1932-10-27

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

Mr. BLAIR:: 1.	Did the pension tribunal of the Department of Pensions and National Health, notify H. C. Pearson, regimental number 2499907 to come from Syracuse, New York, to appear before the tribunal at Cobourg, Ontario, on the 24th of August, 1932?
2. Did the tribunal sit on that day at
Cobourg?
3. Did the tribunal pay the said H. C. Pearson his expenses in coming from Syracuse to Cobourg to attend the sittings of the pension tribunal?
4.	What officer was responsible for the notification of H. C. Pearson to appear before the tribunal?


Mr. MacLAREN:: 1.	No. He was informed by the district pensions advocate at Toronto, that his case was listed for hearing on that date.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	No officer was responsible for the notification of H. C. Pearson to appear before the pension tribunal, the procedure is for the district pensions advocate to notify an applicant of the date of hearing.


TRENT CANAL-LOCK 22
Mr. BLAIR:: 1.	Were the plans for the dam or lock twenty-two on the Trent canal approved by the engineers of the Department of Railways and Canals in August, 1929?
2.	What is the reason this dam has not been constructed?


Mr. MANION:: 
CUSTOMS SURVEYOR-VANCOUVER
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	Was T>. C. Maxwell, former surveyor of customs and excise at the port of Vancouver, demoted by the present government?
2.	Did the said R. C. Maxwell frequently act as acting collector in addition to his duties as surveyor?
3.	Did the Department of National Revenue appoint an assistant surveyor to assist R. C. Maxwell in the discharge of his duties as
surveyor ?
4.	Was the said R. C. Maxwell acting in a dual capacity with the knowledge of the government and did the department approve of his work while acting collector?
5.	Was a petition signed by some seventy business firms of the port of Vancouver, asking for an unbiased investigation in reference to the demotion of R. C. Maxwell received by the right hon. the Prime Minister, and if so, was the same acknowledged?
6.	What action, if any, did the right hon. the Prime Minister take in connection with this matter?


Mr. RYCKMAN:: 1.	R. C. Maxwell, formerly surveyor of customs and excise at the port of Vancouver, was demoted by the Department of National Revenue, July 1, 1932.
2.	In accordance with the usual practice, R. C. Maxwell, as surveyor and next in rank, acted as collector during the absence of that officer on statutory leave or sick leave.
3.	H. M. Dunn was on April 1, 1924, appointed by the Civil Service Commission assistant surveyor of customs and excise, grade 6 port, as a result of a promotional competition.
4.	As a matter of routine practice, R. C. Maxwell was authorized to act as collector in the absence of that officer. The files of the department do not indicate that while acting as collector any special expression of approval of his work was given by the department, and it is not customary so to do.
5.	The case of R. C. Maxwell was given the personal consideration of the Prime Minister and the petition was received very shortly after a letter had been despatched to Mr. Maxwell by the Prime Minister giving the conclusions reached by him in consultation with the Minister of National Revenue.
6.	No action was taken with respect to the request for a re-investigation, the facts upon which the decision was based amply justifying the decision arrived at.


TRENT RIVER DAMS
Mr. BLAIR:: 1.	Have tenders been called for replacing dams 4 and 5 on the Trent river, north of Peterborough?
2.	If any tenders have been accepted, who was the successful tenderer?
3.	Will the government replace one of these wooden dams with a concrete dam this year?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	As to dam 4 (now dam 23), no. This is a new concrete dam completed in 1927. As to dam 5 (now dam 22). Tenders have been called for, and are now before the government for consideration.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


LOCKS BRIDGE-OTONABEE RIVER
Mr. BLAIR:: 1.	Have tenders been called for the replacement of the locks bridge on King's highway No. 7, over the Otonabee river, near Peterborough?
2.	Will the government construct the bridge at this point, this year?
3.	Have terms been settled with the Ontario government as to the proportion each government is to pay for the construction of the said bridge?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	No.
2.	The matter is under consideration as between the dominion and the province but awaits final agreement with the province as to site.
3.	Answered by No. 2.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	How much money was voted for the repairs to Upper Port Latour wharf in 1932?
2.	How much has been expended to date?
3.	Is the work completed?
4.	Who was the foreman?
5.	What rate of pay per hour was paid to foremen, carpenters, labourers?
6.	Who supplied the timber and/or logs used in said repair?
7.	What was the total amount paid for said timber and logs delivered?
8.	What size timber and logs were called for in this work?
Motions for Papers

0.	What sizes were supplied?
10.	Were any of the said timbers and/or legs condemned and rejected by the foreman or engineer on the work as being unfit for use in said repairs?
11.	If so, were they finally used in said repairs?
12.	Has the department or district engineer received any complaints from any person or persons as to the quality and size of said timber and/or logs?
13.	What kind of wood was called for to be used in this work?
14.	What kind was supplied and used?


