1932-11-02

PRIVILEGE-MR. MACKENZIE KING

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: With the permission of the house, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a correction with regard to a statement made by me in public a day or two ago. In the press reports of the speech which I made before the Montreal Reform Club on Saturday evening last, it is stated that referring to the proposed changes in the Canadian tariff under the trade agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom, I said that out of 230 changes in the tariff, 180 were increases. That is a mistake. It was not a mistake of the reporter or of any hon. gentleman opposite; it was my mistake. I should have said that out of 223 items included in the schedule, 138 were in the nature of in-

Sun Life Company
creases in the tariff. I need not say that the mistake was wholly unintentional, and that I regret having made it.
PRIVILEGE-MR. LaVERGNE
Mr. ARMAND LaVERGNE (Montmagny): I rise to a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. At page 741 of Hansard, during the course of my remarks, I find the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn) reported as having said:
I do not take delight in shooting holes in the British flag.
I did not hear that remark while I was speaking. I do not know if the hon. member was referring to me, but if so I must say that he is entirely mistaken. Never in my life, either in public or private, have I used an expression of that description. I never used that sentence, and to complete my thought I may say that while I am much older than the hon. member for West Elgin, I did not wait until the end of the war, as he did, to enlist.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour) :: I desire to lay on the table of the house five orders in council, passed pursuant to the relief measures, all referring to the payment of money.



SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY


Mr. M. F. HEPBURN (West Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave under standing order 31 to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance and the necessity of immediate action being taken iby this house to investigate the present financial position of the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada and the conduct of its senior officials, as disclosed Iby the recent police court investigation in Chicago into the affairs of Samuel Insull and Martin Insull, now indicted by the United States government on charges of embezzlement and larceny.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would direct the attention of the hon. member particularly to subsection 2 of the rule which regulates the procedure in regard to an application such as he is now making. Subsection 2 of standing order 31 reads:
The member desiring to make such a motion rises in his place, asks leave to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, and states the matter.
Stating the matter does not go so far as to include discussing the matter. A statement of the matter is a description, an identification of the matter to be discussed, and I must ask the hon. member to state the matter. If he has stated the matter; if the subject to be discussed is an investigation of the affairs of the Sun Life Assurance Company, then he must proceed according to the terms of the rest of the standing order. To enter into any lengthy discussion of the matter would be an evasion of the rule, and out of order.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Under the rules of the
house, Mr. Speaker, at least I am permitted to hand you this statement, which I hope you will read to the house.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member for
West Elgin courteously notified me of his intention to make this application; I have had an opportunity of considering it and will not need to delay the house further by examining the statement. Under standing order No. 31 leave may be obtained to present a motion for the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance. The procedure is as follow's:	At the proper time the member rises in his place, asks leave to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, and states the matter. He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to the Speaker who, if he thinks it in order and of urgent public importance, reads it out and asks whether the member has leave of the house to move the adjournment for the purpose stated. A motion under this standing order must be restricted to a single specific matter of recent occurrence. The authority for that statement will be found in the thirteenth edition of May at page 247.
In my opinion this is not a matter of recent occurrence, nor is the matter urgent. There must be a prima facie case of urgency. I refer again to May, thirteenth edition, page 247. The matter is not so urgent that the proceedings of the house should be halted so that it may be discussed now. The rules provide other opportunities for discussing such a matter.
For these reasons I hold that the application is not in order and should not be granted.


Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: Since the house has not been informed as to what this important question is, and since you, Mr. Speaker, have in your hand the particulars, would it be asking too much to request Your Honour to read that statement to the house?
Sun Life Company


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I do not think the rule contemplates that the statement handed to the Speaker should be made public m this way; in fact I believe the intention is quite to the contrary. Subsection 3 of standing order 31 provides that the member shall hand a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to the Speaker who, if he thinks it in order and of urgent public importance, reads it to the house. If the Speaker does not so think, however, it necessarily follows that he does not read it to the house, and in my opinion the application is not in order. Therefore I do not propose to read the statement.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: If we do not know the contents of the statement handed to you, Mr. Speaker, in the event of your ruling being challenged how can we judge whether that ruling is correct or otherwise?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I can only suggest to the hon. member that if it is desirable to amend the rules that is a matter for the house to consider.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker-[DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I hear hon. members opposite giving expression to a roar of disapprobation. I do not know whether or not they are acquainted with the statement which was handed to Your Honour. I have been furnished with a copy of the statement and have read it carefully. I know that it refers to matters that are of very recent development in connection with the Insull trials, and under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I venture to say that we can hardly hold that the matter is not of recent origin.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I may say that the hon. member is entirely out of order in what he is now saying.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: While I do not intend to challenge your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order in connection with your reference to the matter not being of recent occurrence. I may point out-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member is out of order.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Surely a member of the house has some rights.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The only course open to the hon. member is to appeal to the house

from the ruling of the Speaker. I have given my ruling and it cannot be discussed.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I, for one, am interested in this question and propose to appeal against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battleford):: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, how can it be expected that this house should even challenge your ruling when we do not know the contents of the statement which is in your hands?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I can only refer the hon. member to the wording of the rule, which binds the Speaker as well as the hon. member.


Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am just trying to analyze the rule in connection with the point of order; I am not taking one side or the other at the moment. May I refer Your Honour to subsection 2 of standing order 31. I think Your Honour's ruling in regard to subsection 3 is perfectly proper, because you have authority to make a decision upon the written statement handed to you, but with all deference I do submit that my hon. friend from West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn) has not been permitted to make a statement, as he is authorized to do under subsection 2 of rule 31, which states:
The hon. member desiring to make such a motion rises in his place,-
Which was done.
-asks leave to move the adjournment of the house-
Which was done.
-for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance,-
Which was done.
-and states the matter.
With all due deference, Mr, Speaker, I suggest that I am entirely in the dark, as I think hon. members on both sides of the house also are entirely in the dark, as to what is the matter in connection with which my hon, colleague desires to move the adjournment. I think if there is to be an appeal from Your Honour's ruling we should know what is under consideration, and the hon. member should be allowed to state in terse terms what is the subject matter on which he desires to move the adjournment of the house. I think this is due the hon. member.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I regret that the hon.
member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mac-

Sun Life Company
kenzie) did not understand the statement made by the hon. member for West Elgin. I am not in that position; I did understand
it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I understand that you, sir, have been furnished with a written statement. I have never seen such a statement. I understand that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has a copy of that statement, but I have not, and I believe the majority of hon. members are in the same position. I think we should know on what we are voting. I am not quarrelling with your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I do want to vote intelligently.	.
Mr. SPEAKER.:	I must point out that
the hon. member is in conflict with a standing order of the house, not with a ruling of the Speaker. I thought I made my point clear in my former statement. Subsection 2 of the standing order, to which the hon. member for Vancouver Centre referred, contains these words:
. . . and states the matter.
The hon. member for West Elgin has stated the matter, but he has not discussed it. Under this rule he must get leave before he can proceed to discuss the matter, and any discussion at this time, going beyond a mere statement of what the matter is, would be an evasion of the rule.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think I should be entitled to a little consideration in this matter. In your ruling you stated, sir, that this was not a matter of recent occurrence. I want to point out that the facts 1 have recited in this document are taken partly from the reports made public during the investigation now ' proceeding in the Chicago police court, and that those reports were made public only on the 12th of last month. The other facts are taken from the report of the superintendent of insurance, which report was tabled in this house only on Friday last, so that it is a matter of recent occurrence.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: No. The report of the
court proceedings and the tabling of that insurance report, may be matters of recent occurrence, but the matter referred to in the documents and by the hon. member is not of recent occurrence.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not aware as to what action the mover of the resolution will take, but I have been in this house a number of years now and I have never known of any action quite so arbitrary-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, irrespective of the particular merits of this question, as a member of this house, even though no one else feels as I do in this matter, I cannot allow the matter to go unchallenged. It means that one of these days, in some vital matter in which I myself am concerned, the Speaker may rule against me and there will be no opportunity of even telling the house or the country what in my judgment is a matter of urgent public importance. It seems to me that the house ought to be given an opportunity of deciding this matter, and for that reason I challenge the ruling of the Speaker.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Are you nearly through? Mr. Speaker-


Mr. BENNETT:: Mr. Speaker, there has been an appeal from your ruling, and as I understand it, no further debate is possible.


An hon. MEMBER:: There has been no appeal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member said there was.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: So many members must stand up.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Do I understand that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) appeals from the Speaker's ruling?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I appeal against the Speaker's ruling.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say a word before the question is put? I am most anxious if possible to support His Honour the Speaker in any ruling he may make, and in order that I may know exactly what it is in the present instance I am supporting him on, may I ask His Honour the Speaker what is the subject that has been stated as the one with respect to the discussion of which the motion for adjournment of the house has been made? Your Honour said that the matter has been stated. What is it we are being asked to discuss?
Mr, SPEAKER: The management of the Sun Life Assurance Company; I understand that the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn) takes exception to the manage-
Sun Lije Company

ment of the Sun Life Assurance Company and wishes to discuss matters arising therefrom.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is the first time we have heard that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what he said.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: All hon. members heard the hon. member for West Elgin make the statement, as I did.


An hon. MEMBER:: He didn't.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I submit that His Honour the Speaker is not correct in his statement of the subject. I have the document before me. It is not a question of the general management of the Sun Life; it is a specific matter.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is a specific matter-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: They don't want to uncover it on the other side.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The Speaker having decided that the application of the hon. member for West Elgin for leave to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing the matter of the management of the Sun Life Assurance Company is not in order-[DOT]


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I object to that-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Mr. Woodsworth appeals from that decision. Is it the pleasure of the house that the Speaker's decision be sustained? All those in favour of the Speaker's decision being sustained will say aye.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Aye.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We don't know what the matter is.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: All those opposed to the Speaker's decision being sustained will say nay.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: In my opinion, the ayes have it. Call in the members.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I was paired with the
hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy). Had I voted, I would have voted against Your Honour's ruling.


Mr. LAWSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Gray). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the ruling.


Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):: I was paired with the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Raymond). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the ruling.


Mr. HARRIS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). Usually I am against anything which emanates from the Liberal side, and in this particular instance, had I voted, I would have voted to support the ruling of the Speaker.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the ruling.


Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):: I was paired with the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Urquhart). Had I voted, I would have voted to support the ruling.


Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: I was paired with the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dubuc). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the ruling.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Baribeau). Had I voted, I would have voted against the ruling.


Mr. FOURNIER:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Inverness (Mr. Maedougall). Had I voted, I would have voted against the ruling.


Mr. MURPHY:: I was paired with the
hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the ruling.


Mr. DUPUIS (Translation):: I did not
register my vote because I am not in the habit of voting blindly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
with the permission of the house I should like to explain why I did not vote on this matter. There appears to be a conflict between the statement of Your Honour and the statement of the mover of the resolution (Mr. Hepburn), who asked for the adjournment of the house as to the matter of urgency which it was desired to have discussed. As I was not aware of the matter under discussion, I did not in ignorance thereof wish to vote on Your Honour's ruling.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Mr. Speaker, I did not
vote because I did not know upon what the ruling was based. I do not want to approve or disapprove of anything about which I have no knowledge.


Mr. EULER:: Mr. Speaker, because I felt
that the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn), had not had an opportunity of making a fair statement of his position, I declined to vote.
Questions


Mr. MARGIL:: Mr. Speaker, I was not in
my place when the hon. gentleman brought up this question, and not having heard his statement as well as the statement of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), I was not in a position to vote.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. REID:: 1.	How many veterinarians are on the permanent staff of the Department of Agriculture in the province of British Columbia?
2.	What are their names and where are they located?
3.	What are the specific duties of the various veterinarians?
4.	Is it the policy of the department to engage veterinary surgeons to assist the veterinarians on the permanent staff?
5.	If so, how many outside veterinarians have been engaged in British Columbia since April 1, 1931, up to the end of September, 1932, and for what specific purpose or purposes were these men engaged?
6.	What were the names of those so engaged, and what respective amounts were paid to each during the above period?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: 
TACHT OKUCHOBEE
Mr. POULIOT:: I.	Did Mr. Henri Bernier, barrister of the city of Quebec, request the registration of the yacht Okuchobee in the name of the Quebec Liquor Commission?
2.	If so, on what date?
3.	Was this request granted?
4.	If not, why not?

Questions


Mr. DUPRE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	On or about 6th August, 1930.
3.	No.
4.	The motor vessel Okuchobee was already registered as a British ship at the port of St. John's, Newfoundland, under the official number 151,078.


GOVERNMENT LOANS AND GUARANTEES
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	What amounts have been loaned by this
government to:	(a) provinces; (b) railways;
(c) harbour boards; (d) banks; (e) wheat pools; (f) Beauharnois corporation; (g) other semi-public or private corporations?
2.	At what rates of interest?
3.	What amounts have been guaranteed by
this government to:	(a) provinces; (b) railways; (c) harbour boards; (d) banks; (e) wheat pools: (f) Beauharnois corporation; (g) other semi-public or private corporations?


Mr. RHODES:: I should like to have these questions stand in the meantime in order that I may confer with the hon. member as to the time limit he has in mind.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Since this government came into office; I think that is very specific.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: That is, the government of Canada?


James Shaver Woodsworth: This present administration.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: These questions will stand for amendment.


* UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF-REPRESENTATIONS BY BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. REID:: 1.	Have any representations been made by the provincial government of British Columbia to the Dominion government, asking on behalf of any cities or municipalities of that province for a loan to enable the municipalities to help finance the burdens of unemployment relief or of direct relief, or to meet obligations due the banks?
2.	If so, what were the names of the various cities or municipalities asking for financial assistance through the medium of the provincial government, and what were the various amounts asked for up to September 30, la9t?
3.	Were any of the requests asked for by the provincial government of British Columbia granted? If so, what cities and municipalities were granted financial help with the various amounts up to September 30, last?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I think I can answer this question verbally. Representations were made by the provincial government of British Columbia with respect to certain municipalities in that province which seemed to 'be
unable to take care of their share of the work of relief. Upon the representations, a recommendation was made to council, and an order in council was passed under the Relief Act, directing that a loan be made to the provincial government of British Columbia for $150,000 to be devoted toward assisting the municipalities which, in the judgment of the government of that province, were unable to assume their share of the cost of relief. The names of the municipalities I am not able to give, because that of course rests entirely in the judgment of the provincial government of British Columbia.
iMr. REID: I must object to the answer to the question. It is very good of the minister to give the answer he has given, but I think the house is entitled to the names of the various municipalities that have been assisted. That information is very important and it should be given.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Answered.


NATURALIZATION OF ALIENS
Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	How many aliens were naturalized during the last fiscal year?
2.	How many were naturalized during the preceding years: 1928-29; 1929-30; 1930-31?
3.	In these different years, how many were naturalized: (a) upon the recommendation of an inferior court, in accordance with section 22 of the Naturalization Act; (b) how many in accordance with other sections of the same act?


Sir GEORGE PERLEV :: 1.	32,517.
2.	13,099 for 1928-29 ; 21,221 for 1929-30; 21.392 for 1930-31.
3.	(a) 11,684 for 1928-29; 19,934 for 1929-30; 20,314 for 1930-31; 31,584 for 1931-32.
(fo) 1,415 for 1928-29,; 1,287 for 1929-30; 1,078 for 1930-31; 933 for 1931-32.


CANADIAN RAILWAY EMPLOYEES
Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: 1.	How many employees were there in the years 1928, 1929, 1930 and 1931, on both Canadian railroads?
2.	How many were laid off since 1928?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1. According to Bureau of Statistics number of railways employees (monthly average).
Total all Canadian Railways
1928		 187,710
1929		 187,846
1930		 174,485
1931		 154,569
2. No data available except as above.
74S
Wheat Shipments


SKIDEGATB, B.C., POSTMASTERSHIP DISMISSAL OF JOHN CROUSE
Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: 1.	Was there a change made in the post office at Skidegate, Queen Charlotte islands, British Columbia, this year?
2.	If so, on whose recommendation was this
change made?
3.	Was the former postmaster dismissed? If so, for what reason?
4.	Was an investigation held?
5.	If so, by whom?
6.	How long had the former postmaster served at this office?
7.	What is the salary paid, per annum, to the postmaster, and what are the allowances, if any?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	District superintendent, Vancouver.
3.	Yes, on account of serious irregularities involving use of obliterated postage stamps to prepay mail matter.
4 and 5. A report was submitted by the district superintendent, Vancouver, enclosing the cover of a parcel mailed by the postmistress, which bore irrefutable evidence of the irregularities.
6.	She had been appointed in July, 1916.
7.	Salary $108 a year; rent $6 a year.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What public works: (a) under the heading of construction; (b) under the heading of repairs, were carried out in T^miscouata county since 1930?
2.	What sum was expended in each place?


APPOINTMENT OF RETURNED SOLDIERS TO POSTMASTERSHIPS
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	How many returned soldiers have applied for positions as postmasters since August 1. 1930?
2.	How many returned soldiers were appointed to such positions?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. DUFF:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other documents, passing between the Department of National Defence or any official thereof, and any person or persons in Nova Seotia, regarding the dismissal of John Crouse of Wilmot, Nova Scotia, who was removed from the position of caretaker of the rifle range at Nictaux.



AMEDEE LAFERRIERE

Mr. BOULANGER:: For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence, letters and documents exchanged between the Post Office Department and all persons, respecting the appointment of Mr. Amedee Laferriere, as postmaster at Fradetville, county of Belle-ehasse.



WHEAT SHIPMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River):: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister or any member of the government, arising out of two reports in the press regarding the treaty with which we are dealing. It is rather important and I should like to read a little of the press despatches, but I shall be as brief as I can. The first article appeared last night in the Ottawa Citizen and other papers, Canadian Press cable:
Canada's wheat must go direct to old country. If stored in American elevators and shipped, will not enjoy preferences arranged here.
This is a report of a debate in the British house on an amendment, moved by Sir J. Sandeman Allen, member of the Union government, asking that grain consigned from an American port and certified by the Canadian government officer to have been grown in Canada, should be entitled to the preference. This was defeated 247 to fifty-five. The government declined to accept the amendment.
Then this morning, in the same paper, there appears an article headed as follows:
Await definite word on wheat for preference.
Political verbiage beclouds issue regarding Canadian shipments to United Kingdom by home port.


Mr. NEILL:: For a copy of all correspondence, including letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged between any member of the Dominion government, or any official thereof, and any other person, body, corporation or association in connection with the postmastership of Campbell River, British Columbia, post office, during the period between the 1st day of April, 1932, and the present date.

I want to read one paragraph from the second clipping:
Traders here-
That is, in Winnipeg.
-pointed out today that all -wheat shipped to ;he United Kingdom from Canada and routed from Canada via United States ports is consigned for the United States only. The bills of lading specifically state that the wheat is

Privilege-Mr. Bradette
destined for export to England and while the grain awaits shipment from United States ports it remains in storage there in bond.
The question I want to ask is this: Is it possible under the provisions of the treaty to store grain that has been grown in Canada, at Buffalo and other United States ports, to ship it from there to the United Kingdom, as has been done prior to this time, and still get the preference?


John Vallance: That was answered last week by the government.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: It was not answered last week.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In view of the importance of the question and of the answer which I gave to a similar question based upon information I had received in response to a cabled request, I would ask the hon. gentleman to let the question stand and I shall hand an answer in writing to the house tomorrow.



PRIVILEGE-MR. POULIOT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANGOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): I rise to a question of privilege. In' our esteemed contemporary the Ottawa Journal, there is an editorial this morning entitled "Too many returns." That article complains that too many returns have been asked for by me. There is a cornerstone for each building, and my intention is to have sufficient information to prove beyond doubt that the postmasters of the province of Quebec would be more fairly treated by the hon. member for Long Lake (Mr. Cowan) than by the present Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve).

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce how soon the census figures relative to unemployment will be released?


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Of course many figures have already been released, and I understand that a fairly complete statement has been given to the public. As regards the complete analysis, which of course is a very large task, I shall make inquiries and advise my hon. friend.



PRIVILEGE-MR. BRADETTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (North Timiskam-ing):: 
Pierre Édouard Blondin: I cannot see that the
words complained of are unparliamentary or that the hon. member who uses them could be properly asked to retract them.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I take objection. I do
not understand such a ruling. This was a personal reflection on a member of the house. There is certainly some rule that forbids the use of such an epithet.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: For one reason, the hon. member was present in the house when the words were used, and having heard them and made no objection at the time, it is too late now to object.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I did not know that the words were used by the Deputy Speaker until this morning. If I had heard the words I would certainly have objected at the time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: You can laugh, but no hon. member should be called a four-flusher.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have no definition of
the word, "four-flusher." Hansard shows that the hon. member was in the house and speaking just about the very time the words he refers to were used, and consequently without doubt he heard the words, and not having objected at the time, it is too late to object now.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I did not hear the words at the time, Mr. Speaker, and surely my word should be as good as anyone else's in such a personal matter. If I had heard the words I would have objected at the time.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If the hon. member did
not hear them, that is his misfortune.


Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with all deference to you and the decision which you are called upon to give, may I humbly submit
750	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
that this house is guided very much by precedents, and it is good for the dignitj' of the house that no word such as that complained of can be found to have been used under the rules of the house. On different occasions the meaning of words has been interpreted and a decision given whether they were unparliamentary or not, but I think it is a very good thing for the dignity of this house that the words in question were never the subject of interpretation by the Speaker. May I suggest, sir, that, if you are unable at the moment to come to a decision whether the words complained of are unparliamentary or not, and more particularly having been spoken by the hon. member who did speak them, you take time to consider the matter and later give your decision? This house is guided by precedents, and unless these words be banned under the rules of the house any other member may use the same words, and in my humble judgment the words are derogatory of the dignity of the house and of the hon. gentleman who used them.
Mr. ARM AND LaVERGNE:	There was
a lot of noise the other night, we must all admit, and probably my hon. friend from North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette) did not hear me. I meant no reflection on his character at all, and I gracefully withdraw the words complained of. At the same time I am ready to accept the hon. gentleman's challenge at any time.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Then I invite my hon. friend to come by the first train tonight.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order. The hon. member having withdrawn the words there is nothing further to be said.



HUDSON BAY RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):	On Friday, October 28, I
directed a question to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau). My question was this:
In view of the fact that a British freighter while proceeding from Churchill with a cargo of wheat to the British Isles was sunk in Hudson strait, and in view of the further fact that the government instituted an investigation into the causes of the disaster, adducing, I think, important evidence for Canada, and especially for western Canada, may I ask the Prime Minister if he intends to have the information and conclusions arrived at in that investigation printed in blue book form and distributed to the members?

The Prime Minister replied that the matter had not been given consideration. If the answer was given I may have been momentarily absent from the house. I wonder if it has since been considered, and if not, will the Prime Minister consider it?
Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. gentleman had been
in his place he would have heard the answer. If he will read Hansard he will find it.



IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, October 31, consideration of the motion of Right Hon. R. B. Bennett (Prime Minister) for approval of the trade agreement entered into at Ottawa the 20th day of August, 1932, between representatives of His Majesty's government in Canada and His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom, subject to the legislation required in order to give effect to the fiscal changes consequent thereon.
Mr. C. N. DORION (Quebec Montmorency) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I must
admit, at the outset, that what few arguments I intend to offer in this debate will have no convincing effect on my good friends on the other side of the house. At any rate, such is not my ambition. However, having been sent here by a partly agricultural and partly industrial constituency, a section of which is represented in the Quebec Legislative Assembly by the honourable the prime minister of my province, I feel bound to set forth my views on the agreements concluded last summer in Ottawa and-with due deference to my colleague, Mr. Taschereau-I may add that my good constituents are of the same opinion.
Before rising in this house to speak on this question, I thought it well to read over the history of trade relations between Canada and Great Britain, or rather, between Great Britain and what was formerly called its colonies, in order to familiarize myself with the evolution that has taken place in that sphere, evolution that developed itself along with the assertion of the rights of the dominions as members of the British Commonwealth of nations.
Glancing forty or fifty years back, considering the trend of events in the meantime, and then examining the conclusions arrived at by the representatives of Great Britain and of the dominions, which summarize the advantages and concessions extended by Canada to Great Britain as well as to other dominions, I deem

United Kingdom
it my duty, as a Canadian, to support these agreements not only because they are beneficial to Canada, advantageous for the contracting parties, but also because they are in themselves a demonstration to the civilized world of what may be done by well-intentioned and conscientious men towards alleviating the world depression.
If a happy solution has been found, which does not, I admit absolutely end our troubles, but surely alleviates them, we owe it, according to the testimony of those who took part in the conference-to which I shall refer again in a moment-we owe it to the man who day in and day out devotes his energy, his health, his splendid courage to promote the welfare of those whom it is his desire to see happier and more prosperous: the right honourable Prime Minister.of Canada (Mr. Bennett).
The other day I heard, and read in the Hansard, the address delivered by my hon. friend the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). His chief argument-and I would be greatly surprised to see him use the same argument in his own constituency-was that he feared that the direct result of the agreements would be to cause friction, discontent and misunderstandings likely to affect adversely the now existing relations between Canada and Great Britain, and even to endanger the unity of the empire. As I was listening to his remarks, it seemed to me that I was dreaming. And still, I remember how, in the days of my youth, I used to go and hear, in the district I now represent, the speeches of the former member for Kamouraska. He was then the fiery opponent of closer relations, between Great Britain and the dominions. How times are changed! How can he be now such a staunch supporter of a non-development policy in connection with our relations, both economic and political, with Great Britain, in days gone by, from 1911 to 1921, he would never miss an opportunity to proclaim his faith in nationalism? Would it be that he seeks forgiveness for the errors of his youth? He may also have perceived that it was the best way of enlisting for himself the good will of the imperialist section of his party in anticipation of the day- nearer at hand than we may think-when it might please the Liberal group to substitute the former Minister of Justice to the present leader of the party. Then we would witness again the double dealing which seems to be the first plank in the liberal platform and which has proved so long a boon to the party in the province of Quebec as well as in the other provinces of the dominion: fierce nationalism in the province of Quebec and narrow imperialism in the other provinces. The
hon. member for Quebec has no cause for apprehension. History shows that, as the world changes and as statesmen are being faced with ever recurring and frequently unforeseen problems, the British Empire goes on and becomes, for the nations it is made of, a splendid testing and experimenting ground1, on account of its practical, constructive spirit, and chiefly on account of those tentative policies, which are, so to speak, inherent to the genius of these peoples.
No, there is no cause for alarm. Great Britain, of all the present day nations, gave to the world the example of freedom; old England is always solid and the survival of the British Empire is not bound with the existence of trade agreements. The resources of the empire are boundless and its greatest asset is perhaps that national spirit, which in the past, has cleared the atmosphere laden with apprehensions, uncertainties and oftentimes with danger; it is that loyalty to the crown still considered by the nations of the commonwealth as the symbol of their strength and unity.
With his vast experience, the former Minister of Justice is fully aware of the fact, The form, as well as the existence, of the British commonwealth does not lie in written laws, it does not lie in logic, in agreements or treaties, but resides in the continuous growth of a spirit and method particular to herself because they are in agreement with her tastes.
The agreements signed at Ottawa do not affect in any way the personal union existing between Great Britain and the dominions. To use the words of a French newspaperman, the sovereign is the only constitutional link between the various parts of the empire and the living symbol of imperial unity. Such a condition is wondered at by the other nations in the world, but for us it is quite natural.
For half a century, statesmen, both in the United Kingdom and in the dominions, have been constantly in search of a practical solution for the problems arising from trade relations between the nations of the British commonwealth.
Chamberlain, who was Secretary for the Colonies in the days of Lord Salisbury was surely of the British statesmen who concentrated their efforts in that direction, the one who did the most in that respect.
But should Chamberlain return to life now, notwithstanding what some hon. friends opposite may say, these agreements would certainly cause him to wonder at their contents and be far from satisfactory to him.
752	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
It was at the conference of 1894, held in Ottawa, between the different representatives of the British colonies and which was attended, not officially but unofficially, by a representative from Great Britain, that for the first time since the adoption of the policy advocated by the Manchester school of thought, was raised the question of asking Great Britain to abandon its free trade policy.
In 1895, when Chamberlain became Secretary for the Colonies, three main proposals concerning our trade relations were discussed.
Out of the three proposals two were discarded by Chamberlain as quite unacceptable. In a few moments we shall see how the spirit of the resolutions submitted by the colonial representatives in 1894 and which -were unequivocally rejected by Great Britain-and later by Chamberlain-is to be found again in the agreements signed here last summer. The very principle of these resolutions is contained in the treaties of 1932.
The analysis of these proposals leads us to recognize that the development of our trade relations has taken place along the same lines as our political and constitutional evolution.
The following was the only proposal agreed to by Chamberlain:
Free trade would be applied to practically the whole of the empire, hut the different contracting parties would be free to make their own arrangements as to the foreign products competing with certain commodities produced in abundance by the colonies, such as wheat, meat, wool, sugar and a few others yet that are consumed in large quantities by the mother country, and could, as a result of such an agreement, be totally produced in the colonies and by British labour.
Do not such proposals differ totally from the agreements signed here last summer?
Another proposal discussed in the days of Chamberlain was that of compelling the colonies to abandon their tariff policy and adopt a tariff for revenue. The colonies flatly rejected the proposal; such a policy could not be accepted by them. Owing to the existence of a protectionist feeling in the colonies, because of their infant industries, and specially owing to the fact that most of them were drawing their revenue from the customs duties, they rejected the offers.
The third proposal submitted by the colonial delegates at the conference held in Ottawa, in 1894, but declared unacceptable by the mother country who peremptorily refused to endorse it, was as follows-it is also in principle contained in the Ottawa agreements of 1932: The signing by Great Britain and the
[Mr. Dorion.1
colonies, of an agreement whereby the internal trade of the empire would be put on a more favourable basis than the trade intercourse between its various component parts and foreign countries. The colonies would still arrange their tariff as they would see fit, but they would agree to lower preferential duties in favour of British products. On the other hand, the mother country was to impose import duties on products similar to colonial products imported from other countries, while those from the colonies would be admitted free or granted a preference.
The last proposal of agreement meant that Great Britain would have had to abandon its free trade policy, and Chamberlain rejected it.
As I said a moment ago, those who claim that the agreements signed in Ottawa last summer mean a step backwards, are greatly mistaken, in my opinion. In no part of these agreements, treaties or understandings can be found the slightest indication of a commercial union such as was suggested by Chamberlain and the establishment of which was to be the first step towards an imperial federation.
Between 1894 and 1932, several conferences were held, and practically in every case, the question of trade relations was dealt with. In the meantime, a constitutional evolution was in process and led to the adoption of the following definition, in 1926:
Great Britain and the Dominions are autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the crown, and freely associated as members of the British commonwealth of nations.
It was in the spirit of that resolution that the Ottawa agreements were signed. They are actual treaties concluded between free countries, just as those signed by foreign countries between themselves. The concluding of these agreements does not affect, in any respect, the absolute freedom of either of the contracting parties.
Just a word, now, on the contents of the agreements. The Ottawa conference was instructed to find, after a thorough investigation, the best way to develop trade between the various parts of the empire. Are we justified, from the conclusions of the conference, to say that the end in view was reached? We believe so, although the results, on the whole, may not be felt within a month or two; that is obvious. The main objective, in connection with the conference, may I say again, was not, as was aimed at by Chamberlain, to make of the empire an economic entity, in other

United Kingdom
words a stepping stone to imperial federation, but rather to find the means of promoting trade within the empire.
While retaining their autonomy and freedom, the members of the empire, by means of real treaties, are granting certain advantages in their respective markets in connection with foreign goods, and it is unquestionable that the advantages obtained by Canada enable us to take away from the foreign competitors a substantial part of the British market. In return for the sacrifices consented to by the British consumer, a market will be secured here for some of the manufactured products of Great Britain. May I add that the chances of success of the conference were depending, above all, upon the spirit of sacrifice, the broadness of vision of our manufacturers, and regardless of what our friends of the Liberal party may say, the Canadian manufacturers have made real sacrifices in order to be of further assistance to the agricultural class in Canada.
Through these agreements, Great Britain made in our favour a two-fold concession: the free entry of certain goods and raw products; preferential rates on certain other goods. Up to 1930, that is until the return to power of the Conservative party, Great Britain enjoyed certain preferences in our markets but with no corresponding advantages accruing to us in the British market. Now, Great Britain will admit free of duty a certain number of our chief industrial and agricultural products, of which those of especial interest to the province of Quebec are: paper, aluminum, furs, textile products, asbestos, chemicals, creamery butter, cheese, eggs, salmon, codfish, apples, wheat, rye, copper, and so forth.
By these agreements, practically the whole range of our natural products will enjoy preferences varying from 10 to 33J per cent. In so far as my own province is specially concerned, these preferential rates shall apply to the following natural commodities: tobacco, prunes, honey, potatoes, etc. On the other hand, Canada gets certain advantages that will prove beneficial to the Canadian consumer. A certain class of commodities shall be admitted free of duty in this country while others will enjoy intermediary or general rates on similar products from other countries.
One of my hon. friends opposite expressed his surprise the other day-I think it was the hon. member for Bagot (Mr. Dumaine)-at the preference granted by the agreements on spirits. I am satisfied that as far as we, of the province of Quebec, are concerned that preference will be of no value. The Quebec Liquor Commission will be the only one to derive any benefit 53719-48	r
from it and Mr. Taschereau, whose government is particularly noted for the imposition of ever increasing taxes, shall certainly take advantage of the preference to raise the provincial taxes already levied by him on alcoholic beverages.
In spite of the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) I believe that the preferences to be enjoyed, in our market, on creamery equipment, shall not raise the price. On the contrary, that preference will be of a great help to our farmers in enabling them to buy such equipment at lower prices from British manufacturers.
Neither can we find in these agreements anything likely to lead to the conclusion that any of our present markets are being closed to us.
A few of our friends on the other side of the bouse are eagerly awaiting the results of the impending elections in the United States in the hope of renewing trade relations with the great republic to the south. The leaders of the two major political parties in the United States, in order to ease the anxiety of the farming community, have in fact just stated that no change would be made in the tariff now protecting American agriculture.
I have also heard several of our friends opposite speak of markets being lost to Canada as a direct result of the Ottawa agreements.
But, tell me, where are those markets? So far not a single one has been mentioned. And in what respect are these agreements an impediment to the conclusion of other treaties with other countries? The contrary is what happens. To the markets already available for our industries and for our farmers is being added a new one capable of absorbing from 75 to 100 million dollars worth of trade.
Some of our friends on the other side of the house are wondering at the fact that for some commodities the duration of the agreement is to be of five years and that, in respect to others, the limit is three years. What is their aim? What do they want? Have they an amendment to submit one way or the other? For some of them-the leader of the opposition, for instance-a period of five years is too long, while in the opinion of others-namely, the hon member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger)-a term of three years is too short. I am not surprised to find such a difference of opinion among our friends. They advocate all kinds of policies, that being the creed of their party. They are imperialists when with imperialists; nationalists with nationalists; capitalists with capitalists-for instance, in the case of the Beauharnois affair-socialists with

754	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
socialists; free-traders with free-traders; protectionists with protectionists and radicals with the radicals. I say it again, in line with the principle of their party they undergo a complete change of mind overnight. The rotation of the earth around its axis from one day to the next is of longer duration than the political leanings of our friends.
As the right, hon. Prime Minister said when he laid the text of the agreements on the table of the house, these conventions are merely the forerunners of others of still greater benefit. Once again, I claim that these agreements, in the spirit of their author, were not supposed to bring about an immediate cessation of our troubles, but they surely will alleviate the hardships we are going through at the present time. No matter how hard man may work or how patiently he may seek for a solution of his problems, Providence alone rewards our effort and good will.
Any citizen concerned with public affairs is bound to cooperate to the best of his ability towards the solution of the problems arising from the hardships now enduring throughout the world.
These agreements have not been concluded without some difficulties. Nevertheless a great stride has been made and they represent a vast effort; it now remains for us to take advantage of them.
However I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, to note that the government in office in my own province seems to do nothing whatever in order to reap the benefit accruing from these agreements in which our farmers are so particularly concerned. While the governments of the other provinces have had, for a long time, their own representatives instructed to acquaint themselves on the spot with the requirements of the British markets, specially in connection with the quality of the products required and their presentation to the buyer, my own province, may I say again, has done nothing in that direction. What are they waiting for? Why should they be content with a fruitless opposition? I understand that the agreements may not please the prime minister of the province of Quebec because they do not favour exclusively the big interests of which he is the recognized champion, but it seems to me that he should have a little regard for the common people, the small wage earner, the primary producers, the farming class of his province. May the day come when we shall no longer see the shipment of Canadian products through American channels, and if, in order to reach that goal, freight rates, both by rail and by water, must be
tMr. Dorion.]
lowered, it would be in order to make the change.
At the beginning of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I made the statement that the principle of understanding, of cooperation, between the various nations of the British commonwealth, which was the basis of the Ottawa economic conference, shall be held as an example to the other nations of the world at the coming world's economic conference. In association with the other parts of the empire, our country has given a splendid example to the civilized world. But, it must be admitted, the most urgent remedy, the most imperative at this hour of universal crisis with its resultant political and social disturbances in many other countries, is the restoration of confidence and hope in the minds of all. But, here in Canada, what use are they making of their time those whom the people have refused to entrust with the management of affairs? They are endeavouring to inspire mistrust, to weaken energies and courages, and to bereave the people of all hopes.
At the present time, it is the duty of public men, not to preach blue ruin, but to stand up and set the example to those who are still prepared to hope in better times.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay a tribute to the prime minister of this country, for he is a preacher of energy. At no time, since confederation, was there at the head of the Canadian government, a man displaying so much disinterestedness, endowed with such courage and so energetic. No prime minister, no public man, has ever devoted more time, more work to the welfare of his country.
Why, then, try to underestimate his worth or to minimize his merit? I know that some of our opponents would be only too happy should they succeed in reducing to naught the splendid courage and undaunted energy for which the prime minister of Canada is noted.
As long as the people of this country give us their support, we shall give expression to our admiration for his tireless efforts in the service of his country and in the best interests of his fellow citizens.
As to the economic disturbances now existing in nations other than those forming part of the empire, it seems obvious that one of the main obstacles in the way of remedying the depression and forwarding our economical reconstruction, lies in the lack of confidence in the future. Such lack of faith in the future is accountable for by the fear and anxiety prevailing in connection with the political situation in Europe. We had an

United Kingdom
evidence of that fear and of that anxiety in the wranglings that occurred at Geneva between the various members of the League of Nations. These difficulties have been made worse by the uncertainty and distress resulting from the world-wide depression.
The best we Canadians could do in order to improve our economical conditions, would be to foster hope in the future, to trust in the strength of our institutions; to rest our confidence-and that applies to one and all- in those who form part of the League of Nations, and finally, to let no one question the permanence of peace in Europe.
As for us, Canadians, of French extraction, let us be convinced that our present troubles pale into insignifance when compared with what had to be faced by our forebears in the days when the country was in course of settlement and development. The amount of courage and energy displayed by our valiant ancestors were incomparably greater than those required of us to overcome the minor obstacles which confront us nowadays. Were we, to-day, in the same position as these great men were placed in then, how small and different we would be! So I say, when seeking a way out of our difficulties, let us bring to the task some cheerfulness, some courage, some energy, and, I may add, let there be no more talk of defeat or failure; let hope ever be our watchword.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to delay the house for any great length of time because I believe the matter under discussion has been fairly well covered. At all events most of the important points have been covered by previous speakers. It is most gratifying that in an important matter of this kind the speeches have been of a very high order, and there has been a real desire to bring out all the facts concerning the trade agreement.
I wish however to make my position clear. Speaking on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I stated that when given an opportunity to examine the contents of the agreement I would pass an opinion upon it. I have had the opportunity to make that investigation, and have had the added advantage of listening to the speeches of hon. members in all quarters of the house. I regret to say that I have not changed my opinion, but have been confirmed in the suspicion that under the guise of an imperial preference the agreement simply means additional taxation upon the shoulders of the Canadian people who, at the present time, are ill able to bear it. Without covering the



