canadian tariff rate, ostensibly 20 per cent ad valorem, which is really 25 per cent, because it is assessed on a pound on its old value of $4.86.

United Kingdom
Again, on Thursday there was an additional specific duty of two cents a pound which on Wednesday, prior to Mr. Bennett's "reduction," was three cents a pound.
"That reduction means exactly one-seventh of a cent a yard on a cloth that sells in Canada at thirty-nine cents retail. Just twice the price in London, and the price in Australia when we sell in quantity is only 50 per cent more than in London.
"That is because Australia charges only 54 per cent total duty on British textiles, while they charge American and other countries 21J per cent.
"That means that Australia gives a preference to the British article of 80 per cent of the actual duty paid.
"Row I ask a simple question. How can you expect us in Lancashire and Yorkshire, where we have as many employed in the textile trade as in the whole of Canada-how can you expect us to buy Canadian products when you will not take our goods in return?"
Mr. Morris thinks it unfortunate for Canada that the cost of so many commodities is so exceptionally high as compared with other countries, and that this is bound to have an effect on the cost of production of wheat and other natural products which must be exported to world markets in competition.
"If Canadian cotton manufacturers require all the protection I have outlined, they must be in an exceptionally bad way. The protection amounts altogether to virtually 60 per cent. It is actually the highest in the world. Why, in some cases we can deliver our goods duty-paid in the United States at lower prices than in Canada, in spite of United States tariffs that have made that country notorious," Mr. Morris said.
Australia, as a result of the Ottawa agreement, has reduced the tariff on many lines of British goods. On manufactured woollens the reduction was 50 per cent of total duty.
India has increased the preference on cotton goods from 61 to 25 per cent of the value of the goods, with the result that the duty is now' 25 per cent on British cottons and 50 per cent on all others.
"In plain English I say that you in British Columbia and your neighbours in the wheat belt are paying through the nose to bolster up the textile industry of eastern Canada.
"Mr. Bennett may think Canada can go forward on a bolstered textile industry, but my opinion is that she will go backward if the wheat grower is to be handicapped. My observation in twenty years of visiting Canada is that when wheat crops are good, all Canada is good, and when wheat is bad all Canada suffers.
"Denmark might be a lesson for Mr. Bennett and for Canada. Denmark sells butter, bacon and eggs to England, and because she has furnished just what is wanted-
And that is important.
"-she got the English market.
"In spite of slump conditions, Denmark in the first six months of 1932 bought 12J per cent more British goods than ever before. In return for the British buying, she is pushing the sale of British goods.
"Even the Danish banks are advising their own importers to huy more British goods whenever possible. That is how Denmark works to retain her English market."
I am afraid my time is up, but it will be evident, Mr. Speaker, from my remarks that I cannot support the resolution before the house.