MARINE DREDGES NOS. 10 AND 11
Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Were Marine and Fisheries dredges No. 10 and No. 11 sold?
2.	If so, why and when were they sold?
3.	Who were they sold to?
4.	What was the price received?
5.	What repairs were made to these two dredges in each of the three years preceding their sale?
6.	What was the cost of these repairs?
7.	Were they sold alone or with other plant?
8.	If sold with other plant, were there any repairs made to the other items sold with these two dredges during the same period?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. BOUCHARD:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents, exchanged between the Dominion government and all persons, corporations, or others in connection with the dismissal of Joseph Perrault from the experimental station at Ste-Anne-de-la-Pocatiere, Kamouraska county, and also copy of the evidence of the investigation which was held at Ste-Anne-de-la-Pocatiere in connection with this ease.



DISMISSAL OP JOSEPH PARADIS

Joseph Georges Bouchard: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, petitions and other documents, exchanged from January, 1931, to date, between the Post Office Department or any official thereof and all persons, corporations, or others in connection with the dismissal of mail carrier Joseph Paradis, at St. Germain, county of Kamouraska.



ST. CYRILLE, L'lSLET COUNTY, POST OFFICE

Mr. FAFARD:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged from January, 1932, to date, in connection with the post office at St. Cyrille, county of L'lslet Quebec.

DEPARTMENT OP FISHERIES-REPORTS	'
Mr. GiIROUARD (for Mr. Brasset):
For a copy of the report of Mr. S. T. Galand, Superintendent of Fisheries, Charlottetown. Prince Edward Island, to the Department of f isheries, for the week ending June 14. 1930; also report of Mr. Wm. S. Arseneault, Inspector of Fisheries, at Graud Stone, Magdelene islands, to the Department of Fisheries, for the week ending June 14, 1932.



GRAND-ENTREE, MAGDALEN ISLANDS-EXPENDITURE

Mr. GIROUARD (for Mr. Brasset):: For a copy of all the pay lists submitted to the Department of Public Works in connection with work carried out at Grand-Entree, Magdalen islands, since August 1, 1930.



TOURVILLE, QCE., L'lSLET COUNTY, POST OFFICE

Joseph-Fernand Fafard: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Post Office Department and alt persons, from January 1, 1931, to date, in connection with post office at Tourville, county of L'Jslet, Quebec.



TOURVILLE, QUE., CUSTOMS OFFICE

Joseph-Fernand Fafard: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Department of National Revenue and all persons, in connection with the customs office at Tourville, county of L'lslet, Quebec, from January 1, 1931, to date.
QUESTIONS UNANSWERED On the orders of the day.


Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that questions Nos. I and 2 have been for some time on the order paper, the former for two weeks and the latter for ten days. I would like to have answers to these questions within a reasonable time, or I shall have something to say about it.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: I would like to ask the Minister
of Labour if the government has entered into an agreement with British Columbia with respect to unemployment relief for single homeless men, also married men, during the coming winter.


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the problem that confronts. British Columbia is probably a little different from that of any other province in that more-

Unemployment Relief
transients, to call them such, flock to that province by reason of its climatic conditions in the winter months. Having that in view, the government are taking steps to relieve the situation in British Columbia, in the municipalities and elsewhere, with respect to single homeless men. Arrangements are now under way to take care of these men, to see that they are provided for, and that any work that is available for them shall be done in connection with the work that the government itself is doing, providing them with food, clothing and shelter.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does not the minister think it would be more in the interests of the country to make a complete statement with respect to unemployment relief throughout the country rather than to have incomplete and inaccurate statements appearing in the press in regard to all these schemes?
HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION IN ONTARIO On the orders of the day:


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I asked a question, and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie), who was then leading the house, promised to convey my question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon). I asked if the government was in a position to make a statement concerning what is proposed in the way of construction of highways in northern Ontario to take care of the unemployed in that section of the country.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Mr. Speaker, the question of the construction of highways in northern Ontario is, of course, essentially one that is being taken care of by the provincial legislature. In so far as the work of the men who have been placed in camps in northern Ontario can be directed toward the construction of highways, of course their work will be so directed. I am sure the hon. member recognizes that in the many camps maintained in northern Ontario men are asked to do work, and are willingly doing it in the construction of highways. From my observations and investigations with respect to the camps, that arrangement is working out satisfactorily.
FARM RELIEF-SASKATCHEWAN On the orders of the day:


Mr. T. F. DONNELLY (Willow Bunch):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister or the Minister of Labour if the legislature of the province of Saskatchewan
have approached the Dominion government asking for assistance in caring for the destitute farmers in the dried-out areas of Saskatchewan. If so, what arrangement has been arrived at?


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: The hon. member's interrogation
will stand as a question.



ANGUS SHOPS, MONTREAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James):: I also have a question to ask cf the Minister of Labour. Has the government, through the Minister of Labour or otherwise, received representations concerning the reopening of the Canadian Pacific railway Angus shops in Montreal?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: So far as the Department of Labour
is concerned, there have been no representations made. Representations may have been made of which I am not at present aware, and if the hon. gentleman will let his question stand I will answer it tomorrow.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Perhaps the Prime Minister could supplement the answer. Has the government received any representations with respect to the reopening of the Angus shops?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would ask that the question stand as a motion.



SURVEY OF NATIONAL PORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: May I ask the government whether it is proposed to give effect this session to the recommendations of Sir Alexander Gibb with regard to harbour commissioners?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That question was answered the other day when the hon. gentleman was not in the house, I said that no action would be taken until the return of the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau). It is impossible to say yes or no to the question until the minister's return.



WHEAT PRICES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: I draw the attention of the government to the following item in the press cf yesterday:
Wheat futures plunge to a new seasonal low. 1 rices tumble more than four cents today.

Duty on Cellulose

In view of the importance of this matter to the whole business, life of Canada, will the government take steps to improve the price of wheat and prevent further declines in the price of this very important commodity.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question can stand as a notice
cf inquiry.



VALUATION OF POUND STERLING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weyburn):: 1 would
like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. I have before me a memorandum of the Department of National Revenue, dated October 26, 1932, reading as follows:
The average value of the pound sterling declared by the department for special duty purposes is $3.72 effective for entries during tiie period 1st to 15th November, 1932, inclusive.
Will not the effect of this memorandum be to increase the special duty on goods entering Canada from Great Britain?


Hon. E. B. RYCKMAN (Minister of National Revenue):: The answer is yes, unless
the value of the pound is changed from 14.40. Consideration is being given to that matter and a different amount may be set as the value of the pound for special duty purposes. It now stands at $4.40.



DUTY ON CELLULOSE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the question asked by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) a few days ago cannot properly be answered by my department, but will be answered at once by the Minister of National Revenue.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Mr. Speaker, on the twenty-fifth instant the hon. member for Weyburn [DOT] (Mr. Young) asked concerning an order in council dated October 3 with relation to item 200a appearing in the customs tariff, which covers regenerated cellulose and cellulose acetate, transparent, in sheets, not printed. The rates are free, ten per cent and ten per cent. In case there should be any doubt in the mind of the hon. member as to what this item really includes, I think one may say that the commodity herein mentioned is commonly known as cellophane.

The fact is that in the month of June, 1931, there was made as a proviso to this item 200a the following:
Provided, that the governor in council may, when satisfied that regenerated cellulose, transparent, in sheets is being manufactured in Canada in quantity and quality sufficient for Canadian requirements, by order in council direct that there be substituted for tariff item 200a the following:
Regenerated cellulose, and cellulose acetate, transparent, in sheets, not printed, and manufactures of regenerated cellulose or of cellulose acetate.
And the rates, British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent, and general tariff 35 per cent. The government is satisfied that the condition provided for in this paragraph has been fully complied with, and in view of the obligation resting upon the government it has seen fit to bring the new rates into force. Those rates now stand, and will be exacted upon importation of these articles. The government feel, further, that these goods may properly and advantageously, without loss to any consumers, be manufactured in Canada. I believe this covers in detail the question which was answered generally by the Prime Minister on October 25.