R3719-48J

[Stage Direction]
ground taken by previous speakers I should like to state the position that I, as a member of the Liberal party, have always taken in matters pertaining to trade, and particularly empire trade. Personally, I have always advocated free trade within the British Empire. I am of the opinion that a free exchange of commodities among the constituent parts of that empire would tend to make us more prosperous than we are to-day. I do not wish, however, to have any entanglements which would prevent Canada from trading advantageously with any other country which may wish to trade with her.
That point must be made perfectly clear. Much-nay, the whole-of the distress with which we are faced today can be attributed to the fact that the great trading nations of the world have nationalized themselves, that they have adopted a so-called nationalism, in order that they may live within themselves and restrain trade from crossing their borders. The spectacle we are witnessing today, world-wide in its proportions, is directly attributable to that cause. I am not alone in that opinion, because my view is borne out by almost every economist of note. That was the opinion during the deliberations at Geneva. Therefore one is in good company when making a statement of that kind. I repeat most emphatically that so far as I am concerned I would have no trade barriers whatever between ourselves, the mother country and the sister dominions. At the same time I would not want any entanglements that would prevent Canada from trading, and entering into trade agreements, with any country with which we could do business advantageously.
From 1920-21 to 1930, Mr. Speaker, it was the policy of the Liberal party to reduce tariffs on basic commodities wherever possible, and to seek markets for those commodities wherever we could do business. With regard to the British Empire, and more particularly Great Britain, it was the aim of the previous government to reduce our tariffs to approximately 50 per cent of the duty in effect against foreign countries. That trade prospered; taxation was reduced and unemployment was reduced to a minimum, because no one will deny that we had unemployment in 1922 and 1923. In 1930, however, we had a change of government, with a complete change of policy. As one of the humble members of the Liberal party, and as an elector, I had not the faintest idea that the government now in office would raise the tariff schedules against Great Britain to the extent to which they were raised. I did believe that hon. gentlemen opposite had a mandate from the Can-
756	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
adian people to increase tariffs against foreign countries; they made their intention in that regard very clear when they appealed to the public, and the public voted to put them in office. But what did they do? At the special session of 1930, just prior to the imperial conference which was being held for the purpose of extending trade within the empire, they increased the tariff against British goods almost as much as they increased it against products coming from outside countries. They took this action with regard to Great Britain, who had given Canada free entry to her markets for years, and who hoped to be able to continue that policy. Before going to that conference hon. gentlemen opposite took the precaution of putting tariffs almost sky high against British goods coming into Canada, particularly those goods in the manufacture of which the British producer excelled, and which he wished to dispose of in this country.
That was the action they took before the conference was held. When they went to the mother country the proposal of the leader of the Canadian delegation, the Prime Minister, was that although the government had put into effect high tariffs which previously had not applied to British products, British manufacturers would be given a 10 per cent preference in the Canadian market by an increase in the tariff against foreign goods. Can one wonder that the British delegation viewed that proposal with some consternation? Those gentlemen, representing a country who had given Canadian goods free entry to their market for a decade or two, were met with a proposal of that kind. What earthly good was that suggestion to the British manufacturer who could not climb over the high tariff walls put into effect against his product? I must admit that hon. gentlemen opposite were being true to their promise although, as I have said, I was amazed at the extent to which they raised tariffs against Great Britain. As I said before, I believe they were warranted in putting into effect very high tariffs, if you like, against foreign countries; that was one of their pre-election pledges. But if free mtry to the markets of Great Britain was caluable to Canada at that time, has this government done anything to ensure the continuance of that free entry? If Great Britain had acted towards us as we have acted towards that country from 1930 on our attitude would have been one of resentment. I believe I am safe in saying that during the last election the Conservative party profited immensely by the antagonism aroused in the minds of the people by the imposition of almost prohibitive duties against our exports to

the United States, but I do not believe one elector in ten had the faintest idea that our trade with Great Britain, and our free entry into the British market, would be jeopardized by the placing of excessive duties against British goods. Is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that the conference resulted as it did? Naturally the British manufacturer wns hoping, that his market in Canada would be increased, so is it any wonder that there was a feeling of resentment, and that the statement by Mr. Thomas was made on that occasion?
In any case nothing was done. Almost two years later we were preparing for another conference, and I did hope that hon. gentlemen opposite-whom I have said had a mandate from the people to impose higher protective duties against foreign goods-were completely satisfied with their work. They must have seen the results of their actions; they must have known that conditions in Canada were immeasurably worse and were not improving at all, and that if anything at all could be done to secure trade it should be done during the progress of the conference. But we found hon. gentlemen opposite with the same attitude with respect to trade within the empire. Surely on textiles, in particular, the British manufacturer could have been given a chance in Canada. Surely some relief could have been given, the overburdened consumer in this country through a reduction in the textile schedules so far as they affect Great Britain. No heed was paid the plea of France for wider markets so far as textiles were concerned, but having in mind all that had taken place in Canada between 1930 and 1932 I did hope that some provision would have been made to widen the market for British products in this country. That was not done; they stuck to their guns. They said that Great Britain, as well as foreign countries, should not ibe allowed to compete with Canadian manufacturers, either those already in existence or those who might come into existence later. That was the attitude in which the Canadian representatives took part in this conference.
When I examine the document now before us I am amazed that so little has been secured that is of real value to the Canadian producer. So far as wheat, copper, zinc, lead, apples and so on are concerned, we have always enjoyed free entry into the British market, so there is nothing new in these provisions. When I come to examine the schedules in regard to other free entries I find that most of those that are at all important concern articles that go into the manufacture of goods in Canadian factories, whose pro-

United Kingdom
ducts are highly protected but who obtain their raw materials free of duty. Is it'any wonder that there is a feeling of resentment at treatment of this character? If our Canadian delegation had been willing to extend our market, do you not think that a better spirit would have prevailed in the conference? Do you not think that a better spirit would be prevailing now? It is very evident, not only in the Canadian government but in the home government as well, that all is not well with respect to this agreement. And -may I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is the first occasion on which an agreement of this kind has been under consideration in either parliament when it was not received with acclaim and passed almost unanimously.
Why do I oppose this agreement? I oppose it because there are 138 articles in it which are of no advantage whatever to the Britisher and which simply fasten on the Canadian consumer a rate of taxation higher than ever before. Do the government expect men who* believe in the fiscal policies in which I believe to support an agreement of this kind? I do not think they do. Perhaps they are right in imposing upon the Canadian people their ideas and policies because they are in power and have the voting strength to do so. But I have my own rights to assert and my own position to protect, and I must do so by protesting against this sort of thing which is bringing so much distress and misery to the people of Canada. I say, there are in this agreement 138 articles in respect of which the government seize the opportunity, under the guise of a British preference, of increasing the duties on goods coming into Canada. Of 100 articles or so which I have examined in the schedules, and which are free or upon which a reduction has taken place, the larger percentage are goods that are used in the manufacture of our raw products in Canada, and the importation is very small. I will mention one, which has been referred to before-cream separators. The occasion is seized to increase the duty by 25 per cent on an article which heretofore has entered free. Why? Because we have Canadian manufacturers making cream separators. Does anyone think that the dairy industry at this moment can stand an added burden of this sort? Yet, under the guise of an imperial preference, the government are asking gentlemen on this side, who have all their lives opposed this sort of thing, to support such an agreement. I cannot believe that the government ever hoped even to have consideration given the agreement by men who, they are aware, throughout their lifetime, have opposed such a policy, and I say further that in my
opinion hon. gentlemen occupying the treasury benches today had no mandate to make an agreement of this kind by which, under the guise of an imperial preference, they increase tariffs to the detriment of the Canadian consumer.
There are a number of items with which I am in entire agreement, and I will say that in so far as these conform to Liberal policies and principles with respect to tariffs, I would support them even if it did not mean business. But, Mr. Speaker, I am precluded from doing so; I dare not do so without being accused of standing for the agreement as a whole. That is my position in this matter. It would be indeed a very poor agreement were there not some provisions in it that were in the interests of the Canadian people-an exceedingly poor agreement. But I confess that they are so few, in an agreement which is so farreaching in its effect upon industry and production, and which is so important to the welfare of the Canadian people, that these changes count for very little. I do not want to cover ground that has already been gone over by hon. gentlemen who have preceded me; suffice it to say that for the reasons I have stated I find myself in a position where I must oppose the treaty.
There is one other matter with regard to which I wish to say a word or two while I am on my feet, although it has very little to do with the treaty itself, except in an indirect way. For my part, I believe that 90 per cent of the difficulties which we are experiencing today can be attributed to the tariff, but there certainly is something to be said with regard to the question of currency. And here again I am astonished to find that in the free entry of goods into Canada currency plays a rather important part. When I come to study the schedules I find that it is still possible in connection with goods entering free into Canada from Great Britain for the government to impose the tax of 3 per cent, which has been instituted since hon. gentlemen came into office. But in addition to that, because, forsooth, the Conservative party are standing for what they are pleased to call sound money, we have a further burden imposed on the importer, which must foe paid by the consumer. I refer to the difference estimated between the Canadian dollar and the pound. Today, I presume, that difference is in the neighbourhood of 68 cents. That will apply to free entries, and against that also I wish to register my strongest protest. I do hope that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue will discontinue the application of these vexatious duties to goods imported into this country. They have been
75S	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
nothing but vexatious impositions since their inception. There is a vast difference between protection, if you are bound to have protection, against slaughter prices in a slaughter market and protection against goods coming into the country simply because those goods happen to come into conflict with goods manufactured in Canada. The government have carried this policy to an extreme which is absolutely unjustifiable, and under this agreement, while there is a veiled promise of reform, while there is a promise that as soon as the financing of Canada will permit, the imposition of these dump duties and other duties of a similar character will be eliminated, nevertheless one is bound to ask in all sincerity whether there is very much prospect of the business of the country improving under the administration at present in office in Canada. Very little demonstration of any improvement has so far been forthcoming, and if I am to judge by past performances I am afraid that there will have to be an entire change of fiscal policy before we can look for very much improvement in the economic situation in Canada. We shall have to relieve my hon. friend the Minister of Finance of the grievous burden he is bearing today. No, Mr. Speaker; the policy is entirely wrong. I have said on many occasions in this house, after having fought for almost forty years against this kind of thing, that I should like to see what the actual results would be if an extreme policy such as we have in force today, were put into operation. Well, I have lived to see it, and I am bound to say-
An hon. MEMBER:: And glad of it.


Charles A. Stewart: No, I am
not glad of it, but I am bound to say that the result has exceeded anything I could conceive in the way of difficulties and tribulation for the people who have enacted it. My only regret is that this has brought so much in the way of sorrow, discomfort, and tribulation to the Canadian people, as well as to the people in every other country in the world. When this government, in the face of unemployment, in the face of distress, in the face of business failures right and left, in the face of the troubles confronting our farmers, had the opportunity to widen the markets for our kith and kin, they refused to do so but, under the guise of imperial agreements, seized the opportunity of fastening more strongly than ever upon the backs and shoulders of the Canadian people the burden of additional protection. I do not think that was the proper spirit in which to approach a conference of this sort.

While this government can attribute its position today to the fact that there was considerable resentment in the public mind against the increases of tariff put into effect by the United States against Canada, how do they think our overseas cousins feel about the attitude they have taken toward them? Can they be happy under it. I should say not. Is it any wonder that when Great Britain did decide to put into effect a moderate tariff they left the doors wide open in order to see what the Canadian government would do about it. Since I have become aware of the provisions of this agreement, I have marvelled at the fact that the British government did not put into effect against Canada the tariff schedules which now apply against other countries. When we realize how we have treated them with respect to imports into this country, the action they have taken speaks well for their generosity. I can only attribute the action they have taken, generous as it is, to the fact that they hope that within a short time better judgment will prevail in this country and we will again return to the old, happy relationships which existed prior to 1930. The sooner we return to those days, the better. We have at least let the people of England know that this attitude is not the attitude of all the people of Canada. This government is in office with a majority of over 200,000 votes, but there are many pepple who, had they known, that these duties were to be put into effect against the mother country, would not have marked their ballots for the Conservative candidates. When they have become fully aware of what they have done, then I am certain that there will be no doubt about what they will do.
It was my hope that we might have had a very full discussion upon the schedules, and with that in mind I spent considerable time in studying them. I may say that I can heartily support some of them which are along the lines I have advocated continuously, but my regret is that there are not more. I cannot see why this government could not have widened the avenues of trade within the empire and have made conditions easier for the Canadian people. However, they have decided not to do so, but rather to increase the intermediate and general tariffs which make the situation more difficult. As far as the schedules are concerned, no opportunity is given to me to express an opinion thereon. I must first vote upon the motion now before the house and because of t}ie principles which I have always advocated and which I firmly believe to be in the best interests of the Canadian people, that vote must be against the agreement.

United Kingdom
Therefore, I beg to move, seconded by the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. Golding):
That the resolution be amended by adding the following:
That this motion be not put until after the fiscal changes proposed by the rates set forth in schedule E attached to said agreement and forming a part thereof, which schedule of rates has been referred by this house to its committee of ways and means, have been considered in said committee.
That will give some of us an opportunity to express our opinions and get our ideas before the public in a way we are totally unable to do under the wording of the motion now before the house.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I am afraid the amendment which the hon. member seeks to move is not in order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Why?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: For these reasons: the
resolution which the house is now discussing approves only of the trade agreement therein referred to "subject to the legislation required in order to give effect to the fiscal changes consequent thereto," using the actual words of the motion. An unqualified approval is not sought. The legislation referred to in the resolution includes schedule E referred to in the amendment. This is not a motion which can be amended by stating any special reason for not agreeing to the principle of the question of being opposed to its progress. To move that it be not put is not an amendment. If it is desired that the question be not now put, it is open to any hon. member to move the previous question and to vote it down under standing order 55. Although the mover and seconder of the previous question generally vote in its favour, there is no rule to prevent their voting against their own motion. I quote Bourinot, fourth edition, at page 327 as follows:
The members proposing and seconding the previous question generally vote in its favour but there is no rule to prevent them voting against their own motion.
I therefore declare the amendment as presented as not in order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
before your ruling is finally given, I should like to say that I do not interpret the amendment as saying that the motion shall not be put; it rather seeks to fix a time at which it shall be put, a time which will permit a full discussion in the interval of the tariff changes contained in the agreement. The agreement is meaningless without the schedule, which forms a part thereof, in fact the several tariff items contained in the schedule are the most important part of the agreement. The amendment does not say that Your Honour shall not put the motion which is to approve the agreement, it says that that motion shall not be put until the house has had an opportunity of discussing the tariff items in the agreement, which items are now before the committee of ways and means for consideration. All that is necessary to serve the ends of the amendment is that this debate be discontinued until an opportunity has been afforded of discussing tariff items in committee of ways and means. Surely we should not be asked to give our approval to an agreement without knowing what the effect of the schedule, which is its main feature, is going to be.
Your Honour will have observed, from what has already been said, that this agreement in its effect is not so much an agreement to increase trade between Canada and Great Britain as it is an agreement to make increasingly difficult trade between the British Empire, particularly Canada, and other countries of the world. That at least is our contention, and we believe that this will be established the moment this agreement is considered in relation to the tariff items which appear in the schedule. If it can he shown we are wrong in this, we are, I hope, open-minded enough to be prepared to reconsider the opposition we have to the agreement itself. Our position is that this agreement primarily is one to increase tariffs rather than to decrease tariffs. That point can be definitely determined only by discussion of the tariff items in committee. Till it is determined we should not be asked to approve the agreement.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend has succeeded, under the guise of raising a point of order, in presenting an argument with respect to the attitude taken by hon. members opposite in connection with this resolution. I submit, sir, that the only justification for his rising would be to deal with the point of order. I had proposed doing so, excepting that I understood Your Honour had given a ruling; but inasmuch as you have permitted an observation, ostensibly upon a point of order, by my right hon. friend, let me submit this: We are concerned at the moment with the question whether this amendment is or is not in order, and not with the question of what the attitude of my right hon. friend cr his followers may be with respect to the agreement in question. They may be right or they may be wrong. That is not the point.

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
The question is a point of order: Is this amendment in order or is it not? I submit that the amendment is out of order, not only for the reasons that you have assigned, but for a further and most important reason. A cardinal rule for interpreting whether an amendment is an amendment or not is to put the question: Does it add to or subtract from the original motion? I submit that the proposed amendment does neither; it has reference merely to the time, which is a question of procedure, and is in a sense a negative, as it were, of the motion itself, because when we vote upon it we determine whether we can get it now or at some other time.
Dealing with the question which is not particularly germane to the point of order-I submit I have a right to reply to my right hon. friend-let me point out to him this: In voting for or against this resolution, he votes for or against the principle of an agreement with the mother country. The question of details is settled when we get into committee on the schedules and at that time it will be quite competent for my right hon. friend and his followers to take exception to any one of the items.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me ask my hon. friend this question: Would he regard me as approving the agreement if I opposed the proposed rates of duty fixed in the schedule? He knows we cannot approve the agreement and disapprove the schedules; we have to accept the whole thing and that is what the motion to approve asks us to do.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not know that it is incumbent upon me to make a reply to my right hon. friend as if we were in committee, but in voting upon this resolution we vote upon the principle. The question of details arises at another stage. This resolution is only the foundation on which to lay a bill and when that is brought in, it will be competent for my right hon. friend and his followers to move amendments on the second reading or in committee to move amendment after amendment, so that there is ample opportunity for my right hon. friend, so far as that is concerned, to assert his point of view.
Hon. T. 'G. MURPHY (Minister of the Interior) : Mr. Speaker, I do rise not with the expectation that I can add very materially to this rather detailed debate, but rather because I desire to place myself on record unreservedly as being in favour of this resolution and the agreement on which it is based. Members of every shade of political faith in the house have expressed their individual opinions, as well as the general opinion of the party to 
which they give allegiance, concerning the merits or demerits of the resolution now before the house.
It might be well, Mr. Speaker, in order to obtain a proper perspective, to consider why we, in this year 1932, are debating such a resolution; why the economic conferences of 1930 and 1932 were held; why the representatives of the component parts of the British Empire or the British commonwealth of nations assented wholeheartedly, hopefully and unreservedly to the various agreements that were signed in this chamber, and one of which we are now debating. To answer that question one would have to go very far back into history to find the first cause, but the more immediate causes date from the outbreak of the world war in 1914.
During those four years of carnage there was a tremendous loss. There was a loss of millions of workers, a shortage of food and raw materials, a dislocation of trade and industry, yes, Mr. Speaker, and in their wake there followed starvation and impoverishment. We have a very lively recollection of those four years. We know of the starvation and impoverishment that then existed and when that war was over, the first task of suffering humanity was to build a framework within which man could once again carry on his usual avocations; in other words, to make, to sell and to consume, to clear the old channels of trade and to make new ones, and in addition to that to restore a single and stable medium of exchange. To the great surprise- and I think I am correct in saying this-of all people, there was an apparent success, a success that exceeded the hopes of even the most optimistic. By the year 1925 world production had increased 18 per cent and the population had increased six per cent. Currencies were again linked with gold and we had a single and stable medium of exchange.
During the next four years progress was indeed more rapid than it had been during the previous seven years. Trade was flowing more freely and the common peoples, so termed, of the world had a higher standard of living and better labour conditions than ever before. But may I say here that linked with that recovery was an intense economic nationalism which was adopted by practically all countries which had engaged in the conflict. That was due' to one thing and one thing only, and that was fear. During those years of war the people had no sense of security and when the war was over, that is what they wanted more than anything else. They desired to attain that security and the means adopted to attain it were in most cases tariffs. They

United Kingdom
endeavoured to make themselvea self-supporting as far as possible. It had been impressed upon them during the war years that they were dependent upon other parts of the world for their very life, for their foodstuffs. That was the situation.
As I said a moment ago, there was a remarkable recovery. But following that we had a collapse, a rout, a debacle greater in intensity and range than in all previous experiences. Canada was caught in that maelstrom of events and she was possibly harder hit because she is a primary producer. Canada produces and sells mostly her primary products and we are all aware that the prices of primary products are the first to fall and the last to rise. That applies particularly to the products of the field, the forest, the mine and the sea.
Farming is still our principal industry in Canada. In fact, in 1931, 32-8 per cent of
those gainfully employed were engaged in farming, and 38-2 per cent of the total so gainfully employed were males. We have in Canada a large agricultural population and we export immense quantities of agricultural products, the principal one of which is wheat. So much is that the case that wheat with flour accounted for over 36 per cent of the total exports of our produce in 1929. This proves conclusively that the economic structure of Canada is -built up, to a great extent, in relation to the production and export of wheat. Therefore the fluctuations which have occurred in the price of wheat profoundly affect the national economy. In order to illustrate my point, I would like to put upon Hansard the following table, showing the value *of wheat and wheat flour exported annually since 1924, wheat flour being included in terms of its wheat equivalent:
Value of Wheat and Wheat Flour Exported Annually since 1924 (Wheat flour is included in terms of its wheat equivalent)
Year ending	Quantity	Total	Average exportMarch 31	in bushels	value	price per bushel1924	
309,587,417	$330,541,677	$1 071925	322,304,536	1 341926	
295,061,853	434,051,986	1 471927	
294,162,155	421,815,274	1 431928	
309,144,918	411,996,452	1 331929	493,642,105	1 171930	
212,529,189	261,210,670	1 231931	
249,724,883	210,296,003	0 841932	
215,677,763	134,636,926	0 62
In other words, the value of our wheat in 1932 was less than thirty per cent of its value in 1929. May I digress for a moment to say that the economic system of Canada, bound up as it is with the value of our wheat and its export, is inherently more unstable than that of an industrial country like England or the United States, for example.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Will the hon. member
permit a question?


Charles Murphy: I have only forty minutes.


Thomas F. Donnelly: Where are those values, at Fort William, to the farmer, or where?


Charles Murphy: I told the hon. member
that I had only forty minutes and I do not care to be interrupted. I was stating that our economic system is inherently more unstable than that of an industrial country like
England or the United States, and therefore our foreign trade is of extreme importance to us. This is due to two causes: first, to the wealth of our natural resources; and second, to the fact that our climate limits the range of the commodities that we can produce. For these two reasons we must of necessity trade with the world.
We on this side of the house have been accused of not being desirous of trading with other countries. May I say that I yield to no man nor does this government in being desirous of trading with other countries and exchanging our products for theirs. I would say that our policy is this: (a) Taking all factors into consideration, to protect our producers against unfair competition in the home market; (fo) to trade and exchange goods with all other countries which are prepared to deal with us on a fair basis and to find new markets. That I submit was the
762	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
policy put forward by this government in 1930, and it is the policy which resulted in this government assuming office. We had a mandate given to us by the people of Canada to put that policy into effect, and, may I say, we have been true to that policy. That is illustrated by the agreements we have recently entered into with our sister dominions, Australia and New Zealand, and by the agreements which are now before the house.
Our goods have been shut out of other countries by hostile tariffs, restricting our markets, over the years, and we are endeavouring at the present time to enlarge our markets, and one method among others that we have adopted is shown in the agreements before us.
The situation that confronted Canada and all other empire countries before the economic conference took place was, as everyone knows, one of appalling collapse in world trade. We are told in the World Economic Survey, issued as recently as August of this year by the League of Nations, that the total value of world trade fell from roundly $59,000,000,000 in 1929 to $34,000,000,000 in 1931. Although it sounds incredible, that brief period witnessed the disappearance of $25,000,000,000 worth of trade, part of that huge amount vanishing simply through the fall of prices, and the balance through actual stoppage in the flow of commodities.
That strangulation of trade has laid its hand upon Canada as upon all other countries but to say that Canadian policy has been a contributory factor is to misread the whole sequence of world conditions and events. Canada's loss of commerce has been heavy because we have, as a country, been heavily engaged in external trade for many years j but the very magnitude of the world trade decline should be enough to convince everyone that any attempt to lay at Canada's door any share of responsibility for the commercial calamity from which we are suffering is to magnify beyond all reason Canada's actual power to influence world affairs.