Mr. HARRY BUTCHER (Last Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, during the past two years, as you have been constantly reminded today, we have been passing through a very serious time, a period of great depression, and during that time many of us have been alternating between hope and fear-the hope that conditions were about to improve, and the fear that the worst was yet to come. We have snatched with avidity at straws that seemed to indicate a turn in the tide, only to be disappointed and find that the signs had failed. A slight upturn in the stock market, a few cents increase in the price of wheat, have at times inspired us with the belief that the depression was about to end.
But for some months prior to August last there was throughout the whole of this country, as one hon. member said this afternoon, a ray of hope, and that ray of hope found its source in the forthcoming imperial conference. The conference has passed into the realm of history, and the members of this parliament have now gathered here to consider the agreements there made, to analyze their provisions, to approve or to disapprove, and to pass our judgment upon them. Believing, as many of us do, that one of the chief causes of our present condition is the stagnation or near stagnation of trade which prevails throughout the world, we cannot but think that while much that was good was done at that conference, other things were done that we from this side of the house certainly cannot approve. In so far as reductions were made in the duties imposed on British goods entering Canada, I am sure that every member on this side of the house approves; but in so far as increases were made in intermediate and general tariffs against other countries, I feel that we cannot approve.
We had hoped that when the statesmen of the empire met together they would by some means evolve measures that would result in the wheels of industry again turning at full capacity, bringing a new and hitherto unexperienced prosperity to the primary producers of this country. We had hoped that something would be done to clear the channels of trade which had become so filled with obstacles, artificial impediments to that free flow of trade which is so desirable in this world. Amongst those obstacles I might
518	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
mention ad valorem duties, specific duties, excise duties, dumping duties, arbitrary valuations for duty purposes, arbitrary valuation of the pound for duty purposes. We had hoped that the conference might see its way to remove some of these obstacles and clear not only the channels of trade within the British Empire but also those that flow between Canada and foreign nations. That the desire and objective of the conference was to accomplish these things we had no doubt whatsoever. In the mind of every delegate who gathered at that conference there must have been a desire for improved world conditions, to increase the trade not only between the component parts of the British Empire but also among all the nations of the world. But that that desire will be fulfilled, that that objective will be realized, I cannot believe. I cannot believe it because the principle that governed the negotiations was to my mind a wrong principle. In so far as it would lead to a reduction of duties, it was a right principle; in so far as it would result in an increase of duties against foreign countries, I believe it was a wrong principle. No doubt our own delegates had a desire to make such arrangements as would secure to ourselves much business that is now done by foreign nations with Great Britain, and at the same time retain the business that we have been doing in the past with those same foreign nations from which under this treaty we expect to take business.
But what reactions may we expect? Will not new alliances ;be formed between those nations that we desire to exclude from interempire trade? Will not new treaties and new conventions be made by those foreign nations, from which we shall be excluded? What about Germany and France, Italy, Russia, Japan and China? Will all these nations, with.their industrious and inventive peoples, so filled with a desire to trade, be willing to bow their heads and say kismet? Will they be willing to fold their hands and say, "It has been decreed by the British Empire that we shall not trade with any of the nations of that empire. We accept the verdict. We must realize that henceforth we shall do less business." I think not. Then what will happen? These nations will say, "If the British Empire is determined to close its doors against us we will find other doors through which we may enter and do the business which our people desire to do." I say that we are inviting reprisals by the additions that are being made in the intermediate and general rates of duty, and we shall see an increase in other countries of this very same spirit of exclusion. We have been saying in Canada: Buy made in Canada goods. Great

Britain has been a little more generous. She has said: Buy British goods from the empire, at home and overseas. Japan has been saying: Do not buy foreign goods. China has been saying:	Boyoott foreign goods. India
has been saying:	Buy made in India goods
and boycott imports. That is really a spirit that is most undesirable, a spirit that can never be productive of good. But I think the very height of folly was recently exhibited in the city of Toronto. I have a cutting from the Toronto Daily Star which is headed, Clash in Board, and reads as follows:
Controllers Simpson and McBride had a brief but fiery exchange of words in board of control today, following discussion over the equipment for the purification plant at Victoria Park given to W. J. Westaway.
Certain materials have to be purchased outside Canada and Controller McBride strongly objected.
"I'd build a wall around Toronto," he said. "We've got to protect our own industries."
Can you beat that, Mr. Speaker? In Toronto, that big city with its factories anxious to do busines not only with the rest of Canada but with the other nations of the world, we find a man so benighted that he says: "I'd build a wall around Toronto." But are we not a little inclined to do the same thing around the British Emipre? Is it not possible that we have gone to a dangerous extreme? Certainly we want to do more business within the British Empire, but equally certainly we do not want to do less business with foreign nations.
I referred just now to possible reactions. I have before me the report on Foreign Affairs issued by the Empire Parliamentary Association for the months of July and August, and turning to page 427 under the heading of Scandinavia I read:
At the end of June it was announced that the British firm of Messrs. Dorman, Long and Company had secured a f2,000,000 contract to build a steel bridge connecting the islands of Zealand and Falster. Comments of a conflicting character were published in the Danish press when the announcement was made. On the one hand it was hoped that this would improve trading relations between Denmark and Great Britain, and against that it was urged that the arrangements for the building of a bridge should have been deferred at any rate until the results of the Ottawa conference were made known.
I need not point out the inference; it is perfectly clear. Again under the heading Norway we find this:
As in the case of so many other countries, the government and the public in Norway followed with great interest the proceedings of the Ottawa conference. As soon as the results of the conference were made known, it was announced that the Norwegian government