Edward James Young: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not grasp the point of my question. I did not ask what the legal rights of the government were in the matter. I asked if this action on the part of the government did not violate the spirit of section 14 of the United Kingdom agreement.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I thank the member for bringing that phase of the matter to my attention. That is something which was consummated in June of 1931. Representatives from Great Britain or dsewhere did not suggest for one moment that we should depart from any undertaking we had previously entered into, and I am sure we have not transgressed our rights in the matter.



QUEBEC CENTRAL RAILWAY SHOPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. B. HOWARD (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister this question: If he negotiates for the opening of the Angus shops will he include the Quebec Central railway shops situated in Sherbrooke and belonging to the Canadian Pacific Railway?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I think such a question is utterly improper, and it is based upon a contingency about which no information has, or can for the moment, be given.

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements



LOBSTER FISHERY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. E. MadLEAN (Prince): Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask if the acting Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rhodes) has been able to gain any information, and if investigations are being made concerning the matter I brought to his attention yesterday. At that time I read a newspaper report stating that fishing gear had been destroyed by cruisers, and that the fishermen had been fired on by the cruiser Arras.
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Acting Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the moment this matter was brought to my attention yesterday instructions were issued to the supervisor of fisheries in the maritime provinces to make investigations at once. Such investigations will involve travelling from Charlottetown to Halifax. The moment information has been gained it will be given to the house, and if any remedies are necessary they will be applied.



PORTSMOUTH PENITENTIARY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) when it is proposed to appoint a permanent warden for Kingston penitentiary?


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minster of Justice) :: Mr. Speaker, advertisement by the Civil Service Commission is now current, and applications are to be received until November 5 next. After that time I assume a selection will be made.



IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, October 20, 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. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in this debate may I say I am fully conscious of my great responsibility, and the duty to my constituents who did me the honour to send me here
as their representative. Further, I am not unconscious of my responsibility as a Canadian citizen and a British subject. In common with every hon. member on this side of the house,
I had an open mind in regard to the results, whatever they may have been, coming from the Imperial economic conference. I made up my mind that if out of the conference came results which, after due trial, worked towards alleviating the dire distress in this country, they should have the sympathetic support of hon. members on this side of the house. But Mr. Speaker, after carefully studying the articles and the agreements I am free to admit that of all the great blunders that this government have made since they came into power in 1930 this is perhaps the greatest blunder of all. I am not going into the by-election in South Huron-unless my hon. friends across the floor draw me out-except to say that I marvelled that the government brought on the by-election in South Huron four days before the opening of parliament. I had a suspicion that there was method in their madness, that they had something to conceal. Now I am sure of it. Knowing South Huron as I do, I want to tell the Prime .^Minister and the government that if they had waited, had called parliament and tabled the results of the imperial conference before holding the by-election, the majority in South Huron instead of being 2,000 would have been 4,000.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to be as fair as I can to the government. I want to give them all the credit I can-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Frederick George Sanderson: -for God knows that if ever a government needed some credit it is this government. So I want to be as sympathetic as I can with the government. To my mind the results of this conference should be regarded in this way: are we satisfied that the results as we know them will give wider markets to the basic industry of this country, namely agriculture, at increased prices? Will it give wider markets at increased prices for the other basic industries, the products of the mines, of the forests, and of the fisheries; and is the consumer and the vast army of unemployed with their wives and families, getting a fair, square, honest deal through the agreements that have been brought down in this house? On the other hand we must consider, and consider carefully, whether the manufacturers' association are getting more than they are entitled to. Are they getting concessions in high protection that will enable them to plunder, if you like, the consumer, the
004	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
farmer, the unemployed and people who are struggling for existence in this country. If we review the whole situation in that light 1 am free to confess, much as I would like to support the government-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They
don't believe you.