Mr. BROWN:: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. '1 call attention to the fact that the hon. gentleman is reading his speech.


Charles Murphy: I have only been reading some extracts, Mr. Speaker, as have many other hon. members of this house.


Mr. GOTT:: Including the hon. member for Lisgar.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is one of the worst.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: As hon. members know, it is against the rules to read a speech, but in this debate the rule has been more honoured in the breach than in the observance. I have, with the approval of the house, allowed considerable laxity during this debate, but I am glad that some hon. member has drawn attention to the rule and in future I shall endeavour to enforce it more strictly.


Eccles James Gott: That will eliminate a lot from the other side.


Charles Murphy: United Kingdom
Not only have our agricultural products been denied access to the markets of the world, but the exports of our minerals and mineral products have declined tremendously
during the years. The following table will serve to show the exports of minerals and their products for the fiscal years 1927 to 1931 inclusive:
Iron and	Non-Ferrous	Non-metallicits products	metals	minerals1927	$74,284,824	$ 80,639,197	$28,880,8311928	
62,753,934	90,840,441	25,949,9301929	
82,256,717	112,778,194	27,401,7901930	
78,589,580	154,319,429	28,545,0961931	
38,937,661	95,652,063	21,107,780
During the same period our exports of products from the fisheries declined as shown by the following table:
Exports of Fisheries Fiscal years 1927-1931
1927		 $36,365,454
1928		 35,660,287
1929		 37,962,929
1930		 37,185,185
1931		 29,691,978
The decline in exports of agricultural and vegetable products for the years 1927 to 1931 is indicated in the following table:
Exports of Agricultural and Vegetable Products Fiscal years 1927-1931
1927		 $574,994,162
1928		 555,110,598
1929		 646,514,058
1930		 384,635,751
1931		 292,280,037
The figures concerning exports of wood, wood products and paper for the same period are as follows:
Exports of Wood, Wood Products and Paper Fiscal years 1927-1931
1927	 $284,120,267
]928	 284,543,396
1929		 288,621,745
1930		 289,566,675
1931		 230,604,474
In the calendar year 1931 the United States took about 70 per cent of Canada's exports of planks and boards. As the result of the imposition of a new United States import tax
dated June 21, 1932-and I should like hon. members to note the date-of $3 per thousand feet board measure on "lumber rough and plain or dressed on one or more sides, except flooring of maple, birch and beech" which, added to the former tariff duty of SI, makes the total tariff and excise tax S4 per thousand feet board measure; this market, valued at over 14 million dollars in 1931, has largely disappeared. To illustrate my point, Mr. Speaker, I should like to place the following table on Hansard:
Canadian Exports of Planks and Boards to U.S.A. in Thousand Feet Board Measure
	1932	1931
	M. feet	M. feet
September.	
11,800	56,823August.. .	
10,979	57,107July.. ..	
10,985	63,412June.. ..	
67,312	61,276The same	condition applies to our	exports
of copper. Prior to June 21, 1932, the United States was Canada's best customer for copper and its products, taking 88 per cent of the total value in 1929, 96 per cent in 1930, 80 per cent in 1931, and 69 per cent in the first six months of 1932. With the imposition of a 4 cent per pound import tax on copper in the principal exportable forms by the United States on that date, this market was practically wiped out. The following table will show the value of Canadian copper exports to the United States:
Value in Dollars of Canadian Exports of Copper and its Products
September, 1932.. .
August, 1932	
July, 1932	
First 6 months, 1932 1931, calendar year. 1930, calendar year. 1929, calendar year.
Total	Exports to	Per cent ofexports	U.S.A.	total to U.S.A.$	716,103	$	57,342	8478,477	28,608	61,016,641	489,748	4810.455,761	7,212,635	6917,155,713	13,652,932	8031,354,544	30,015,668	9637,399,996	32,974,503	88766	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
Hon. members will observe that our exports to the United States dropped from 88 per cent of the total in 1929 to 8 per cent in September, 1932.
I have placed these figures upon Hansard to show how our trade has declined during the years, due to tariffs which have been erected against them. May I add that the government and the Prime Minister of Canada are fully aware of that situation. Long before 1930 our present Prime Minister saw the possibility of expanding trade within the empire. He saw that we were shut out of foreign markets by hostile tariffs. He recognized the fact that on account of our geographical position we were particularly fortunate so far as the possibility of increasing our trade within the British commonwealth of nations was concerned. One has but to look at the map of the world to appreciate the position occupied by the British Empire. Within that area, embracing one-quarter of the world's population, is produced practically everything needed for the sustenance of man. With that vision the Prime Minister went to London in 1930 and made certain definite, plain, unequivocal proposals which were not then acceptable to the right hon. the leader of the opposition. The reason given by the leader of the opposition for their non-acceptance was that there was cause for complaint concerning the Prime Minister's method of approach. But there was another reason, Mr. Speaker, namely, the historic free trade policy of Great Britain. The proposals were not accepted at that time and the conference was adjourned. As a result of the abortive conference of that year the Prime Minister of Canada invited delegates from all the self-governing dominions to meet in Ottawa in 1932. It is not necessary to refer to the proceedings of that conference; their results are now before us in the agreements which have been laid on the table of this house. But in order to have a proper appreciation of what the conference sought to accomplish, Mr. Speaker, I think we should consider its objects and aims, as stated by leading delegates. I quote from Mr. Baldwin's remarks at the opening of the conference:
What then should be the first aim of this conference? It should be to clear out the channels of trade among ourselves. For that purpose we need not measure too closely or too exactly the relative value of preferences given and received. If we all approach the problem with a view to seeing how much each can contrinbute to the common stock without detriment to our own national interests, we shall not need to concern ourselves with the relative advantages obtained by each, since we shall know that an increase in the purchasing
TMr. Murphy.]
power of any member of the empire must show itself in increased Imperial trade, and the prosperity of each will add to the prosperity of all.
The present universal depression makes the extension and improvement of Imperial trade a matter of urgent importance to all parts of the empire. The extension and greater activity of empire trade is the most hopeful means of stimulating demand in the world markets and of restoring a sound level of wholesale commodity prices.
The Prime Minister of Canada made the following statement:
We have come together in confidence of our power to work out a plan for our common benefit. Let us manifest this confidence by adopting a plan the lifetime of which will outlast any vicissitudes which may counsel its abrogation. But provision for flexibility must be made, so that either country may negotiate foreign trade agreements without impairing the effectiveness of agreed preferences. I say that in the successful pursuit of this plan, we will achieve the added power which we all desire, to enlarge our place in markets beyond the empire.
All the delegates to the conference concurred in those sentiments, and their sincerity could not be doubted. As a result of the agreements, Mr. Speaker, I claim that all industries in Canada will benefit. Manufacturing, mining, fishing, lumbering and agri-. culture-and when I speak of agriculture I include dairying, fruit growing, grain producing and stock raising-all will reap an advantage. One only needs to read in Hansard what has been said by all hon. members from this side of the house, representing various provinces and coming from constituencies where these various industries are carried on, to get a cross-section of public opinion. The hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) spoke of the advantages to the fruit growers of British Columbia. The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie) told of the benefits that would accrue to lumbering and mining in that province. The hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) dealt with the question of lumbering in Ontario The hon. member for Northumberland, N.B. (Mr. McDade) told us how these agreements would benefit his province. The hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle (Mr. Perley) presented the case of the wheat producers of western Canada. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins) spoke of the advantages that he saw to the cattle trade. Just here may I say that if any man in Canada deserves credit for advocating, in season and out, the marketing of our cattle in Great Britain, that credit should go to the hon. member for Marquette, not only because of the remarks he has made in this house but also because, to my personal knowledge, he has devoted his own time and

United Kingdom
money over a period of years to placing before the people of Manitoba and of the west generally the benefits that would accrue to agriculture by the adoption of the very measures which have been brought into effect as a result of these agreements.
In his address in this house last week the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) told how our trade had been throttled during the years of the Liberal regime. He showed how we had been shut out of the markets of the United States, particularly, and he showed how, as a result of the policies put into effect by this government, our markets have been increased, particularly our home market and the market in Great Britain after the Import Duties Act came into effect. During the course of his speech the minister had occasion to mention the importance of article 6 of the agreement, and he showed the benefit it would be to the Canadian producer of bacon and ham. In order further to impress that fact upon hon. members I should like to place on Hansard figures showing the imports of bacon and ham into the United Kingdom during the last three years:
Hundredweight Value
1929	
9,306,909	f49,215,5081930	
10,194,208	46,112,3071931	
11,969,000 not available
These figures are taken from United Kingdom trade returns.
It has been suggested that in times such as these it might be a good policy for the western farmer to decrease his wheat acreage. I am the last man in this house to try to tell any farmer, and particularly any western farmer, what he should produce. That is a question he must decide for himself, but today he is faced with the fact that he cannot even find a market for his wheat. By the terms of article 6 provision is made for the free entry of Canadian bacon and ham. The farmer of western Canada, together with the farmer in the east, can well decide for himself what he should grow, but I have just placed on record the figures which show the importance of the bacon and ham trade. If the farmer is so situated that he cannot grow grain profitably he might turn those acres
which formerly he devoted to wheat into the growing of coarse grains, producing bacon and ham and thereby diversifying his products in order to obtain a remunerative return.
In the few moments I have left, Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with another phase of the matter. An attack has been made on this treaty, led by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). The main objection contained in the speech of the right hon. gentleman was that no executive has the right to bind a nation as to its fiscal policy without the consent of the people. I should like to ask why he limited himself to fiscal policies. Why not say that nc executive has a right to bind a nation ir connection with any policy? Have not othei covenants been entered into by the executives of other nations, which bind their people? Have not executives even of Great Britain entered into agreements which bound their people for terms of years? We have only to read history to confirm that fact. This government has a mandate from the Canadian people to carry out its fiscal policies; that mandate was given in 1930, only two years ago. In 1931 the British people also gave their government a mandate to put into effect certain fiscal policies; they expected their government to act accordingly, and they are so doing. When the right hon. the leader of the opposition says that no executive has a right to bind a nation in its fiscal policies without the consent of the people of that nation, the best answer to that is found in the fact that in the British house the vote on the second reading of the bill to put the agreements into effect was 423 against 77. May I say that (Janada, which has a greater responsibility than any other country in the empire to put these agreements into effect, will possibly be the last one to adopt them, owing to the opposition of hon. members on the other side of the house.
The leader of the opposition says that he cannot support this agreement because it is based on protection. I take issue with him here because, during his tenure of office, there were in force many items on which there was a protective duty. Let me give a few:
Tariff Items under Liberal Administration
No. ot		British		
Item	Wording of Item	Preference	Intermediate	GeneralBlankets-	%	%	%553	Household blankets, n.o.p., not to include	blankets, automobile rugs, steamer rugs, nor similar articles	224	30	35627	GIovps-	Gloves of all kinds.. .. 	2?i	30	35768 COMMONS Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements	No. of Item	Tariff Items under Liberal Administration-Concluded British Wording of Item Preference Intermediate	General413	*Screws- Commonly called "wood screws", or iron or steel, brass or other metal, including lag or coat screw's plated, or not, and machine or other screws, n.o.p	% 22i	% 30	% 35532a	Shirts- Shirts not knitted, collars and cuffs, wholly of cotton	20	30	321519	Furniture, etc.
House, office, cabinet, or store furniture of wood, iron, oir other material in parts or finished; wire screw's, wire doors, and wire windows; cash registers; window cornices and cornice poles of all kinds; hair spring and other mattresses; curtain stretchers, furniture springs and carpet sweepers	20	271	30619	Rubber goods- India rubber clothing and clothing made waterproof with India rubber; rubber or gutta percha hose and cotton or linen hose lined with rubber; rubber mats or matting and rubber packing	20	30	35567a	Artificial silk clothing- Clothing, wearing apparel and articles made from woven fabrics and all textile manufactures wholly or partially manufactured, n.o.p. of which the component of chief value is artificial silk or similar synthetic fibres produced by chemical processes	30	35	371195	Wallpaper- Paper hanging or wallpapers, borders or bordering and window blinds of paper of all kinds	22i	321	35284	Drain pipes, sewer pipes and earthenware fittings therefor, chimney linings or vents, chimney tops and inverted blocks, glazed or unglazed earthemvare tiles, n.o.p 	25	321	3588	Pickles, sauces and catsups, including soy.. ..	25	321	35362	Silverware, etc.
Articles consisting wholly or in part of a sterling or other silverware, nickel plated ware, gilt or electro plated ware, n.o.p.; manufactures of gold and silver, n.o.p		22J	30	35
Hon. gentlemen opposite who support the leader of the opposition, declare that they cannot vote for these agreements because they believe in free trade; yet during the period of nearly ten years that they were in power they voted for these rates of tariff. The rates that appear in the list which I have just given would seem to be fairly high rates of tariff for a free trade or a tariff for revenue government. But many of the leading members on his own side of the house are not in agreement with the leader of the opposition in the policy which he stated in his address. Let me quote the following. At page 653 of Hansard the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) said:
I have always felt, and still feel, perhaps in a sense more than ever when all the other

nations of the world, or practically all, have erected impenetrable barriers against our products, that it is only fair that we should have such a tariff as will enable our own producers to have a fair chance in their own market. . . . That statement apparently gives some comfort to my friends opposite. And I have no apologies to make for it. In fact I was going to say in regard to that that the leader of the government and myself in my modest way were in substantial agreement.
The hon. gentleman who made that statement was not a Conseravtive but a former member of the government at one time led by the right hon. gentleman opposite. The hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore) said, as reported at page 400 of Hansard:
I am frank to admit that the last two years must have been a terrific struggle on the part of this government to maintain the economic

United Kingdom
entity of Canada. I think we all know something about it. We all know that many industries abroad were profitless and bankrupt; that goods were piling high and that every effort was made to export them. We have reason to believe that in many countries industries were subsidized in order to keep the men from the streets and, if you like, in order to prevent revolution. The question came up -and I sympathized with this government when they had to face it-as to whether we should allow these goods to be dumped here and turn our own men out on the streets. As I say, I found myself then in sympathy with an attempt to dig in until the cyclone passed.
Is that an expression of opinion from this side of the house? No; that statement came from the former chairman of the tariff board which was brought into existence by the leader of the opposition himself.


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


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Charles Murphy: With the consent of the house, Mr. Speaker, I should like to have a few minutes more in order that I may conclude what I have to say. I may observe that this is the first occasion on which I have taken up very much of the time of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Charles Murphy: At page 270 of Hansard, discussing the agreement in relation to dairy products, the leader of the opposition is reported as follows:
It stipulates that at the end of three years *-that is all this portion is to run for-the government of Great Britain will reserve to itself the right to-lower duties? No, not to lower duties but to impose duties in the interests of the agriculturists of Great Britain.
In other words, he complains that the term is only for three years and that we have possibly only a margin of preference. In one breath he complains that the treaty is binding for a term of years and in the next he complains to the dairy men that the term is not long enough.
May I say here that the objection of the right hon. gentleman is a mass of generalizations. There is no pivotal attack in his remarks, nor in the remarks that have been made by his followers. There has been an analysis of the schedules, and that is perfectly proper for clarity and understanding; but that, I submit, would have been more in order during the consideration of the various resolutions as they will be submitted oy the Minister of Finance. I am not speaking in any censorious sense when I say that the real purpose of the attack which has been made by the opposition is political partisan 53719-49
advantage. This is evidenced by lack of denunciation of the spirit of the treaty itself. No hon. member has denounced the spirit which actuated those who brought the treaty into being, or the spirit of the treaty itself. This is made perfectly clear by the various interpretations and glaring contradictions of even the leaders of the party opposite. At page 288 of Hansard, the leader of the opposition is reported to have said:
I think unquestionably the five year period is one of the most objectionable features of the agreement, but here again we have to thank others rather than the head of our own government for the fact that the agreement has not been fixed for a much longer period of time.
The hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm) gave the answer to that. That hon. gentleman stated, as reported at page 312 of Hansard:	[DOT]
The treaties made by the former government and by governments previous to that were criticized by my hon. friends opposite, when they were in opposition, and it is said now that they were made for terms of years. Of course they were. Any one in the house who has ever studied treaty making must knowrthat treaties must be made for terms of years. There is no question about that.
The leader of the opposition objects because the treaties are for a term of years, and one of his principal lieutenants declares that everyone knows that they must be for a term of years. At page 286 the leader of the opposition, after reading clause 19, made this statement:
I shall not attempt to interpret the meaning of that clause beyond reminding the house of what I said a little earlier in the day, that what is being done with respect to relations between these protectorates, colonies, mandated territories, and the like, in the way of giving exclusive privileges to parts of the British empire, and taking away from other parts of the world corresponding trading advantages which they had hitherto enjoyed, constitutes a very serious question.
In other words, he does not approve of trade with other countries being diverted to the members of the other parts of the British Empire. The hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm) said, as reported at page 309-310 of Hansard:
The Dunning budget was presented in 1930 with five primary objects in view: First, to divert trade, upon which all agreed; ... In so far as the main points of the treaty are concerned, I should like to direct attention to the first point stressed last night by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) and to which reference was made by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps), to the effect that there is diversion of trade from foreign to British countries. That is a correct statement. Unquestionably there is a diversion of trade, and in so far as it takes place it is not inconsistent or out of line with the desire of

770	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
Canadian people in all walks of life and in all political parties. To the diversion of trade as designed and carried out by this treaty no one can take any objection.
It is clear, from a reading of the speech made by the leader of the opposition, that he does not approve of written, formal, detailed agreements having been arrived at, but rather that the delegates, men representing in their persons and abilities some of the ablest minds of the British commonwealth of nations, empowered by their respective countries to enter into solemn agreements, should have in this crisis unparalleled in the history of the world, discussed informally the various questions and then gone home. That agreements with every country were arrived at is proof conclusive that these delegates were here to do business and not to talk pious platitudes, and that the leader of the opposition in his conception of the conference takes a view diametrically opposed to that of each delegate who attended; according to him, only he is right and all others are wrong. Had. the leader of the opposition had his way, the conference would have been reduced to the status of a debating society and the conference halls of accomplishment would have been known as halls of echoes.
It has not been my purpose merely to draw attention to the glaring inconsistencies which have been put upon Hansard by hon. members opposite, but by that means rather to show that the opposition has not disclosed any fundamental weaknesses in these treaties. There has been no pivotal point upon which they trained their guns; the attack has been general and discursive-in fact, I would describe it as a blunderbuss attack. They have loaded their guns with everything they could find, they have pressed the triggers and shot at random in the hope that in some way benefit would accrue to them and the mark would be hit. I have seen many men indiscriminately aim guns at flocks of flying birds, but I have never seen them bring down much game.
As I say, the whole tenor of the opposition debate shows that there is no fundamental weakness in the treaty; it has simply been an effort to make partisan political capital. They have turned a microscopic eye upon every detail; they have been careful to see that every "i" was dotted and every "t" crossed; they have endeavoured to find a misplaced comma, and have questioned how every detail would work out and how every phrase might be interpreted. With utter blindness they have ignored the very essence and spirit of the document, without which it would become so much waste paper.

I contend that these agreements constitute a noble structure and I ask hon. members not to examine them with a microscopic eye in an attempt to find a flaw here or there, but rather to consider the completed structure and the spirit which animated those who conceived and erected it. That is the spirit in which it will undoubtedly be interpreted and executed.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, the debate on this conference agreement has taken up much of the time of the house; I had not intended to take part in it until the developments of the last day or two made me feel I should say something in regard to this agreement. I shall try not to be very long, as I think the house should endeavour to get this question settled and proceed to a discussion of other vital matters which, in my opinion, should be decided before parliament adjourns for the Christmas recess. The government should have allowed the house to discuss these proposals in committee first. The house has already been moved into committee of ways and means for the purpose and had we been allowed to discuss the schedules in committtee first, I do not think this long debate upon the agreement itself would have been necessary. But the discussion has been well worth while, some points have come to light that I think were not evident on a cursory perusal of the proposal as brought down.
After listening to the debate for the last two weeks I would endeavour to sum up at least part of the results of this conference by saying that although much was expected, not only by the government but by the country, the results achieved have not been up to the expectations of the public. The conference was heralded by many as being a means of ending the depression, but in reality it has failed to deal with the root causes of the depression, namely the lack of purchasing power among the different peoples of the empire and of the world. It was anticipated that as a result of this conference international trade would be increased. I do not think there is going to be any increase in trade at all. Apparently there is only to be a diversion of trade between Canada and other countries outside the empire to new channels of trade between Canada, the United Kingdom, and the other countries of the empire.