United Kingdom
would be prepared to negotiate for a new agreement with Great Britain at any time. Generally speaking, Norway considers that it stands in a stronger position than most foreign countries, as on the whole its balance <pf trade is in favour of Great Britain, for, while most of Norway's goods exported to Great Britain are now dutiable, about 75 per cent of British exports to Norway are duty free. At the same time it is recognized that the Ottawa conference is the beginning of a new development in British trade policy, and that new methods may in future be necessary.
It is not necessary to go as far as Norway or Denmark to find examples of possible reprisals. When making his -announcement with regard to these agreements the Prime Minister made the following statement which appears at page 121 of Hansard:
Under normal conditions Canada exports annually about 1.800,000.000 board feet of lumber valued at $50,000,000 of which
1.445.000.	000 feet valued at $39,000,000 has been going to the United States, and
186.000. 000 feet valued at $6,474,000 to the United Kingdom.
Then come the words to which I draw particular attention:	.
The recent United States import tax of $3 per 1,000 board feet has practically closed this market to Canada.
A Canadian press despatch dated October 5 reads as follows:
An increase in duty on Canadian lumber entering United States from $3 to $4 per 1,000 feet board measure becomes effective immediately according to an announcement received today by a Toronto lumber firm from the Treasury department, United States customs, Buffalo, New York.
A few moments ago an hon. member opposite stated this action was not taken by way of retaliation. Possibly not, but certainly it has all the appearances of retaliation. It would seem that the United States authorities had in mind some of the arrangements made at the recent conference.
Then again at page 123 of Hansard the Prime Minister is reported as follows:
Until recently our surplus production of copper was sold almost entirely in the United States, the only market available to copper mines of British Columbia and eastern Quebec.
Then he uses the same words, "The recent United States tariff" and goes on to say:
The recent United States tariff of four cents per pound closed this market.
Is it not probable that this action on the part of the United States was more or less in reply to some of the agreements of the Imperial economic conference?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The only difficulty is that they were taken first-months before.


Harry Butcher: I accept the statement of the right hon. gentleman. I notice however that the statement I have just read is dated October 5.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am speaking about copper. That action was taken months before.


Harry Butcher: This statement in regard to lumber is dated October 5.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am talking about copper.


Harry Butcher: 
Edward James Young: Before the agreements went into effect?


Harry Butcher: Yes. I think it is very probable that this will be the result; there may be, at any rate for the time being, some increase in the amount of business done by Canada with Great Britain. On page 119 of the record the Prime Minister spoke of the increase in the value of Canadian exports to the United Kingdom in the first five months of the fiscal year. He said they had increased to $2,481,968 as compared with $1,570,244 in the same period in 1931. The Prime Minister then enumerated some of the articles in which there has been increase of business; for instance: typewriters, paper boards, medicinal preparations, electrical appliances, socks and stockings, and so on. But during the same period to which the Prime Minister referred, or rather one month longer, I find certain figures relating to our total export business, our grand total of Canadian trade. I have in my hand a summary of Canadian trade by the Department of National Revenue for the month of September, and for the six months ending September. In the month of September, 1931, we exported domestic merchandise to the sum of $48,991,385. In the same month of this year we exported $42,186,815 worth. So that there is a decrease in total trade for the one month of $6,804,570. But taking the six months ending September, we find that our domestic exports in the year 1931 amounted to $295,516,898, and in 1932 to $234,182,869. So that while we did do almost a million dollar's worth more export business with Great Britain in the period since the British import duties were put on, in the six months we have done altogether $157,000,000 odd less world export business. Our grand total of Canadian trade for the six months ended September 1931, was $619,504,397; for the six months ended September 1932, $459,596,058, a decrease of $159,908,339. So that while within the empire we have done an increased business, we have done a very much smaller business throughout the world.
With regard to the agreement itself, so much has been said by various members on this side of the house that it is unnecessary for me to deal with the articles at length, but I wish to draw attention to one or two points. Article 4 reads:
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 un-

World Economic Conference
willing to offer these commodities on first sale in the United Kingdom at prices not exceeding the world prices and in quantities sufficient to supply the requirements of the United Kingdom consumers.	.
It has been pointed out by more than one hon. member on this side of the house that this does not confer upon the exporters of wheat from this country any preference in the matter of price, but it does give some preference in point of quantity. It may be we shall sell more wheat to Great Britain, though I think even that is problematical.
With regard to article 3, some hon. members have spoken as though we would get the whole benefit that may be derived from the fact that foreign wheat will not have free access to the British Empire. But we must remember that other nations in the British commonwealth will have an equal right with, ourselves to sell wheat in that market. Then there is another danger that may arise. It is more than possible that within the next five years the British farmer may desire to have some protection and will ask that duties be imposed upon imported wheat. If so, the effect upon our exports to Great Britain may be disastrous.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, October 25, 1932