Frederick George Sanderson: No, I know they are doubting Thomases. I am free to say that, reviewing it in that way, there is nothing in it to give any consolation to the people of Canada.
Now, if the house will have patience with me, I want to go back to the war. I do not want to say anything more than this, that the economic conditions that prevail not only in this country but in every country in the world can be traced back first to the war, with its great loss of life and great destruction of property, and the huge debts that it entailed; also to the mad rush for money, the greed for money, not only on the part of individuals but corporations and countries. There is another factor, that of higher and higher tariffs. I believe that the imposition of higher tariffs-and this country is as guilty as any, especially under this administration -has perhaps done more to stifle trade and commerce and bring us into the condition in which we find ourselves today than anything else.	'
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) speaking in this house, the sevens teenth in this debate, elaborated for some minutes what he called the sheltered market that the government of which he is a member has obtained for exports from this country under this treaty. He said it was a sheltered market. Well, a sheltered market means a protected market. When I say that I do not refer to tariffs. Sheltered means shielded from storm and stress and strain, a place of safety. If the Minister of Trade and Commerce thinks sending our wheat to Great Britain under the provisions of this treaty at world prices is sending it into a sheltered market, then he has a different opinion of a sheltered market from mine. The same applies to flour, and to many other commodities. If there is any market which is not a sheltered market to any degree it is that fierce competition of buyers and sellers on world markets. The United Kingdom will take our wheat at world prices. In my humble opinion the preference of six cents a bushel is hardly worth the paper it is written on, it will not enhance the price of wheat shipped to Great

Britain one iota, and when the Minister of Trade and Commerce talks about sheltered markets I think he has something else in mind, the sheltered markets the manufacturers are going to have is the Dominion of Canada under this treaty-if I have time I will come to that in a moment or two. But in regard to wheat and flour I want to point out to the house that, having considered it as earnestly and as conscientiously as I can, I have come to certain conclusions. I have inquired carefully from men whose business it is to export Canadian wheat to all the markets of the world, and from men whose business it is to make flour in Canada and export it if they can, and the information I have received is this, that the preference of six cents a bushel on wheat will not avail anybody anything, and the ten cents a barrel protection on Canadian flour will not help the Canadian millers.
The same may be said of article 5, which deals with cattle. I will not take time to read it; I will say that if through this treaty anything is done to increase the exports of cattle from this country to Great Britain will be a help, but under present conditions, with the rate of exchange as it is, I do not think this means anything. I know of a large shipment of prime cattle that left western Ontario about a month ago. They were sold in Great Britain, and the net result of the sale was 4 cents per pound after all charges were paid. Is that a sheltered market? The shippers lost thousands of dollars on those cattle, and if nothing better comes out of this agreement it will not amount to anything.
Now for a moment or two I should like to deal with bacon and ham, and if the house will bear with me I should like to read article 6, which covers these products.


Mr. GOTT:: The hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Factor) dealt with that question.


Frederick George Sanderson: I may deal with the
hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Gott) if he does not keep quiet. Article 6 reads as follows:
His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom declare that it is their intention to arrange as soon as possible after receiving the report of the commission now sitting on the reorganization of the pig industry in the United Kingdom, for the quantitative regulation of the supplies of bacon and hams coming on to the United Kingdom market and undertake that in any legislation which they may submit to parliament for regulating the supplies of bacon

United Kingdom
and hams from all sources into the United Kingdom, provision will be made for free entry of Canadian bacon and hams of good quality up to a maximum of 2,500,000 hundredweight per annum.
Is there a single commitment in that article, Mr. Speaker, which obligates His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom to increase the purchase of Canadian bacon and ham? This provision is surrounded by ifs and whens and hows, and in any event nothing can be done until the report of this commission is brought in. I want to make this prediction, that if in course of time the export of Canadian bacon and ham should reach the figure mentioned in article 6, the farmers all over this dominion will go into hog raising on a large scale, and instead of increasing the price of hogs the price will decrease. The price is $3.75 now, and it may go even lower. There is another feature entering into the matter as well. The farmer will have nothing to say with regard to the price received for bacon in the English market. The huge packing monopoly of this country will control the price; they will not only increase their business but will milk the farmers who raise the hogs which they buy. So if this article is viewed reasonably and carefully the conclusion must be reached that there is nothing in it for the farmers.
Now I want to come to another important article, that dealing with eggs, poultry, butter, cheese and other milk products. I will not read article I, but at the end of that article I find these words:
... set forth in schedule A appended hereto.
Schedule A appears on page 53 of the supplementary report of the conference, and reads as follows:
As regards eggs, poultry, butter, cheese and other milk products, free entry for Canadian produce will be continued for three years certain. ^ His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom, however, reserve to themselves the right, after the expiration of the three years, if they consider it necessary in the interests of the United Kingdom producer to do so, to review the basis of preference so far as relates to the articles above enumerated and, after notifying His Majesty's government in Canada either to impose a preferential duty on Canadian produce whilst maintaining preferential margins, or in consultation with the Canadian government to bring such produce within any system which may be put into operation for the quantitative regulation of supplies from all sources in the United Kingdom market.
My interpretation may not be correct, Mr. Speaker, but as I read that article to me it means that for three years these products will
go into the United Kingdom market free of duty, but there is no undertaking that this arrangement will be continued for more than three years. I have some knowledge of rural life in England, not from practical experience but from personal observation, and I want to tell you what may happen. There is a movement in Great Britain now to increase the production of farm products, not only in England but in Scotland as well. In those countries they have tens of thousands of acres which the Lord never intended should be used as they have been used during the last hundred years. That land was put there to be cultivated, and I think this movement in England will bring about this result, that the British farmers will be able to almost, if not entirely, meet the requirements of their home market. So from this resolution I take it that they have made up their minds-rightly and justly so,-'that they can feed themselves without depending on the products of other countries. That may not be true with regard to wheat, but certainly it may come true with regard to poultry, butter and eggs and dairy products. Then what will happen? Three years from now this market that has been secured under this treaty will be wiped out, and if the Prime Minister and his supporters have their way-