United Kingdom
I have oneveiy grave objection to the agreement as it stands. There is the great danger that the countries, nine in all, I think, with which we have trade agreements and which have been receiving the benefit of our intermediate tariff rates, may denounce those treaties and we shall lose some of our markets.
I understand that the intermediate tariff rate has been increased on 139 items. Some of the countries with which we have trade treaties are very good customers for our wheat. I am afraid they will denounce those treaties, and we shall lose some good wheat customers. That matter can, of course, be better determined when we come to examine the schedules, and again I say that I regret very much we could not have examined them before having to vote upon the agreement itself.
The wheat preference is and has been advertised as the most important achievement of the conference. There is a preference granted on wheat of approximately six cents a bushel when the wheat is shipped directly from Canada to the old country, but it must be sold at world prices. In the last day or two a new difficulty appears to have come to light, namely, that to get the advantage of this preference the wheat must go directly from Canada to the United Kingdom.


Mr. McGIBBON:: If the preference is no
good, what difference does it make?


George Gibson Coote: I have not said that the
preference is no good. Let me quote from page 576 of Hansard, where the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), is reported as saying:
The preference, however, would not be granted in the United Kingdom to such goods if they were sent from Canada to say, the United States and then reeonsigned from there.
Then he quotes from the British government customs regulations-and I am giving only the last sentence:
It is essential to prove that the goods were consigned from a part of the empire to Great Britain or Northern Ireland, and not to a foreign country from which they were subsequently reconsigned to Great Britain or Northern Ireland.
Then, in response to a question by the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance), the Prime Minister said:
It is not for me to answer questions with respect to illustrations. Great Britain has, through the judgment of her parliament, imposed the conditions under which free entry will be granted.
In the Ottawa Citizen of last night there is a despatch which is headed:
Canada's wheat must go direct to old country. If stored in American elevators and shipped, will not enjoy preferences arranged here.
53719-49J
Canadian Press Cable.-London, November 1. -Canadian wheat stared in American elevators and from there reconsigned to the United Kingdom will not be entitled to the preferences decided at the Imperial conference to Canadian wheat. This announcement was made in the House of Commons today by L. Hore-Belisha, a government spokesman.
An amendment moved by Sir J. Sandeman Allen, member of the Union government, asking that grain consigned from an American port and certified by the Canadian government officer to have been grown in Canada, should be entitled to the preference, was defeated 247 to 55. The government declined to accept the amendment.
As has been pointed out by the Prime Minister, it is for Great Britain to impose the conditions under which free entry will be granted. The despatch which I have just read, and which appears in the Citizen, makes it clear that our wheat cannot enjoy the preference if it is shipped to any port in the United States and reshipped from there to the old country. Perhaps it may throw some light on this point if I read part of a despatch from Montreal which appeared in this morning's Citizen. I quote two paragraphs:
There was no doubt in the minds of the Canadian cabinet ministers attending the Imperial economic conference that the now of Canadian wheat should be diverted from American to Canadian ports almost exclusively, in the opinion of one transportation man.
Canadian lake steamers should be provided with additional cargoes, resulting in higher rates and more employment for Canadian seamen.
I hope hon. members will note that we are to pay higher rates.
Any decision to divert the flow of Canadian wheat through Canadian ports exclusively would have no influence on the movement of grain from the head of the lakes to the foot of Lake Erie, the American lake steamers still being in a position to carry the wheat down to Buffalo at advantageous rates. Instead of it continuing, in large measure by way of the Erie barge canal to Albany and New York, the grain would proceed in Canadian lake boats to Montreal, Sorel and Quebec.
There is also a despatch in tonight's Ottawa Citizen on the very same point. It says:
Wheat Must Be Shipped Direct To Get Preference
British Government Spokesman Confirms
Report Wheat In U.S. Will Not Benefit.
London, Nov. 2.-A government official confirmed this evening that Canadian wheat shipped in bond to the United States, pending sale and shipment to the United Kingdom, will not be entitled to the six cents a bushel imperial preference formulated at the imperial conference.
In other words, the government spokesman made clear, the preference will apply only to Canadian wheat arriving in the United Kingdom direct from a Canadian port, or else arriving from a United States port on a through order of consignment from Canada.
772	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
__ The latter would mean that its sale to United Kingdom interests would first have to be effected in Canada, or at least that its destination in the United Kingdom would have to be decided before the wheat left the dominion.
In the light of these statements it is necessary for us to examine the records of wheat shipments out of this country to see what effect this provision will have. The practice is at present to consign a large part of our wheat from western Canada to Buffalo. From Buffalo it can then be reconsigned either to Montreal or to New York. Large quantities are stored in New York for shipment whenever the market is right and whenever advantageous freight rates can be secured. I think you will find on examination that we cannot afford to give up this practice of storing wheat in New York even to secure the preference of 4\ cents. It is true Great Britain is giving us a preference of approximately six cents in her own currency, but when translated into Canadian currency with the present value of the pound, I think it amounts to about 44 cents a bushel.
The advantage of storing this grain in Buffalo is that we can then ship it anywhere that sales are possible. Moreover it should not be forgotten that we secure cheap storage rates on a lot of grain that comes down the lakes on the last trip that the boats make to Buffalo. Much of this grain remains in these boats in the Buffalo harbour perhaps all winter, and it can then be sent direct to New York for shipment, or it can go by Montreal if it is held until navigation opens.
I find on examination of the report of the grain trade of Canada, issued by the Bureau of Statistics, that for the crop year ending 1931, the freight rate from Fort William to Buffalo averaged 1*71 cents per bushel. In the same year the freight rate from Fort William to Port Colborne averaged 2-16 cents per bushel. There is not a great deal of difference, it being approximately -4 of one per cent, but I think it is significant that there should be that difference between two routes which are practically the same length. It shows that we cannot afford to place ourselves in the hands of Canadian ship owners only, or no doubt the rate would be raised. I find that the freight rate from Fort William to Montreal in the year 1930 averaged, on all shipments, 7-95 cents per bushel, while the freight rate from Fort William to New York on all shipments averaged 7-01 cents-a difference of nearly one cent a bushel in favour of shipments to New York. I think the only reason the rates to Montreal are as low as they are is that the Canadian lines have to meet in a measure the competition of the port of New

York. In 1930, the rate from Fort William to Buffalo averaged 1*91 cents per bushel and from Fort William to Port Colborne 2-52 cents, a difference of -6 of one per cent in favour of shipments to Buffalo, although Buffalo is no further from Fort William than is Port Colborne, again indicating that we cannot afford to place ourselves absolutely in the hands of Canadian ship owners.
In the crop year ending 1930, of the wheat shipped from Fort William to eastern Canada and eastern United States 49,000,000 bushels went to Canadian ports, Canadian elevators, and 66,000,000 went to American ports, chiefly Buffalo. For the next year, 1931, I find that
82.000.	000 bushels went to Canadian ports and
92.000.	000 to American ports.


Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: Will the hon. member permit a question before he leaves that point?


George Gibson Coote: Yes.


Robert Knowlton Smith: Do you not
think that if the preferences are to be of real benefit to all Canada the only way this country can secure the full benefit of them would be by routing the goods by all-empire routes?


George Gibson Coote: No, I do not think that would follow at all. If I have time before I conclude I may deal with that subject in a more general way than I am doing at the moment.
I find that in the crop year of 1929-30- I shall refer to that as the crop year ending 1930-of our wheat shipments to the United Kingdom 35,000,000 bushels were shipped through Canadian ports and 69,000,000 through American. In the next year 48,000,000 bushels were shipped through Canadian ports and
86.000.	000 bushels through United States ports. In the last crop year, ending 1932, 55,000,000 bushels went through Canadian ports and
45.000.	000 through American. And for the two months of August and September, 1932, the first two months of the present crop year, 15,000,000 bushels have gone through Canadian ports and 15,000,000 through United States ports. That is, the proportion in which our grain has gone from Canada to the United Kingdom is 41 per cent through Canadian ports and 59 per cent through United States ports.
May I point out to the house, and particularly for the benefit of the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith) that, in the year 1930, less than one million bushels of wheat destined for the United Kingdom went through Saint John and Halifax. I am giving these figures so that the house may have a picture of the routes which our grain follows

United Kingdom
under the present system on its way from western Canada to the United Kingdom. In 1928-29, the year we had very large exports, I find that 151,000,000 bushels went to the United Kingdom by way of the United States and only 58,000,000 by way of Canada. But to countries other than the United Kingdom we sent 2,000,000 bushels through New York or other United States ports, and 132,000,000 through Canadian ports. That has a good deal of significance. The reason so much of this wheat went to the United Kingdom through the port of New York was because the bulk of it is carried in liners, and the liners grant a lower rate than we can get on tramp ships, and they keep the rate down.
It is very illuminating to look at the rates quoted in the grain trade report. They will be found on page 172 of the report for the year ending July, 1930. From New York to Liverpool the rate averaged 4-5 cents a bushel; from New York to Glasgow 7-5 cents. Glasgow is not much further from New York than London or Liverpool, so why this difference of three cents in the rate? Simply because there are so many liners travelling between New York and Liverpool or London, and we can get a very special rate. From New York to Antwerp, which is not much further, the rate averaged 10 cents; the rate to Dunkirk was 10 cents. Anyone who will examine the records will see that freight rates to Liverpool and London are ever so much cheaper than they are to any other port in Europe in proportion to distance. I think it may be said, it has often been said, that these liners use wheat for ballast; they are glad to get it at low rates. If we are going, to benefit by these low rates to the old country we must have the wheat stored in New York and be able to take advantage of cheap rates offered by the liners at any time.
We cannot afford to have the freight rates raised. I believe the statement was made not long ago that wheat is cheaper now than it has been at any time since the days of Queen Elizabeth. Wheat in Canada is too cheap to stand any increase in ocean freight rates, which would only come out of the price the farmers in western Canada is receiving. I say to the hon. member for Cumberland that the situation in western Canada is such that we cannot afford to have our freight rate increased even a fraction of one cent.


Robert Knowlton Smith: May I ask
the hon. member a question?


George Gibson Coote: If Mr. Speaker will allow
me time.


Robert Knowlton Smith: The hon.
member has been speaking about freight rates. What guarantee has he that there will be any increase in the event of the grain moving through Canadian Atlantic ports?


George Gibson Coote: He	who runs may read.
The rates which I have quoted, those prevailing from New York to Liverpool and London, when compared with the rates from New York to other European ports would, I think, convince any fair-minded man. Once we are compelled to send all our wheat direct from a Canadian port to the United Kingdom I am sure the freight rates will rise. I cannot see it in any other way. Our right to ship through New York, to store grain in New York for shipment at any time, is the only safeguard we have so far as the ocean rates on wheat are concerned.


Mr. LOUCKS:: Is it not a fact that
western farmers have been fairly well convinced that our wheat is blended in the United States with American wheat, and then shipped out?


George Gibson Coote: In Canada we have a very
efficient Department of Trade and Commerce. Of course the minister may speak for himself, but on behalf of our officials I should like to say that I do not believe the hon. member's suggestion is true. At least, when in the committee on agriculture we have never been able to get officials of the department to make any such admission. So far as I can see, the preference on wheat would be destroyed by the increase in freight rates if we are compelled to ship the wheat through Canadian ports. I cannot help remembering our unfortunate experience in 1923 with freight rates on the great lakes. At that time the rates on Canadian grain coming down the lakes were more than doubled. I am afraid the same thing will happen once we are prevented from shipping our grain through New York, and compelled to use only Canadian ports. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) promised today to make a * statement tomorrow concerning this particular matter. I regret I could not have delayed my remarks until after the Prime Minister had made his statement. There has been a persistent report, however, that the debate is to conclude this evening, and in order to be sure of making my statement I was forced to make it tonight.
As the matter stands now I must state very frankly that I cannot support the agreement. It is just possible there may be other jokers in it besides the one concerning the wheat preference. In mv view it would not
774	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
be unfair to describe the agreement as, in some respects at least, a sort of hodgepodge. It is full of contradictions. Hon. members are placed in a very difficult position. How can I vote for a duty on cream separators and barbed wire to receive in return a preference on wheat, when at the same time we will be prevented from storing our wheat in Buffalo and New York? Were it not for this interference with our practice of shipping through New York and Buffalo, a right which we have always enjoyed and one with which there should be no interference, I should be inclined to let the agreement go through without opposition. But at present I feel I must oppose it on account of its interference with wheat movements. If the Prime Minister can furnish the house with a statement from the British government contradicting what that body stated yesterday, I may be willing to reconsider my statement.


Mr. SENN:: Would you?


George Gibson Coote: I shall wait until the statement is produced.


Mark Cecil Senn: You would not in any ease.


George Gibson Coote: This afternoon the Minister of Interior (Mr. Murphy) referred to the markets which have been provided for the Canadian farmer. Although I could not hear everything he said, I believe he suggested that we now have a very fair market, and that it is up to us to capture the British market or at least to get our share of it. I rsk the minister this question: How does he expect the Canadian farmer to secure his share of the British bacon market when the British pound is worth to us only $3.65, but is worth $4.86| to competitors in Denmark? How can the Canadian farmer compete with the Australian farmer in the sale of wheat when the pound is worth $3.65 to the Can-aadian farmer and $6.10 to the Australian farmer? How can we compete with the New Zealand farmer when he receives $5.30 for the British pound and we receive only $3.65? Is the same sheltered market provided for the Canadian farmer that is provided in Canada for the Canadian manufacturer?
Coming back to bacon and hams, may I say, frankly, that one thing which helped Denmark years ago to put us out of the bacon market in England was that at that time the pound was worth more in Denmark than it was in Canada. I believe if our farmers are to take advantage of the market which has been provided for them they should be given a chance to compete. It seems to me if we are to give them that chance we must

bring the British pound back to par in Canada; that is, it must be worth $4.86-f. That process is generally described as bringing our currency to a par with the pound. Fortunately such action could be taken without upsetting or altering our agreement with Great Britain; it could be done by this government any time they took the notion to do it.


Mark Cecil Senn: How?


George Gibson Coote: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will move, seconded by Mr. Mitchell:
That the motion be amended by adding thereto the following words, "and subject also to establishment of parity of the Canadian dollar with the British pound."
I shall read the last sentence of the motion now before the house, adding the 'words of the amendment, so that lion, members may know how it will read:
Subject to the legislation required in order to give effect to the fiscal changes consequent thereon, and subject also to establishment of parity of the Canadian dollar with the British pound.
Several hon. members opposite have asked me how the establishment of parity can be brought about. There are several ways of doing it. We can do it in the same way that Australia did, when she made the pound worth more than par in Australia. We can do it in the same way that Denmark did it, when the pound was brought to par in that country. Sweden, Finland and several other countries have done the same. First of all we should abandon frankly, honestly, fairly and openly the gold standard. So far the Prime Minister has refused to do that. Then, instead of renewing the $60,000,000 loan which was renewed in New York a few weeks ago the Canadian government could have bought New York exchange to the extent of $60,000,000 and paid off the loan. I think that would have brought the Canadian dollar down to a point somewhere near the level of the British pound. If it did not, they could buy a few more Canadian bonds that are payable in New York funds. This government has some bonds payable there. There would be no trouble whatever in bringing parity about in that way.
Then, there is another, and a very direct way. The Currency Act of Canada could be amended by stating that the pound sterling is legal tender in Canada for $4.86f. There is nothing difficult about that. There are other ways of doing it. I have no doubt however that the Prime Minister knows how it could be done, if only we can persuade

United Kingdom
him to act. I believe he should be glad to accept the amendment I have made. At this point I should like to read a few sentences from the Prime Minister's speech to the monetary committee of the recent conference.


An hon. MEMBER:: We have read it.
Mr. C-OOTE: I cannot believe hon. members have read it, or they would be prepared to support my amendment.


Mr. SPEARMAN:: They do not understand it.


George Gibson Coote: These are the Prime Minister's
words:
Canada, like all other countries, has suffered severely from the calamitous fall in commodity prices. Since August, 1929, our index of wholesale prices has fallen 32 per cent and is now only 4 per cent above the pre-war level. This means that the dollar has increased in purchasing power by 48 per cent. As a result of this rapid and persistent decline in the general price level and the inevitable disparities created between different kinds of prices, normal business relationships have been disrupted, profit margins have disappeared in many cases, enterprise has^ been discouraged, unemployment has steadily increased, the fiscal problems of all our public bodies have been greatly aggravated, and the burden of fixed charges is exerting an almost intolerable pressure upon some of the strategic elements in our national economy.
Only a few facts need be cited to illustrate the way in which the traditional alignment of economic forces in this country has been sundered by the different rates of speed at which the various parts of our price structure have succumbed to the deflationary pressure of falling prices.
While wholesale prices have been falling 32 per cent, our cost of living index number has fallen only 19 per cent. On this basis the purchasing power of the dollar has increased 24 per cent.
Prices of raw materials, here as elsewhere, have fallen much more rapidly than wholesale prices generally. Thus, prices of raw and partly manufactured materials have fallen 47.3 per cent since August, 1929, whereas prices of fully and chiefly manufactured articles have declined only 26.0 per cent. Farm products have been particularly hard hit, the decline averaging 56.4 per cent. Wheat, the staple of the western farmer, has fallen from an average price of $1.50 per bushel in 1926 to 55 cents in June, i932, a drop of 63.3 per cent, giving an index of 36.7 as compared with one of 70 for manufactured goods at wholesale.
I pause here to say that the farmer is in the unfortunate position of buying his supplies at retail-and in the retail price level there has been a drop of 19 per cent-and selling the products which he must export to Great Britain at a price level that has fallen 63.3 per cent. In all fairness I ask hon. gentlemen if these farmers can be expected to do the impossible. A little while ago some hon.
members asked me if I would support this agreement if certain things could be secured. If the government will accept the amendment I have offered certainly I will support the agreement.


An hon. MEMBER:: It will go through.


George Gibson Coote: Yes, regardless of what I may say there are some hon. members over there who are bound to put it through in its present form. I should like to put on record one other statement by the Prime Minister:
While nearly all other types of prices have been declining more or less rapidly, we have seen a significant rise in taxes-federal, provincial and municipal-and in interest rates or the cost of capital.
And the farmers pay these interest rates and high taxes.
The Canadian indicator of the yield on high grade, long term bonds has risen from 93.9 in December, 1930, to 113.2 in May, 1932. In January of this year a high of 119.8 was reached.
I think it is time we did something for some of the interests in Canada who are not receiving these high interest rates. It does seem to me that everything is being done for the benefit of those who are receiving the interest, but that interest cannot be paid indefinitely if commodity prices do not rise. The way to raise those commodity prices is to bring the pound back to par, so I do hope the government will accept my amendment. Now I should like to quote just another sentence spoken by the Prime Minister:
In particular we believe that it is imperatively necessary to put a stop to the persistent decline in commodity prices which is paralysing private enterprise, choking off international trade, multiplying unemployment and social distress, and menacing the stability of our present social and economic order.
Those are not the words of a soap box orator; those words were spoken by the Prime Minister, who continued:
We also believe it urgently desirable to encourage in every way that can be accepted as sound and practicable, a rise in prices to a height more in keeping with the fixed or highly rigid cost elements in the existing economic structures of most countries.
When I was reading about the interest charges I neglected the most important paragraph of all, and I must go back to read that:
Interest charges represent the most important of the fixed or semi-rigid elements in our cost structure. If prices remain on their present level, such charges will constitute an intolerable or almost intolerable burden in many cases.
776	COMMONS
Imperial Conference

Trade Agreements
I should like to direct the attention of hon. members to the next few words:	.
Even if it can be borne, the fortuitous gain to the creditor of 40 to 48 per cent in general purchasing power above what he contracted for appears to be a grave injustice.
I should like to bring that sentence to the attention of the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young), as well as the Prime Minister.
I think the monetary question was perhaps the most important matter to come before the Imperial economic conference. I should like to quote just a few words uttered by Hon. Mr. Bruce, representing Australia He said:
*Whatever causes Me at the root of the present situation there cannot be the slightest doubt as to the main symptom. This is evident in the continuous and unprecedented fall in the price of wholesale commodities.
Falling prices first destroyed the purchasing power of the agricultural nations of the world, making the burden of their private and government debts intolerable. The inevitable consequence of the collapse of agricultural prices has been severely to diminish the export trade of the industrial countries.
We must not only arrest the fall in prices but must find the means to raise them to a reasonable level and then introduce elements of stability to prevent the disastrous effects of violent fluctuations. This great and urgent problem is certainly one which the Imperial economic conference must consider, and it is one in the consideration of which the Australian delegation is prepared to play its part.
Unfortunately for us, I think, the monetary committee shelved the question. I have not time to read the report of the committee, but it is a recitation of pious platitudes. The report says that commodity prices should be raised and interest rates lowered. Was it necessary to bring these financial experts and statesmen from all parts of the British Empire to Ottawa to tell us something which I think every member of this house was well aware of before the conference was held? It is greatly to be regretted that no action was taken, but Canada can take appropriate action now. I think under the circumstances that is the thing we should do. Perhaps I have time to read just a few sentences from Mr. Bruce's statement before the monetary committee. It is all well worth reading, and I commend it to hon. members of the house. Mr. Bruce said:
Some may accuse Australia of too rough an energy in her struggle to pay her debts. Be it so.
What did she do? For one thing, she allowed her pound to go down in the markets of the world until the British pound is worth 16.25 in Australia.
I should prefer conviction on such a charge to responsibility for the appreciation in the purchasing power of money and for the slow

paralysis of trade. We have at least avoided that infection. We have produced more heavily than ever before and marketed our products a* we went. They have gone into current consumption, feeding and clothing both east and west.
Now I should like to read just two or three sentences from the report of our trade commissioner in Australia, which appears in the Commercial Intelligence Journal of October 15. The trade commissioner writes under date of September 14, and says:
Business conditions generally continued to improve during the last four weeks. Unemployment figures have declined, and increased activity in many lines indicate that the peak of the depression has probably been passed and that improved conditions may now be expected.
The recent	advance	in	prices	of	primaryproducts has	formed	the	basis	for	growingconfidence	among	traders	which	has	been
reflected in increased importations.
I should like to direct the attention of the house to that sentence.
The recent	advance	in	prices	of	primaryproducts has	formed	the	basis	for	growingconfidence	among	traders	which	has	been
reflected in increased importations. Wheat prices have advanced materially and at present levels efficient operations can be conducted by the growers without loss.
I would like to ask this house if any hon. member thinks efficient operations can foe conducted without loss by our wheat growers. I am sure no one would say so.
Australian government stocks in London, with few exceptions, have shown a continuous advance in values. Nearly all issues are in strong demand, several are standing at a premium, whilst others are approaching par value.
I should like to pause here to refer to the remark of the Prime Minister a few weeks ago, when he said that Australian bonds were selling in New York for 50 cents on the dollar. I took the trouble to go to the reading room and look up the New York Times, and I found that Australian 5 per cent bonds were selling at that time at from 84 to 85.