Mr. EDWARDS:: They will.
Mr. SANDERSON They will have their way in forcing these agreements through this parliament, but as soon as the people get a chance to say whether or not they want them to continue in power, this government will be out. As I see it, this will be the result': where will the farmers of this country find another market? The right faon. Prime Minister says he wants tribute from all other countries; he does not want to deal with them. I will come back to that question of tribute in a moment. The result will be that in three years this market will be closed and, owing to the stupidity of this government, the Canadian farmer will have no markets at all.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: That is the fix he is in now.


Frederick George Sanderson: My hon. friend from Edmonton says that is the fix he is in now.
Just for a moment I want to digress. This government, led by the superman, the right hon. the Prime Minister-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Frederick George Sanderson: Hon. gentlemen are applauding only to keep their courage up,
606	oOMMONH
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
and I am glad that they feel like applauding occasionally. But to get back to the Prime Minister. He is going to have an empire trade policy, within the empire, and a policy of Canada first. He does not want to deal with any other country, Well, sir, the result of this agreement, as I see it, will be this. Human nature will assert itself; as it does in individuals, so it will in nations, and nations will do their utmost to protect themselves. Nations will band together for trade and commerce and the result of this treaty will be in the final analysis that Canada will be out in the cold.
There are one or two other matters to which I wish to direct attention. I come now to the sheltered market which the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) spoke about. We are back here in Canada now and the sheltered market, if ever there was a sheltered market for any class of the community, is a sheltered market for the manufacturers. They have a sheltered market in this agreement. Take textiles, for instance. The Dominion Textile Company, to my mind, is the only corporation, the only body of individuals who have ever overpowered the Prime Minister, and they surely have him by the throat. Here we have a vested interest with all their watered stock, with all their frozen assets, and they get from this government a protection which will give them the absolute monopoly of the Canadian market to charge what they like. Where will the consumer come in on that? Where will the farmer come in on that? Where will the wage-earner come in on that? Why, Mr. Speaker, he is taken by the throat and throttled. The fact is, we have never had a piece of legislation like this in this country, and I hope we never shall have anything like it again. But returning for a moment to the assets of the Dominion Textile Company, may I point out that under present conditions that company are getting their raw materials lower than they ever got them since they have been in business. Moreover, they are paying lower wages than they have ever paid before and have brought their overhead down. They have pared here, there and everywhere, and the result is that in order to thaw out these frozen assets every man, woman and child in Canada will have to pay tribute to the Dominion Textile Company under this agreement. That is indeed a sheltered market; it is the market to which I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce was referring-a sheltered, bomb-proof market, where the multimillionaires and rich manufacturers of the country will hide themselves and exact tribute from the common people of Canada. r\lr. Sanderson.]
Now I want to say a word again about tribute, as it applies to the right lion, the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister the other day-on September 6, to be precisespeaking in Calgary, said that he-because it is always himself he is talking about-would see to it that tribute should be paid from other countries. Now, what does tribute mean? It means:
An annual or stated sum of money, or other valuable thing, paid by one ruler or nation to another-
I do not know whether he is ruler or nation -probably both.
[DOT]-either as acknowledgment of submission or as the price of peace and protection, or by virtue of some treaty.
While I am on the question of tribute, I wish to say this to the Prime Minister, with all duo respect to him. He has been Prime Minister of this country since July, 1930, and the masses of the Canadian people have paid tribute to him in a way they have never paid tribute to any other Prime Minister.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Frederick George Sanderson: Why don't you cheer ;ver there?


Mr. ROWE:: The people cheered.


Frederick George Sanderson: Well, the tribute which the Canadian people have been paying since July, 1930, has been a tribute, not voluntarily offered to the man himself, but paid in taxes, in higher prices and in unemployment. That is the tribute they have paid to this Prime Minister and his government. The time is coming, and coming quickly, when if the people get a chance the tribute they will pay to him will be this, "You had better retire into private life." The Prime Minister, in the election campaign of 1930, said to the farmers, to the labouring men and to all the people of Canada, "I will make tariffs fight for you." Did he make tariffs fight for them in the concessions he has given to the Dominion Textile Company, putting that company in a position where they can dictate terms to any government and to their customers throughout this country. We have arrived at a stage that is fraught with grave danger. A day may bring forth almost anything, and yet we have this government hanging on to the high protectionist system. This agreement, as it pertains to importations coming into this country, is saturated with high tariffs.
The Prime Minister the other day spoke about warp and woof. That is very apropos of the Dominion Textile Company-the threads which are extended lengthwise into

United Kingdom
the loom and across by the woof. The Dominion Textile Company, true to form, got their warp and woof into these tariff schedules, and they have so arranged the tariff that they will be able to control the whole situation. But that is always what comes out of higher and higher tariffs.
There is not a man in this country, no matter what his politics may be, nor how prejudiced he may be towards any political party, who is not in favour of more empire trade. But there has been a disposition among lion, gentlemen across the floor during this debate-and occasionally they give utterance to it-to say almost in so many words, or to insinuate that anyone who dares to criticize this agreement and this treaty is helping to disrupt the British Empire. There was a time when perhaps the Tory party could get away with that in Canada, but that time is gone, and if they have no better argument with respect to these agreements than an insinuation of that kind, they had better not attempt to say anything at all.
I come from a western Ontario riding which is largely rural, and I wish to say here that there is not a single solitary member on the other side representing a rural riding in western Ontario who has got up and defended the agreements. I cannot understand how any hon. gentleman can take the attitude of hon. gentlemen on the other side, coming here as they do by the votes of farmers-because that is how they came in, on the promises made in 1930. I am not going to go back to that, however. They must know that the farmers in their constituencies are opposed absolutely to these agreements because they contain nothing for them. I should like to read from an article entitled "Three Centuries of Empire Trade" by a professor of Queen's university. If I had the time at my disposal I should like to put the whole article upon Hansard, but I will read only part. I may say that on the whole I agree with what is said in this article, although perhaps not in every particular. It reads:
The veil has lately been torn from our eyes. The people of England have been very definitely told that we do not want empire trade for the sake of empire but for the sake of cash. We all now know exactly where we stand. By and large, it is where we have always stood, that is, on the solid base of selfinterest. But this base is for the first time officially proclaimed and its proclamation undoubtedly marks a turning point of empire. It marks the completion in the economic sphere of that evolution with which the last prime minister had a good deal to do in the political sphere, the evolution of nationhood.
Is the proclamation for better or for worse. Some facts are better left unfaced. Open con-f^sion is not always good for the soul. The
material out of which any political entity is compounded always contains a liberal proposition of-dare one appropriate Mr. Thomas's term?-"humbug."	Our sentiments never
exactly fit the facts. In the political world parity of thought is like high explosive and perhaps the greatest statesman is he who recognizes the essential common sense of humbug. We have been told that if we do not grasp the present economic opportunities offered to us-whatever those may be-our empire will go the way of the empires of the past. This may be a simple prediction, in which case it is likely to prove false; or it may be a threat, in which case the last nail is being driven into the coffin whose construction was begun by the Tory annexationists of Montreal some eighty years ago. No one can prove that the existence of empires depend on official trade relations between their component parts. Indeed history suggests that if any general principle emerges, it is just the opposite,. that empires go to pieces from the irksomeness and the injustices of official interference in trade and from the greed for which they are the transparent cloak.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who is the author?