An hon. MEMBER:: What are they, today?


George Gibson Coote: That is about a week ago. I have not taken the trouble to look it up since.


An hon. MEMBER:: They are 75.


George Gibson Coote: If they are around 75, that is a long way above 50.
With the rise in prices, growers have been selling their stored wheat very freely, in many cases obtaining 3 shillings net per bushel at country railway stations, plus the government bounty of 4S pence (both in Australian currency).

United Kingdom
Will anyone say that 3 shillings in Australia does not represent more purchasing power than 28 cents in Canada? Will anyone say that 3 shillings in Australia will not pay twice as much interest and taxes as 28 cents in Canada?
In conclusion, may I say that in my opinion the government ought to be willing to accept this amendment. With the pound at its present low level in Canada I do not see how this agreement can possibly achieve the results which the government hope to get from it. I do not think it will prove the success which is anticipated, so far as Canada is concerned, in speeding up production and getting a market for our primary producers at prices which will cover costs of production-and there is no use getting a market unless it will return that cost. If the government desire to have the agreement prove a success along these lines, then they must bring our currency down at least to the level of the British pound, and for their own sake I think they should accept this amendment. I believe it is the only possible way by which the agreement can bring about in Canada conditions that will enable us to say, two years from now, that the agreement has been successful.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Who seconds the amendment?


George Gibson Coote: Mr. Spencer.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It must be someone who
has not already spoken in the debate.


George Gibson Coote: Mr. Mitchell will second it.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to point out that the amendment is not in ordei, inasmuch as it is not relevant to the question at issue. It pertains to a matter which, as my hon. friend said a moment ago, was not decided at the conference from which the resolution arises. It is merely an expansive negative, as the rule states, and I ask you to rule it out of order.


George Gibson Coote: Before you rule the amendment out of order, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the Minister of Finance this afternoon stated that an amendment, to be in in order, must add something to or take away something from the motion. We are certainly adding something to the motion. The Minister of Justice says that this is a matter that was not dealt with at the imperial conference, but it certainly is a matter that was considered. If we are at liberty to move to add anything to the agreement, surely we are quite in order in moving for the consideration of a question which was considered at the conference. The conference might very well have dealt with it, and we feel that this is one of the omissions which render the agreement worthless. Surely if any amendment at all is in order, the amendment which we have proposed must be considered so.


Hugh Guthrie: May I add one word
more. The amendment is not relevant to the motion itself. My hon. friend might as well ask that a clause be added to the effect that, as we have not proceeded this year with the amendment to the Bank Act, the matter should not be gone on with. The amendment must be relevant to the motion, and this proposed amendment is introducing a new consideration entirely.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The main motion reads:
That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the trade agreement entered into at Ottawa the 20th day of August, 1932, between representatives of His Majestys government in Canada and of His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom, and that this house do approve of the same, subject to the legislation required in order to give effect to the fiscal changes consequent thereto.
The amendment seeks to add these words:
and subject also to establishment of parity of the Canadian dollar with the British pound.
My impression is that the amendment is in order.


Thomas F. Donnelly: Mr. Speaker-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Does the hon. member
wish to speak to the amendment? Is the house ready for the question?
Hon. II. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce): Before you put the amendment, Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a few words to the house and to direct a few observations to the hon. member (Mr. Coote) who has moved the amendment. So far as I am concerned-and in this I think I reflect the views of almost every hon. member in this house-with very much of what the hon. gentleman has said in regard to the burden of debt upon debtors not only in this country but the world over, and in regard also to the perplexities that confront Canada in common with other countries, the variability of exchange, and all such matters, I am, as I believe every thoughtful person is, in hearty and absolute accord. But the suggestion that the agreements that have been entered into between this country and Great Britain and the other dominions should be put in jeopardy by the introduction of this, shall I say, mandatory request of those who have initiated
778	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
the treaties, is, I think, unwise. I do. not think that by any such means the hon. member will reach the objective he has in view. I am not prepared nor do I desire to delay the house with a long dissertation upon the exchange or the monetary question. I confess that in common with others I have given the matter a great deal of study, and there is no doubt at all in my mind that the most outstanding problem facing the country at the present time is the question of exchange.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There are among those
who applaud that statement some who, I know, do not hold some of the views I hold with regard to the solution of the problem. This remark might be directed to one or two of my good friends opposite.
It is the difficulty of finding the solution of this problem that is causing so much confusion in the world today. These matters might, I think, well engage the attention of the house with all seriousness and earnestness. I have sat here for the last two weeks or more and it has been my regret that a great many speeches directed to the subject have certainly not been of a character that contributed anything constructive or useful towards the solution of the problem. On the other hand, I could cite a number of addresses that have been exceedingly helpful, exceedingly instructive, and I might say to the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr.Coote) that in the main his own address was, in my opinion, a reasonable and valuable contribution to the study of the problem. He read words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) uttered during the conference. I have not a word to say with regard to the utterances of the Prime Minister on that occasion. The hon. member, with others, wonders why it was that the imperial conference a few weeks ago did not come to some conclusion with respect to the monetary question. I acted as chairman of that committee and I have noticed that hon. gentlemen, some more and some less, have been making observations regarding my position as chairman.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Why not?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not quarrel with the utterances of hon. gentlemen, but may I say that this is a problem which has puzzled the brains of statesmen not only of the British Empire but of other countries. What was finally concluded by the committee and by the conference was this: that no final and definite conclusion could be arrived at by the Imperial economic conference; that, in view of
fMr. Stevens.]
the impending international economic conference, it was desirable that the question should foe left in abeyance. I am not saying that I was wholly pleased with that decision although I saw a good deal of reasonableness in it; I recognized that the matter was exceedingly delicate and difficult. It is all right to attempt to dismiss these problems by saying: "Go and do this and do that," but it must be recognized that the actions which it is suggested might be taken are fraught with grave possibilities to this and other countries.
Speaking only for myself, I can say quite frankly that I am strongly inclined to the view that action might be taken and taken satisfactorily and successfully by Canada. The fact that other hon. gentlemen do not agree with me in that view is no reflection upon them; it indicates perhaps that I may have a more reckless nature or a more adventuresome temperament than they. Their views may be wiser, but we must recognize that this is not a simple question. Before pressing the amendment I ask my hon. friend to consider very earnestly the fact that in doing so he is jeopardizing seriously the passing of these agreements. I have no hesitancy in saying that.
This whole question is to come up at the international conference. Furthermore, it is receiving the continued study of this government. I know the Prime Minister and my colleagues are all very deeply concerned about it, and it may be that other ways will be found of meeting the difficulty. If I were quite certain that there was no other solution to the problem, I should be inclined to support my hon. friend's view, not necessarily in its present form but keeping in mind the end he seeks to achieve. It is quite possible that a further study of the question may bring about a solution.
I have a great deal of sympathy with, shall I say the cause advanced by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman), the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Lucas), the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) and other hon. members. They contend that there is an impossible weight of debt upon the shoulders of the farmers of Canada and other countries. I do not think anyone can question that contention. The farmers of Canada cannot liquidate their debts under present conditions. Under present price levels, under the present values of commodities and the necessity to produce larger quantities to pay debts incurred when price levels were higher, a problem impossible of solution is being faced by the debtor class of this country, which is numbered by hundreds of thousands. Other

United Kingdom
primary producers are in precisely the same position. Take for instance, the producer of metals such as copper-previously 18 cents per pound, now 5J cents-zinc and lead, the producers of lumber and timber products of all kinds, are faced with the same problem. Canada being a country made up largely of the producers of primary products, although I am glad to say considerable industry has been developed, undoubtedly is suffering very severely.
The other evening an hon. member quoted some figures in connection with butter. I did not check his figures, although I know they must be approximately correct. He showed a shrinkage in the value of butter products amounting to 8100,000,000 for the period 1931-32 as compared with the period 1930-31. There is no question that that is an appalling situation, but I do not think that we will advance the cause which I feel sure all of us have at heart by the presentation of what amounts to an embarrassing amendment to this motion.
I think we should first dispose of this motion, which merely gives the house the opportunity to proceed with the study of the agreements in detail, and then the proposal of my hon. friend could very properly be considered as a major problem in itself. Speaking for myself alone, I can assure him that I am prepared to give this matter the most careful consideration and study. I am anxious to cooperate with any hon. member in the study and possible achievement of a solution of this problem.
I find myself in this position. I would have to vote against this amendment which jeopardizes these agreements, in spite of the fact that I am largely in sympathy with the views held by the hon. member. Certainly I am entirely in sympathy with the objective he has in mind and is desirous of achieving. I rise merely to suggest to him, in all fairness that his amendment should not be pressed at this time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before he resumes his seat I should like to ask my hon. friend a question. He has referred to the world economic conference. Will that conference be at liberty to deal with any matter which comes before it, such as, for example, tariffs, without being in any way prejudiced by anything appearing in the agreement between Canada and Great Britain?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I could not give a complete answer to my right hon. friend. I speak subject to correction, -but I think my memory serves me aright when I say that early in the session the Prime Minister gave to the house
the proposed agenda for this conference. As I reeall, it is proposed that this international economic conference shall deal in a special manner with the monetary and exchange problems, as well as with the silver question, introduced by the United States. I am again speaking subject to correction when I say that I believe the United States made a reservation that she would not discuss tariffs.


Ernest Lapointe: That is right.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Outside of that, there is
no doubt in my mind that the monetary question will be open for discussion. The conference is to be called more particularly for the purpose of discussing the problem of international exchange.


Mr. J. A. FRASER (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) will not think that, if I do not refer to the amendment which he moved a few minutes ago, I am in any way making light of it. I propose to discuss the trade agreements which constitute the main question before the house.
These trade agreements or treaties under consideration mark the fourth important revision of the fiscal policy of Canada. The first came in 1842 when Canada was granted by the imperial government fiscal autonomy in her budgetary operations; the second in 1879 when Sir John A. Macdonald introduced his national policy; the third in 1897 when Sir Wilfrid Laurier introduced the one-way preference with Great Britain, and the fourth when the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) presented to the house at the beginning of this session the two-way preference. At the 1930 conference the Prime Minister made his offer of a two-way preference and in this he was supported by the other dominions. The MacDonald government declined to accept his proposal.


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a point of order. The speech of my hon. friend is very interesting, but it is not in order because he is speaking, not to the amendment but to the main motion. The amendment should be disposed of before he continues his speech.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member is not digressing from the rules of order. The amendment itself permits a wide range of discussion and so far he is in order.


Jean-François Pouliot: He said he was not going to speak to the amendment.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member for Cariboo is in order.
780	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


John Anderson Fraser: The point of order having been settled, I shall proceed to say what I intended to say in the first place. I was saying that at the imperial conference of 1930 the Prime Minister made his offer of a two-way preference to the British government, and in this he was supported by the other dominions. The MacDonald government in power at that time declined to accept his proposal. Our Prime Minister, however, amplified his proposal, asked the mother country to think it over and invited the British dominions to a conference at Ottawa. The people of Great Britain considered the matter very seriously, and, when the opportunity presented itself, voted the present British government into office with an overwhelming mandate to establish protection and to enter into reciprocal relations with the outlying parts of the empire. The Prime Minister of Canada seized the opportunity and renewed his proposal for a conference in Ottawa. AH parts of the empire accepted the proposal, and the result was the most impreissive gathering in the history of the British commonwealth of nations.
I might point out here that the Prime Minister of Canada seems to have a special faculty for seizing the proper moment to do anything. This is not the first occasion on which he has seized the proper moment to put into effect the policies for which he stands. May I direct your attention, sir, to the fact that he did so on another very important occasion when in 1930 he submitted to this country his proposal for the liquidation of our outstanding debt. Had he waited longer, it is doubtful whether since then the revision of those debts could have been accomplished.
Each delegation at the conference considered the welfare of its own territory, but overshadowing all selfish considerations was the ultimate welfare of the empire as a whole. The result is a series of twelve trade agreements based upon the Bennett policy.
Great Britain now imposes tariffs on many foreign primary products, while similar empire products are admitted free of duty. Many Canadian manufactured products now have free entry to the British market, while their foreign competitors must pay duty. As an equalizing factor the preferences previously extended to British manufacturers have been increased by either greater British preferences or higher tariffs to foreign nations. This has opened up for Canadian manufacturers fair competition in the British market, while we extend to Britain the same opportunity in our market. Thus is the manufacturer given reasonable opportunity, while at the same time

the government has taken care that the consumer is not exploited.
Under the agreements which we are considering Canada obtains wider openings in the United Kingdom and other empire countries for her farm products, base metals, other primary products and a long list of manufactured articles. Canada will sell more wheat, live cattle, dairy products, pork products, fruits, tobacco, lumber, fish and metals in the United Kingdom, and this will improve conditions for our Canadian farmers and other producers. British Columbia in particular will be given an opportunity to increase her trade in lumber, fish, metals and fruits as preferences are given on these products in the British market. In addition to that her live stock industry should derive some advantage by way of an appreciation in price as the eastern surplus of these products should now find ready sale in the British market. Both governments are equally convinced that only a beginning has been made. Mr. Baldwin says:
What we have done at this conference is to build a foundation on which we and future generations may erect as fair and stable an edifice as lies in their capacity to accomplish. We have done that, and we have learned more than we have ever learned before of each other's difficulties and each other's point of view.
This is what our own Prime Minister says:
This propitious beginning must not blind us to the fact that it is but a beginning-we have only laid the foundation-and that if this scheme of closer empire association is to endure and bring to each one of us the benefits we hope for, further action must be taken at a not too distant date.
Should this parliament reject the agreements, it can only mean that we are denying to our people the advantages offered to them under the agreements. By these agreements we are providing a foundation for the energy and enterprise of our people. As I understand the matter, a vote against the agreements will simply mean that wTe have no faith in the ability of our own people to make the best of the preferences and opportunities provided for them. Surely this is not what an enterprising people should expect. I am therefore prepared to give the agreements my hearty approval, believing that producers, traders and exporters will not fail and that the combined efforts of all classes will find many avenues for the expansion of trade and betterment of conditions so sorely needed by our people.
It is rather surprising to review some of the reasons presented by hon. members from British Columbia for voting against and rejecting these trade agreements. The hon. member for

United Kingdom
New Westminster (Mr. Reid) informs us that he will go into many items in detail, but mentions only six, namely: wool piece goods, wool overcoating, wool hosiery, wool blankets, cotton printed goods and white cotton flannelette. But he makes no mention of lumber, copper, lead, zinc, fish, apples and dairy products-all of them British Columbia products which will find a ready sale in the United Kingdom market, and which receive a preference in that market. While he is very much concerned about what a man pays for a pair of pyjamas, he does not seem to think it is of any consequence what he may secure for lumber and copper and lead and other British Columbia products.
The hon. member states that nothing has been done for the unemployed; and many other hon. members have made the same remark. In my opinion nothing that has been done since this unemployment started compares in value with the agreement which we are considering. It will afford opportunities for unemployment in a hundred or two hundred or five hundred different ways, by providing markets which our people will have the opportunity to cultivate. I ask this house what wider advantage could be given to the unemployed than is given by this agreement.
But the hon. member for New Westminster is very solicitous about the Russian miners. He would like to see more Russian coal imported into this country. Why should he not consider the welfare of the British coal miner or our own Canadian coal miner? That is the way I look at the matter. I think this agreement and the other policies of this government have done a great deal for the coal mining industry, but I do not see that the importation of coal into this country from Russia, is in any way going to help the unemployed.
The hon. member complimented the Prime Minister on his presentation of the agreements and his speech generally. He is also pleased to see the cattle embargo lifted; the preference on eggs is very acceptable; he admits that some consideration has been given to fish products, and for agriculture he said we had provided something. Now, these are valuable concessions to the province of British Columbia, yet he winds up his address by saying, "From my remarks it will be evident that I cannot support the resolution." I think he provided quite a number of arguments why he should support the resolution.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill)-I see he is in his seat-admits that a preference of three cents a pound on butter is not an unreasonable one, but he says its effects are nullified by the fact that New
Zealand gets the same preference. Why should not the other parts of the empire get the same preference in the British market as we get? Why should he not give full credit for the preference, if it is a good one, rather than find fault because it is extended to someone else? He says the preference on eggs amounts to two or three cents a dozen. Well, that is worth something, but I think if he will go into the calculations he will find he is not correct in that figure. My calculation brings the preference we have in the British market to 4-3 cents a dozen. That is a substantial preference which should be valuable to the poultry raisers in British Columbia.


Alan Webster Neill: Your figures are wrong.


John Anderson Fraser: Well, I say yours are wrong. The hon. member complains that wheat is exported to China to feed poultry and the eggs produced therefrom are sent back to and sold in Vancouver cheaper than they can be produced in the Vancouver district, on account of the freight rate being higher from the prairies to Vancouver, or higher in proportion to the distance hauled, than from the prairies to Hongkong. Well, I admit there is a differential there, and it is something which requires a remedy. But I want to ask the hon. gentleman a question: When did you ever hear of a Chinaman importing wheat to feed his chickens? I always thought the Chinamen had a great deal of trouble raising enough money to obtain wheat for human consumption. I do not think they feed their chickens wheat from the prairies; therefore I do not see much in the contention.


Mr. REID:: Oh yes, they do.


John Anderson Fraser: I think the hon. gentleman is mistaken.


Thomas Reid: They do. I can give the facts and figures.


John Anderson Fraser: The hon. gentleman belittles the preference on lumber; he does not think it amounts to anything. Well, I can tell him this, that since that agreement went into effect 2,500 men have been sent into the lumber woods of British Columbia to produce logs, and he knows it just as well as I do. I do not give this agreement all the credit for that 2,500 men being put to work to produce logs, but I say it has had an effect, a good effect, on the market for lumber in British Columbia. These men are taken off the unemployed list and put to work as a direct result of the trade agreements that have been entered into.
782	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
The hon. gentleman also dislikes the preference on fish; he thinks it does not amount to much. And he objects to the term of the agreement. I think if there is any reason at all to believe that any benefit can be got out of these agreements, everyone from British Columbia should be prepared to vote for them.
Then we have the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Munn)-and I might as well couple with him the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Hanson), because both these gentlemen to my knowledge are experts in the lumber business; they made their living and their money in the lumber business in British Columbia, and they know exactly the conditions of that industry. I will guarantee that both of them are looking around at the present time to see if they cannot get a little activity into their own lumber business as a result of this agreement. That is the attitude that everyone in Canada should take. The government has provided a foundation; let the individual see what advantage he can get out of it. The member for Vancouver North admits that there will be some benefits from the agreement, but he is opposed to the five year term. Strange to say, in his opening remarks he said he was opposed to the ten per cent preference on lumber, but later in the course of his address he came out squarely in favour of that ten per cent preference-[DOT] an absolute contradiction of the attitude he took at the outset. It looks to me as if all these hon. members from British Columbia are straddling the fence, because these agreements are going to be popular in British Columbia. The hon. member admits that the treaties we have entered into with Australia and New Zealand help the British Columbia lumber trade, and he has put on the record many interesting and valuable statistics. I want to give him credit for them, and to say that they are helpful to anyone who wishes to study the lumber situation in the western part of Canada. From the figures he has put on the record I have gathered some information; I am going to give to the house a comparison of the percentages of lumber shipped to the United Kingdom, Australian and New Zealand markets from British Columbia and Washington and Oregon for the two years 1930 and 1931. Analyzing the statistics put on record by the hon. member I find the percentage of lumber Shipped to United Kingdom markets by British Columbia in 1930, was 24 per cent, and in 1931 this was increased to 45 per cent.


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: Forty-five per
cent of what?


John Anderson Fraser: Forty-five per
cent of the total shipment of lumber to the United Kingdom. I find that in 1930 Washington and Oregon shipped 76 per cent of the lumber to the United Kingdom market, whereas in 1931 they shipped only 55 per cent. Hon. members will notice that at the later date British Columbia was enjoying a larger proportion of the United Kingdom market, and I think it is a fair conclusion, if the hon. member for Comox-Alberni will permit me to say so, that our percentage will increase as soon as this agreement takes effect.


Alan Webster Neill: No, I would not permit the hon. member to say that any increase in 1931 was or could be due to the conference agreement which we have not yet passed.


John Anderson Fraser: Then, we find
that m 1930 British Columbia shipped 29 per cent of the lumber to the Australian market, and in 1931 she shipped 71 per cent. That is a direct result of the treaty. In the same year Washington and Oregon shipped 65 per cent, but in 1931 their percentage was reduced to 35 per cent. That, again, is a direct benefit of the treaty entered into with Australia. In 1930 British Columbia shipped 50 per cent of the lumber to the New Zealand market, whereas in 1931 she supplied 90 per cent of that commodity. On the other hand while Washington and Oregon supplied 50 per cent to New Zealand in 1930, they supplied only 10 per cent in 1931. I believe we may fairly draw the conclusion, owing to the fact that these treaties are pretty much on the same line as the treaty now under consideration, that the British Columbia market will receive the same benefit from the treaty now before us, and I am of the opinion that all hon. members from British Columbia should stand behind it.
My hon. friend from Vancouver North proceeds to state that the agreement now before us will not help us in the American market. I am not going to suggest that it will. He complains that on account of the special sizes and special lengths required we will have left on our hands a great deal of short and low grade lumber for which there will be no market. He states that the market has formerly been on the prairies and in the United States to the south of us. That is quite true. Because of the depressed condition, and because farmers are not able to buy, we do not enjoy a market on the prairies today. No doubt the same condition obtains on the American prairies. But there is another condition which enters into the situation at this point, namely the S4 per thousand tariff

United Kingdom
which was imposed by the American congress on Canadian lumber. This agreement does nothing to shut us out of the American market; the American tariff did that. What have we to do with the American tariff? Why should we discuss the tariff of that country in our consideration of this trade agreement? I believe the suggestions of the hon. member in that regard are valueless.
He has pointed to the failure of a mill in my district, stating that the mill had cost $1,500,000, and had been sold under the hammer for $85,000. He did not tell the house that it was an American mill; he did not tell hon. members it was owned by American capital; he did not tell us that it went out of business because the Americans had imposed the tax against Canadian lumber. Oh no, he skated around those facts very carefully, although he knows them very well, and so does the hon. member for Skeena.


Olof Hanson: The tariff was imposed after the short session of 1930, at which time we raised the rates on several items against the United States.


John Anderson Fraser: What has the
American tariff to do with this trade agreement?


An hon. MEMBER:: Everything.


John Anderson Fraser: How are hon.
members going to improve the situation by talking about the American tariff? What has it to do with the present situation? We know the American tariff is there; the American people imposed that tariff in their own interest, and they purpose to keep it there for some time. Nothing we can do in this parliament will have much effect in changing their actions. The hon. members for Vancouver North and Skeena are much exercised because, according to them, we are not going to have an opportunity to deal with the Americans and enter their market. I do not agree with the hon. members. I do not see anything in the trade agreement to prevent us from dealing with the Americans or anybody else.
Then the hon. member for North Vancouver stated that at the present time we are loading lumber for the British market for which we are receiving only $8 per thousand, and he adds that the freight rate is about $3 per thousand. Although I am not saying the hon. member's figures are correct, I am content to accept them; I believe $8 per thousand for lumber in Vancouver today is about right. Suppose we accept the $8 and $3, making a total of $11 for lumber landed in the United Kingdom. On that we have a preference of 10 per cent, or $1.10 per thousand. The
American tariff is $4 per thousand, so that as I see it we still have $2.90 per thousand with which to bargain in the American market if we wish to go after it. The argument of the hon. member amounts to nothing.
I can see nothing in the five year term of the agreement which will prevent Canadian lumbermen from doing a certain amount of dickering with a view to entering the American or any other market. The tariff in the United States is still much higher than the preference in the United Kingdom. I say to hon. members opposite that by voting against this treaty they are certainly not assisting the lumber industry of British Columbia. We can do nothing with the Americans; they attend to their own business. I believe every hon. member from British Columbia who is at all interested in the lumber business should vote for the agreement. I challenge the hon. members for Vancouver North and Skeena to go back to British Columbia and tell the workmen that they voted against the treaty, so that those workmen may be deprived of work. Let them do that, and see what those workmen will do to them.
The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie), agrees that there may be an advantage for British Columbia apple growers, for our fish, our copper, our lead and our zinc. Personally, however, he cannot see those advantages. In my opinion if he has a scintilla of reason for believing that any benefits will be derived from the agreement, he ought to vote for it. He knows that there has been increased activity in the lumber business in British Columbia, and that men have been sent to the woods to prepare lumber for export to the United Kingdom. He knows that those men already have been taken off the roster of the unemployed. Then what reason can he offer for not giving the agreements a fair trial? Even if not all the two thousand men are benefited, certainly some of them will obtain work again. Why should the hon. member decline to give any man the privilege of working? It makes no difference if only one man is helped; I think the agreement is good business and should be supported. The hon. member laid down as a guiding principle the necessities of the consumer, yet he denies to two thousand consumers engaged in the lumber industry in British Columbia the advantages which he admits may accrue from this agreement. Apparently he is a builder from the top down instead of from the bottom up. Surely his admonition to scrutinize carefully article 1, and his tempestuous and immoderate denunciation of the effect of this article, are convincing proof that he has no real grounds for his contention. Why all this noise and fuss about who will get the best of the bargain?
784	f	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
This agreement was entered into on the distinct understanding that each party would meticulously observe the spirit as well as the letter of the pact. Why not give John Bull a chance, and see if he has changed his trade tactics? Why vote against the pact before we are sure the other fellow will get the best of the bargain? Before the people of Canada are convinced that the Prime Minister has failed they will require further proof than the superficial and immoderate statements of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.
The hon. member spent a great deal of time in proclaiming his loyalty. I have heard no member of this house question the loyalty either of the hon. member or of anyone else. My hon. friend was required to take up forty minutes, and he occupied his time with this sort of smoke screen. He asked hon. members from British Columbia if they thought their province could function for the next five years if we were denied access to the United States market for lumber. We are denied access now, and we can do nothing about it. We did not ask the United States to put on the 84 tariff; we fought against it. We asked them not to put it on, but they put it on anyhow. In any case, what has that to do with these trade agreements? I say that these agreements make some attempt to provide alternative markets for the lumber and other commodities produced in British Columbia. The hon. member says we should offer voluntary preferences to Great Britain. Well, we have had voluntary preferences for over thirty-five years, and what good have they been? Is it not about time we tried to do something to change conditions, even if we only accomplish a little?
I do not want to waste time reading advertisements, but I think the hon. member for Vancouver Centre will be glad to hear some of his election literature read to the house. I should like to compare what he had to say with regard to the imperial preference in 1930 with what he has to say now. I read from an advertisement which appeared in the Vancouver Province under date of July 10, 1930: Build Canada With British Preference
Those words appear in large headlines at the top of the page. Then I read:
British preference will divert two hundred million dollars of Canadian purchases to Great Britain from the United States.
If that one-way preference would have that result, surely a two-way preference should be even better. The advertisement continues:
Great Britain will buy three hundred million dollars of Canadian foodstuffs.
British preference means that Canada will give Great Britain and other parts of the

British Empire the right to sell to us under more favourable terms than we offer foreign countries those commodities which we do not produce economically ourselves. In other words, Liberal policy is "We prefer to trade with the empire."
What is this agreement? Does it contain anything that does not fall in line with what my hon. friend said? Why should we not vote for these agreements and give Canada a chance to trade with Great Britain? Then the advertisement concludes with these words:
Vote for Hon. Ian Mackenzie, British Columbia's new cabinet minister, Minister of Immigration, Colonization, Soldier Settlement and Indian Affairs, Liberal candidate for Vancouver Centre.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And the present member for Vancouver Centre, I may add.


John Anderson Fraser: I had intended
to refer to the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Maclnnis), but there is not very much in his speech, so I will not bother. There was one other advertisement I should like to read, however.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Read your promise to
end unemployment.


John Anderson Fraser: That subject is
getting pretty stale. I am trying to get the hon. gentleman's mind away from unemployment, if I can. It is getting to be chronic with him, and I am afraid we will have to give him an emetic of some kind to help him get rid of it.	.
I should like to close my remarks, Mr. Speaker, by telling hon. gentlemen opposite that they remind me of a couple of lines of poetry by Schiller, which I learned many years ago in my early school days. The poem is entitled Der Taucher, and the lines I have in mind are as follows:
Und es wallet und siedet und brauset und zicht,
Wie wenn Wasser mit Feuer sicbt mengt.
I will give the translation of the whole verse by Lord Lytton:
And it bubbles and seethes, and it hisses and roars,
As when fire is with water commixed and contending;
And the spray of its wrath to the welkin up-soars,
And flood upon flood hurries on, never* ending;
And as with the swell of the far thunder-boom,
Rushes roaringly forth from the heart of the gloom.
Could anything more clearly describe the attempt of the Liberal party to extricate itself from the valley of humiliation?

United Kingdom


Pierre Édouard Blondin: la the house ready for the question?


Henry Elvins Spencer: If you are going to put the question now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in fairness to some of the hon. members who sit in this *corner of the house. They learned only a day or two ago that the house would be sitting this evening, and they had previously made arrangements to be away. For that reason, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth), the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) and the hon. member for Wetaski-win (Mr. Irvine) are all away this evening. They did not know until it was too late to cancel previous engagements that the house would be sitting this evening.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I am afraid I did not hear the hon. member's observation.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I only want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that owing to the fact that notice was given but a day or two ago that the house would sit this evening, several of our members who had previously arranged to be away are not able to be present.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It is a matter for the house to decide whether it wishes to adjourn the debate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No; question.



&quot;W G6S6,

[Stage Direction]
Weir (Melfort), White (London), White (Mount Royal), Willis,
Wilson,
Wright-109.
[Stage Direction]
786	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
[Stage Direction]
(The list of pairs is furnished by the chief whips.)
Messrs:
Bell (Hamilton),
Bell (St. Antoine), Beynon,
Black (Halifax), Cahan,
Cantley,
Caseelman,
Cowan (Port Arthur), Duranleau,
Geary
Hackett,
Hanson (York-Sunbury),
Harris,
Kennedy (Winnipeg), Laflfeche,
Larue,
Lennox,
MacDonald
(Cape Breton), MacLaren,
McGibbon,
Maloney,
Moran,
Mullins,
Perley (Sir George), Quinn,
Short,
Sullivan,
Turnbull,
Mercier (St. Henri), Raymond,
Euler,
Dubuc,
Rinfret,
Cardin,
Howard,
Ilsley,
Hanbury,
Mercier (Laurier-Outremont),
Perras,
Yeniot,
Jacobs,
McIntosh,
Girouard,
Boucher,
Pouliot,
Urquhart,
Fiset,
Power,
Young,
Parent,
Howden,
Marcil,
Fraser
(Northumberland),
Heenan,
Brasset,
McPhee.
Mr. .MacLAREN: I was paired with the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.
Leslie Gordon Bell: I was paired with the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Raymond). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. LENNOX:: I was paired with the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto South (Mr. Geary). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I was paired with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If hon. members desire to declare their pairs and to show how they would have voted, it would be much more intelligible if they would do so one at a time.


Mr. McPHEE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. ILSLEY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Cowan). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Joseph Henry Harris: I was paired with the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. RINFRET:: I was paired with the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.
Mr. PERRAjS (Translation): I was paired with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. LAFLECHE (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Girouard). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. MULLINS:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.
(Owing to the impossibility of recording several statements of pairs simultaneously announced, the list of stated pairs is incomplete.)


Thomas F. Donnelly: Mr. Speaker, I feel I would be negligent in my duty if I did not express to this house and to the country the view's which I know are held by the farmers in my constituency and by those throughout western Canada with regard to the economic conference and the resolution now before us.
We all know how anxious the farmers of western Canada were last summer at the time of the conference. They gathered around their radios and listened for some message of hope and comfort; they waited for their newspapers thinking they would contain cheering news from the conference; but at the end of the conference they were faced with bitter disappointment. When the terms of the resolution had been made public the farmers throughout western Canada said that it was another attempt by the present government to ruin them. In the minds of the western farmers this government has but two policies: the first to fool the farmer, the second to pander to the moneyed interests; and they feel that the results of the conference are just another demonstration of these policies. They have been forced to the conclusion that as far as this resolution is concerned, it contains nothing which will better their interests in any way, shape or form.

United Kingdom
The hon. member for Qu'Appel'le (Mr. Perley) expressed the desire that we finish with this resolution and get down to business. I say to him that the provisions of this resolution are in effect today, but we are anxious to know what they mean. We are carrying on this discussion with the idea of obtaining information as to how these provisions will apply to us and what good or bad results will accrue therefrom.
Our idea of the purpose of the conference was that it was to evolve some plan or scheme to bring the British. Empire out of this depression and set an example to the rest of the world as to how it could do likewise. That was the hope expressed by the representatives whom we sent to the conference, but we claim that nothing has been accomplished, that the conference has been an absolute failure.
The economists of the world agree that there are three causes for the present depression, although they are not at one as to their respective importance: first, war debts; second tariffs, and third, the collapse of our monetary system. We could hardly expect such a conference to do very much with regard to war debts. War debts involve both external and internal debts; they involve the interest on bonds, and have to do with such things as taxes and wages. One economist says that if the prices of manufactured products, the interest on our debts, the interest on our bonds and on our mortgages, and our taxes had all fallen in the same proportion as have the prices we receive for our farm commodities, then we would have no cause to complain ; but these various charges, fixed and unalterable, act as a drag on the wheel and prevent a return to prosperity. That is what one man calls rigidity. Nothing whatever was done at the conference in that regard. In fact the government has increased this rigidity, because when it put through a loan not long ago it ran up the rate of interest to 5.17 per cent instead of bringing it down as the British government did, and thus adding to the burden which the people are carrying.
Next we come to the question of tariffs. Some economists regard tariffs as the whole cause of our present economic depression. The whole idea of the recent conference, as I understood it, was expressed by the Right Hon. Stanley Baldwin, who, when he came here, said he hoped that by lowering tariffs it would be possible to evolve a plan that would assist in getting the British Empire out of the present depression and setting an example to the rest of the world. Nothing was done at the conference with regard to 53719-50 J
lowering tariffs, on the contrary, tariffs have been raised. They have been lowered on some of the luxuries, but again we find the same policy carried out by this government, that of lowering tariffs on articles of luxury, the things used by the rich, and charging up more to the poor. What do we find? The tariffs on such articles as long gloves and fine linens have been lowered, but the tariffs on fertilizers, ordinary cream separators, cottons and so forth, have been raised, so that the common people will pay more and the rich people will pay less. Let me read what the economic committee of the League of Nations said:
The economic committee has always laid stress in the past on the necessity of securing the utmost possible freedom for trade. It is today convinced that the doctrine it formulated earlier has not been disproved by facts. There is little doubt that the present crisis would not have been as acute a9 it is if governments could have pursued a policy in conformity with that doctrine.
That is, of lowering tariffs. So we see that with regard also to lowering tariffs the Ottawa conference has absolutely failed.
We come to the third point, the collapse of our monetary system. Some say that the monetary system is the cause of all our present depression; some lay more stress on it than others do. But nothing whatever in that regard was done at the conference. We sent our Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) to the conference. Last year we thought he was a financial wizard as we listened to him telling us we were to have bimetallism and that silver was to be coined sixteen to one instead of as it is now; we believed he was going to lead us out of the wilderness and that we were to have monetaiy reform. But nothing was done. Surely if the conference could not come to any agreement with regard to a monetary system within the empire, we in this country could settle our own monetary system. But nothing whatever has been done in either case; so we find that on all these three points the conference has been an absolute failure.
To show that the object which they had in view was not achieved, I want next, now that the conference is over, to look at it from a world viewpoint, to see how the world views the results of the conference. The world is not so sure that this conference has been a success. Let me refer to what Chancellor Franz von Papen of Germany has to say:
The chancellor expressed disappointment over the results of the Ottawa conference, saying they were hardly conducive to promoting an international revival of trade.
788	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
He says that the conference, so far as revival of trade is concerned, has been of little or no use. Nothing whatever has been done with regard to revival of trade. I might just refer, in dealing with this, to what Right Hon. Neville Chamberlain, the imperial jingo, said:
The ties of the empire have been wearing dangerously thin.
We have heard this before in the house, but I want to refer to it in connection with this point.
Canada f 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.
If there is one part of this agreement to which I object more than another, -it is that which ties us up for five years in regard to some 159 articles on which ws cannot in any way lower the tariff. If there is one thing more than another that the farming community throughout Canada regrets, it is that in 1911 reciprocity was turned down. If this agreement prevents us again, by tying us up for five years, from forming a trade or reciprocity agreement with the United States, it is the most objectionable part of the whole thing. Why, this man Chamberlain has the audacity to say that this trade agreement was made in order that we might not enter into a reciprocity agreement with the United States! The very object in view when this trade agreement with Great Britain was entered into was to prevent Canada from making a trade agreement with the United States! It does more than that; it prevents us from making trade agreements with other countries, and if there is one thing this country needs more than another it is the lowering of tariffs between countries in order that we may increase our trade with other nations of the world.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle speaking in this debate, said that time was the essence of all agreements. I agree with him there. If it were a good agreement, we would want it to continue for a long time; but if a judge is giving a sentence, we want it as short as possible. We do not want this trade agreement to be made binding upon us any longer than is absolutely necessary. When the Canadian people desire that it be changed, we think it should be within the power of the Canadian parliament, whatever party may at
[Mr. Donnelly.l
the time hold the reins of office, to change it. A world economic conference is shortly to be held in the old country. Will this trade agreement with England that we have just signed tie us down so that we cannot enter into trade agreements throughout the world? If it does, I say it is a detriment to our trade and to our country.
I propose therefore, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Yallance) to move in amendment:
That the following words be added to the proposed resolution:
"That any approval hereby granted shall not be held to restrict or prejudice any course of action which may be proposed for consideration or which may be adopted at the forthcoming world economic conference."
Having dealt, Mr. Speaker, with the world viewpoint, I propose next to deal with the matter from an empire viewpoint. What do we find? Has this agreement been of any advantage in binding the empire closer together? Well, in The Economist of September 24 last we find this:
One of the unfortunate legacies of the conference is the bitterness and ill-will created between the British and Canadian delegates.
We all know, it was common knowledge on the streets in Ottawa, that this was just a cat-and-dog fight. There were hard things said. How can it help to join Canada closer to the empire and Great Britain closer to Canada when we find articles such as this in the News-Chronicle of September 16, 1932:
They will never let it be known, for instance, what actually took place behind the scenes of an imperial gathering which at times degenerated into a ferocious dog fight.
No British minister will ever say in public what has undoubtedly been said in private about the behaviour and bearing of Mr. Bennett, president of the conference, Prime Minister of Canada, and the world's prize bully.
These hard things have been said, and they leave an impression. It is unfortunate that they should be said. The article goes on:
No minister, compelled for political reasons to make the best of a bad job and to perpetuate an illusion will ever say in public what I am pretty sure has been said often enough in private in heart to heart talks among members of the British government, that one more conference like that so dismally concluded at Ottawa will be sufficient to smash the empire to pieces.
As long as I live I shall not forget that appalling scene at the final plenary session in the parliament house when disgust and loathing were revealed as plainly on the faces of exhausted delegates as if they had been impressed there with a rubber stamp.
I went to Ottawa fearing the worst but hoping for the best. I came away more con-

United Kingdom
vinced than I have been about anything in politics that the most ineffably perfect method of dissolving a great modern empire is to embark with a flourish of trumpets on an imperial tariff bargaining battle.
The seven British ministers were honourable and reasonably competent men, anxious to safeguard the interests of their country, and willing at the same time to do what they could for the empire and for world trade. Within seven days their noble sentiments were swamped in the bog of national and sectional self-interest. Within forty-eight hours all the representatives of the selfish industrial interests of the empire emerged into the light like repulsive insects from beneath a raised stone in the' mud. In less than a week all the beautiful imperial talk of imperial unity and imperial sacrifice had been washed off the imperial slate with a dirty sponge.
One of the strangest of the many strange underground spectacles at Ottawa was that of Lord Hailsham and Mr. Neville Chamberlain compelled as responsible statesmen to talk sound free trade doctrine in defence of British trade. It was a spectacle which infuriated dominion politicians and drove Mr. Bennett himself into recurring fits of hysteria.
Sayings like that, Mr. Speaker, do not foster good-will or peace or harmony. These are some of the results of the conference in relation to the empire. I believe that instead of drawing the empire closer together it has made the ties of empire more fragile and therefore more likely to be broken.
I come to the Canadian viewpoint, and I wish to deal with that more particularly. Let me refer first to some of the things that we get. As I look over the list, the thing that has been talked about more than any other is the preference on wheat; but when I read article 4, all the benefits in regard to wheat disappear. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle, speaking of this, said that when in 1896 the Liberal government came into power they took the tariff off barbed wire and immediately the price went up. Conversely, Mr. Speaker, if you put a tariff on, the price will go down. Probably that is why the price of wheat has fallen-they put on a preference of six cents and immediately the price went down. And our farmers in western Canada said: "Thank heaven it wasn't twelve cents." It had fallen six cents, and the moment the tariff schedules were put out it fell another six cents. So I suppose if we had got a preference of twelve cents it would have fallen twelve cents immediately, and later on would have fallen another twelve.
The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Murphy), speaking this afternoon-or rather in reading his speech-quoted a lot of figures in regard to wheat. I asked him what those figures were based on, whether on the Fort William price, the country elevator price, seaboard
prices, or what, and he did not tell me. Whether or not he was unable to tell me I do not know; probably the man who wrote the speech did not mention the place. At any rate he was not able to inform me on that point. Figures about the amount of wheat we export are all very well, but the thing of chief importance to the farmers is the price. With world conditions such as they are now, the farmers cannot live on the farm and pay their taxes. In western Canada farm after farm is being forsaken and people are leaving, unable to make a living on the land.
We find that the agreement is a sort of half-baked agreement; it is like a lot of other legislation we have had brought before us- ill-conceived, half-baked, half-digested, and when it comes here we are able to point to all sorts of flaws in it. For example, we do not know at present whether or not Canadian wheat stored in Buffalo can be shipped to England and be entitled to the preference. The amount of wheat going to Great Britain via the United States is very great, in fact a large percentage of the Canadian wheat used in England goes via the United States. I will give the amount in bushels for recent
years:
Via
United
Year	Direct	States1926	
56,000,000	127,000,0001927	
48,000,000	135,000,0001928	
73,000,000	164,000,0001929	
43,000,000	79,000,0001930	
45,000,000	86,000,0001931	
45,000,000	66,000,000
If it means, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot ship wheat to Great Britain through the United States and get the six cents preference, we are worse off than ever. The western farmers did not ask for a preference; they never asked for it. They did not want it. The wheat growers of western Canada did not want it; the grain trade of western Canada did not want it. The only one who wanted it was the Prime Minister. Why? So that he might put this on to fool the farmers. Tory propaganda, nothing else-pure propaganda to fool the farmers. I will tell the Prime Minister this: If I thought for one moment that the sax cent preference was a real one I would vote for the resolution.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas F. Donnelly: That is what I say- "oh, oh". It is too bad, because they do not mean a bit of it; it does not mean anything. If we are not able to ship our wheat to the United States that means that over fifty per cent of it will have to be sold in the mar-
790	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
kets of the world, not in Great Britain at all, and then we will be worse off than ever. We admit that the British market is open to us, but what will happen when we come to market our wheat? The United States will have a boat load of wheat to be sold. They will inquire as to the world price. They will offer it to Germany or to Italy and will take one, two, three, four or five cents less from those countries, and still receive as high a price as they would in England. That will be the tendency-to lower the price on the markets of the world, and incidentally lower the price we will receive in England. Let hon. members make no mistake about that. The marketing of wheat from the Argentine, from the United States and other countries will have a tendency to lower our wheat price. We believe that will be detrimental rather than beneficial.
Either the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Lucas) or the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael), speaking on this agreement, stated that he thought this preference might be some good and for that reason he was going to vote for it; that if the agreement was approved a six cent preference would be afforded. But let us follow it a little further with a hypothetical case: Suppose the measure is defeated. What will happen then? Why, this government will be defeated; we will go to the country and a Liberal government will be returned to provide preferences which will be of some use to us.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas F. Donnelly: It is all right for hon. members to say "oh, oh", but let me tell my hon. friends opposite that if they went to the country today very few Tories would come back; make no mistake about that-only one of my hon. friends opposite would come back from the prairies. I know the spirit and the feeling of the farmers in the west. They know they have been fooled long enough. Promises have been made to them which were not kept; yes, they were fooled with promises wliich were not fulfilled. They were told they would receive higher prices for their wheat, their butter, their eggs-yes, for everything they sold. Every plateform on which hon. members stood was dangerous. They were just-promises; we remember all about it, although hon. members opposite like to forget them.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) tells me that about 200,000 pounds of Canadian butter was shipped back from England; it could not be sold there. Some of it was sent back to this country; it could not be readmitted unless duty was paid, so it was 
shipped back to England-I suppose that was done in order to ripen it on the ocean-and another attempt was made to sell it upon its return to England. And butter is coming in from New Zealand; perhaps some of our friends opposite are eating the New Zealand butter they disliked so much.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle stated he could sell his grain for 60 cents a bushel if he could receive five cents per pound for his hogs and cattle on the hoof. I say if it were not. for that word "if" you might be able to do it; but you cannot get that much, that is all there is to it. I wonder if the hon. member ever heard the story about the dog and the rabbit. Well, the dog didn't run fast enough. That is the trouble with the prices the hon. member mentioned; he is not able to get that price for his cattle.


An hon. MEMBER:: What happened to
the rabbit?


Thomas F. Donnelly: It got. away. Some
hon. members have said that already industry is deriving benefit from the trade pact. Yes, we are beginning to feel it all right; it is beginning to pinch a little tighter all the time. In South Huron the Minister of Agriculture said he had saved the farmers of Canada over $36,000,000. I looked all over the country and could find no farmers who had received any of that money. Certainly the farmers in the west got none of it. I have asked the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) if any benefit was received in the province of Quebec, and he said there was not. The question was asked of the farmers during the campaign in South Huron-and they only laughed at it; they thought it was a big joke. Whether any of that money was in their pockets, but they replied that their pockets were empty. My hon. friend opposite seems to be one of those bloated aristocrats; he looks well kept-perhaps he is getting some of it. Anyway there is no doubt that the farmers did not get it. Anyway there is no doubt that the farmers did not get it.
But I must hurry on and refer to one or two further points. Let me draw attention of hon. members to crude oil. For some reason one of the regulations in the customs tariff concerning crude oil has been eliminated. I do not know whether Russian oil was the cause of it. I wish to thank the Prime Minister for admitting that the committee which dealt with gasoline prices was right, anyway. Last year when we made representations before the committee on banking and commerce dealing with gasoline

United Kingdom.
it seemed we were all wrong; practically all members opposite voted against us. While in my constituency the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull), whether from ignorance or from some other cause, stated that the Liberal government had placed tariffs on gasoline just as high as those imposed by the Conservative government. I might be able to excuse a layman who did not know better, but for a member of parliament and a lawyer to stand on a public platform and make a statement of that kind is as bad as the statements made concerning the price of butter. Those statements were made either through ignorance or in an attempt to deceive the public-one or the other. I wish to thank the Prime Minister for taking the dumping duty off gasoline, and showing that we were right when we contended that we were paying too much for that commodity.
I believe if he looked into the matter more closely he would find good reason for a further reduction in the duty on gasoline; he would be taking a step in the right direction.
Here is a peculiar thing about the duty on crude oil:	First we learn that the aluminum
company made a deal with soviet Russia. The government was approached in connection with the entry of soviet anthracite, but that commodity was not allowed to come in. Well, a very peculiar thing happened:	One of the
men who had agitated against the entry into this country of soviet coal was a prominent Conservative, and a senator; but the very same senator has practically a monopoly on bringing in Welsh and American anthracite, and we can understand why he does not want Russian anthracite to enter the country. Then the question is asked: "Why not bring in oil?" -and they decide to bring it in. The very same senator headed the agitation for the entry of Russian oil into Canada. Why? Because he has a monopoly on Russian oil entering Canada. Whether or not he was the person influential in changing the government's mind concerning the entry of oil from Russia, I do not know. Now we know that the government will let in Russian oil, but will not let in Russian coal.


An hon. MEMBER:: And we need coal.


Thomas F. Donnelly: Yes, we need coal; in
our country we need it, because it is cold up there.
One other point and then I have finished. The hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir), and the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Willis), referred to the valley of humiliation.
An hen. MEMBER: Hear, hear.


Thomas F. Donnelly: Oh yes, "hear, hear." I tell my hon. friend if I were one of the mercenaries in the Conservative army who had been bought and paid for I would not say that. Go and ask the member for Regina, who says you were bought and paid for. Seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars was your price.
Let me read what the Vancouver Sun has to say. The hon. member for Cariboo read some advertisements from that paper; I shall read an editorial. It says:
Prominently displayed in the Tory press throughout Canada is the statement of F. W. Turnbull, K.C., member of parliament for Regina, who boldly admits that R. B. Bennett contributed $750,000 of his own money to the Conservative campaign funds.
And Mr. Turnbull naively adds, "Not much more than that was spent."
Heaven only knows how much more than $750,000 Mr. Bennett threw into the pot. But the self-conscious manner in which the Tory press parades this admission is proof in itself of the deep resentment every Conservative must feel over the purchase of the party by rich and opulent R. B. Bennett. For that is just what it amounts to.
Mr. Bennett, to make himself Prime Minister, bought the party and paid for it. And he is conscious of his ownership. That is why he feels so free to order his cabinet around like a flock of school boys, to thump the table and dictate to everybody.
Perhaps that is why, too, he felt so free to piously dedicate his life five times over to the service of the party. Mr. Bennett certainly violated no item in his creed of selfishness when he dedicated himself to himself.
Mr. Bennett, then, bought his premiership for three-quarters of a million dollars. Where did he get the money? How much of it came from Canadian Pacific Railway real estate operations in Calgary? How much of it was derived from his Imperial Oil associations? How much of it came out of the pockets of the late Mrs. Eddy? Surely the public is entitled to know the origin of all campaign funds.
Under our system there is nothing legally wrong with a man making money as Mr. Bennett made it. But if a man, by such methods, gets together six or eight million dollars and then goes out and buys the government of his country, he is doing the very thing, in principle, for which corporations are unhesitatingly condemned.
What is the difference between a corporation giving $750,000 to a political party in order to secure material favours for itself and Mr. Bennett paying $750,000 for the privilege of owning and bossing not only Conservatives but the whole nation? Such things thwart the very spirit of democratic government.
Mr. Bennett has personally bought the Conservative party; he owns it.
His strutting attitude of proprietorship and his air of owning the country remind Conservatives that they are chattels rather than colleagues, and remind Canadians that they are serfs rather than citizens.
This has been referred to not only in the Conservative press; we find the Conservative
792	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
chairman here in Ottawa saying he did not think the Prime Minister of Canada should be asked to give $750,000 to campaign funds. These are the men who have the audacity to stand up in this house and talk about Beauharnois and such things. They have the nerve of a brass monkey; that is what makes me so warm. Par be it from me to read an article of this kind-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Thomas F. Donnelly: -out of malice, but there is only one way to fight people like hon. gentlemen opposite. In the last war, when the Germans used poisoned gas we fought back in the same way. Now hon. gentlemen are getting back the same sort of thing they gave; let them take a little of it. How do you like that, Long Lake? That will take the shirt off you.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance), I beg to move the amendment I have just read.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. In the first place, this amendment is seconded by an hon. member who
has already spoken.


John Vallance: I deny that statement.
I have not spoken on this agreement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then I withdraw that
objection. This amendment cannot be in order, Mr. Speaker, by any rule that governs this house, because it declares something that has no relation to these proceedings. What we have before the house is a motion to approve a treaty, and it is proposed now to say that in doing so we will not prejudice the colour of the moon, or the rising of the sun, or a forthcoming interprovincial conference or any other thing. It is the first time I have heard that you can move such a thing in relation to a motion of this kind.
In the next place the motion is to approve subject to legislation. When the time comes for the legislation to be introduced it will be competent for any hon. member to move the six months' hoist, or a new clause, or an amendment of any kind that might be desired. With respect to the motion now before the house, it is subject to the legislation required in order to give effect to the fiscal changes consequent thereupon. What is said in the amendment is that what you are going to do will not prejudice you in connection with something that may or may not happen. There is no assurance that there ever will be a world economic conference beyond the fact that arrangements have
'Mr. Donnelly.]
been made for one. The conference has not been called as yet. No date has been fixed for it, and the declaration that the approval of this house is not to prejudice something that may or may not happen, or any course of action that may or may not be taken, is a new doctrine. If it prevails there can be no such thing as order or decorum in the conduct of public business.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
with regard to the remarks of the right hon. the Prime Minister, may I remind my right hon. friend, when he now states to the house that no date has been fixed for a world economic conference, and that there is no reason to believe that such a conference is to take place-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; I said no date had been fixed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -no date, and that there was no certainty as to date, that when I was speaking on the motion, I drew my right hon. friend's attention to what I then assumed was the case and which was the very condition which he is now asserting to be a fact. I said we had no assurance that this conference was to be held, as to where it was to be held or the date at which it would be held. My right hon. friend told us then that he had all that information.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I said that the
League of Nations had all that. Be accurate, now; I said they were to meet in November to fix the date.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am quite
prepared to leave it just as my right hon. friend has put it. I stated that it was a matter of uncertainty, whereas my right hon. friend contended that it was a certain event.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that there is reason to believe that the passing of this agreement will affect what may take place at the world economic conference, and that you cannot separate the two in the bearing of the one upon the other. I wish to give your honour my reasons for so believing. In an Associated Press despatch from London dated October 22 I find the following:
Sir Walter Layton, noted economist, announced his resignation Tuesday from the preparatory committee of the world economic conference because of a "serious difference of opinion" between himself and the British government.
He said he had differed with Neville Chamberlain, chancellor of the exchequer, on "What further action is required in order to restore reasonable freedom to the movement of international trade?"

United Kingdom
In a letter to Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald, Sir Walter wrote, "The government view is that the desired result can be obtained through individual negotiations with foreign countries within limits set by the Ottawa agreements and subject to strict insistence on our 'most favoured nation' rights."
"Judging from past experience, however," the letter to the premier continued, "I fear the method of bilateral negotiation will make very little impression on the protectionist system of the world as a whole, as it has grown up since the war. In my opinion, the financial situation in which Great Britain finds herself at this moment, taken in conjunction with the immense importance of the British market to the whole world, gives us the unique opportunity-in collaboration with countries already on a low tariff basis and those to whom restoration of foreign trade is a vital necessity
to propound and press forward plans conceived on much bolder and broader lines."
Sir Walter pointed out permanent tariffs and meat quotas, as barriers to world agreements, and declared stabilization of the British pound "depends essentially on whether we secure reasonable level tariffs or contemplate international trade will continue to be cribbed and confined."
There can be no doubt at all that this very agreement which we are considering here is being interpreted by the government in Great Britain as placing restrictions upon the discussions that may occur, and the possible course of action that may be taken, at the world economic conference. My right hon. friend is going to represent Canada at that world conference-


Leslie Gordon Bell: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend says "hear, hear"-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say "hear hear."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Someone on
the other side said "hear, hear."


Leslie Gordon Bell: I said "hear,
hear," and meant it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I take it for granted that my right hon. friend will represent Canada at that conference, but whether he does or does not, someone on the government side will do so, I presume. If the action of this parliament in approving of this agreement and Canada thereby becoming a party to it means that the agreement will be cited at the world conference as placing restrictions upon the action of the conference in lowering tariffs or in taking any other action that may affect currency problems and the question of exchange, then I fail to see how hon. gentlemen can approve the agreement. This amendment, I submit is wholly in order. To me it seems eminently proper that it should be supported by every hon. member of the house.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: My ruling is that the objection to the amendment is well taken and that the amendment is not relevant to the resolution before the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What are the reasons, Mr. Speaker, may I ask?


Leslie Gordon Bell: You cannot crossexamine the Speaker.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The amendment proposed is not in order inasmuch as it is not relevant to the main motion.


Mr. J. FERNAND FAFARD (L'IsIet):: Mr. Speaker, it might be just as well to call it eleven o'clock.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, go on.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: Mr. Speaker, when the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), made his appearance in the house, the other day, to disclose the tariff changes resulting from the Imperial conference agreements, he had the inspired bearing of Moses carrying the Tables of the Law! An impressive look, and a voice like the rumble of thunder. Moreover, the Prime Minister alone knew what these agreements concealed. He held the trump card. We now see more dearly, especially after the enlightening speech of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the systematic and logical arguments of those who took part in this debate, on this side of the house. For you will admit, sir, that the discusssion was all one sided. Here and there voices rose on the opposite side, but it was simply to sing vague refrains on old tunes. The house did not much appreciate this music in minor mode. It also noted that the main theme was forgotten. For it was a matter of knowing, exactly, what these agreements we are asked to approve comprised and what chances they offered to increase our trade and to lighten the burden of the crisis which has reached all classes of our population.
Reference to these were hardly made in the few speeches of our friends opposite, unless it was, as their leader did, to beg the Canadians to repose their trust in the new promises a hundred times renewed.
Thus at the beginning of the week we heard the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne) state that if he were Liberal, he would advise the Liberal party to approve the agreements before the house without even discussing them. That may seem an easy matter for people who are readily swayed, however, I think it would be a crime for the Liberal party to act thus. The second reason given by the hon. member for Montmagny
794	COMMONS
Imperial Conjerence-Trade Agreements
was that a silk factory had opened its doors in the town of Montmagny, and he asserted that it was thanks to the policy of Mr. Bennett. However, he forgot to mention that the Imperial conference had nothing to do with it, since the factory was erected at least a year before the conference was ever thought of. If it is due to the policy of Mr. Bennett, this policy, which should be national in character, should also extend to Riviere-du-Loup, Levis or Dorchester; and, in these small centres no silk factories have sprung up. I think it would have been fairer for the hon. member for Montmagny to give the credit of this enterprise to his colleague, Mr. Charles A. Paquet, member of the Quebec legislature, who spent all his energy to put this industry on its feet, he could have also thanked the leading citizens of Montmagny who showed so much initiative and energy in developing this factory.
The hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion) delivered, today, a somewhat dispassionate speech, but he could not end his speech without disparaging again Quebec, without stating to the members of the various provinces that Quebec was badly administered. He even criticized the provincial department of agriculture, because this department was not doing anything to relieve the farmers. Was it bad faith on his part or was it through ignorance? Truly, I think, it was both. Yet the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency is not without knowing that it is the province of Quebec which expends the most to foster agriculture, considering the taxes levied on the people. It ill suited a Conservative member to criticize the Quebec government, when hon. gentlemen opposite, last year, decreased the farm appropriations by $3,000,000; at a time when they were advocating the policy of back to the land. The hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency has a hobby of attacking distinguished men, as he did today. He attacked Taschereau, Lapointe and Mackenzie King. This, sir, reminds me of a peculiarity which we note in our rural districts and which must equally occur in the Yukon. Since the automobile has made its appearance, we find what one may call a breed of family dogs, somewhat old and fat, they seem to be of little use, but the farmers, however, keep them because they were of some service to the family in the past. They are not wicked nor do they bite neighbours, they are even in the habit of licking the hands of passing beggars because dogs have an instinct that they are dependent as these beggars are. However, when an automobile or a vehicle appears which they are unable to follow, immediately they start barking behind the fMr. Fafard.]
vehicle until it disappears in the distance. This somewhat applies to the member for Quebec-Montmorency-whom I do not look upon as a dog for such is not the case-he always attacks someone big because he cannot follow his vehicle or political career.
After being in power two years, this government has found nothing better to do than to make new pledges. The only difference is that instead of making oral promisee, as those we have so often heard, they are now written down in a treaty. This is no guarantee, as we shall see. First they are indefinite. They depend on circumstances like those made by Mr. Bennett, previous to the election. We now are aware that Tory pledges are unreliable, when conditions are not favourable. There was nothing under the skies that the leader of the Conservative party did not promise, relying on an improvement in the situation. Unemployment, for instance was inevitably to disappear with the improvement, in the near future, of business. Banking on this, the Conservative leader pledged himself to make it disappear. He relied especially on his lucky star! When the Conservative party assumed power the unemployed numbered 250,000. Since then their number has doubled and even trebled, according to the statistics recently given out by the government. The Imperial economic conference was to solve this problem which overshadows all the others in importance and which should be our first care.
Hon. gentlemen opposite laughed when my hon. friend the member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) stated that he had prayed for the success of the Imperial conference. It is only necessary to have been a witness to the distress prevailing in our cities and rural districts, it is only sufficient to have noted the fortitude and patience of our people in the face of adversity, so as to be moved with the deepest feeling of sympathy. And this sympathy to be real should be expressed in prayers.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, November 3, 1932