Frederick George Sanderson: Professor A. R. M.
Lorver.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member was
never his pup'l.


Frederick George Sanderson: Under the terms of the agreement' with the United Kingdom, free entry into Canada is given to linens. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said the other night that we have handed over the linen market to the Irish linen manufacturer. Does he not know that the Irish linen manufacturer has had this market for the last seventy-five years? We do not make any linen in this country and there is very little fine linen made in the United States, for reasons which I have not the time to go into. If there is any article upon which we should impose a tariff for revenue, it is linen. This article is purchased by the rich to put upon their tables, the ordinary man in this country thanks God if he has a table without any table cloth on it. He does not want to and cannot buy linens, and this article should be protected.
There are other articles which have been placed upon the free list, such as fishing tackle and bagpipes, but cream separators, except from Great Britain where we do not buy any, have had duties placed against them. How can hon. members from western Ontario ridings defend a duty of twenty-five per cent on cream separators with the dairying industry in the terrible position it is today? Hon. friends opposite were going to improve this industry, they were going to have butter bring seventy cents per pound, but how can they justify duties of twenty-five per cent on
60S	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
cream separators and ten per cent on barbed wire? This agreement is not a help but a detriment to the farmer.
When will the government wake up to the fact that we will never have prosperity in this country until the farmer can sell his products at a profit in order that he may have some buying power? You can have all the treaties you like, you can have all the agreements you like but until the farmer has money to spend for the necessities of life and even for the luxuries, the present condition of this country will continue.
I believe that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) is sincere in his efforts and that he is endeavouring to do what is right, but I am afraid he is throttled by the other members of the cabinet. I do not think they pay any attention at all to the basic industries, every thing goes to their friends the manufacturers. I am sorry the minister is not in his place, but I say to him: Do something to help the basic industries of this country, and you, at least, will receive some credit. The. government as a whole will never get credit because ever since they came into power they have retarded agriculture, but if that industry can be brought back to prosperity, the whole country wrill share in that prosperity. The time will come when that will be so, although I am afraid it will not be under this government. However it will come under the government of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) after the next elections.


Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka-Ontario):: 10	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
to be found anywhere in the world. Why do hon. members opposite argue that they are not protectionists, after practising it all the time they were in office?
Our minds go back to the days of 1919, and we remember the Liberal platform of that day, how they copied holus bolus the stand taken by the Progressive party in regard to a list of articles as long as your arm. They made the promise that if returned to office legislation would be introduced in connection with those articles. Was it? Why, they did not wait even until the election was over. The leader of the opposition referred to those articles as a chart; he took that chart and compass and threw it into the sea. From 1921 until 1925, in the days of Mr. Fielding and Sir Lomer Gouin, men who transfused some of the protectionist views into the party, he maintained a protectionist policy. And, sir, during that time he voted down measures coming from the opposite corner of the house in regard to old age pensions, the Hudson Bay railway, rural credits, and many other important matters. He voted them down by the sheer weight of his majority. After the election of 1925, howrever, when he came back to office with his forces decimated, many of his ministers having fallen by the way side, what did he do? He did not wait even until parliament met, but in the speech from the throne promised all this legislation, and gave his opinions to the press before giving them to parliament. That was the most vicious attempt to bribe parliament ever made in this or any other house.
The right hon. gentleman's party passed most of those measures but, sir, we of the medical profession know that blood transfusions are of short duration. The right hon. gentleman is back in opposition again and sees, or thinks he sees, a certain growing feeling- in Canada which is standing behind the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). If we may take his speech in South Huron as an example, we may conclude that before the next general election he will steal every plank in the platform of the member for Winnipeg North Centre. That is an example of the consistency of the Liberal party in and out of office. I believe we may be prepared for anything before the next election. Whenever convenient, Liberal policies have been thrown to the winds and the seas. Probably we might accept the advance information given the other night to a Toronto audience by the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance). What did he say? He said that the Liberal party had to turn sharply to the left-and I
(Mr. McGibbon.]
suppose when he speaks of "the left" he is referring to that party led by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-or they would be wiped out. Probably that is only a prophecy, but it is one very likely to come true.
A great deal has been said concerning the agreement now before us. Let us survey the world situation in regard to wheat. When there is nearly twice as much wheat in the world as can be used, is not some of it going to be left in some people's bins. Under conditions such as that, is it not common sense to say that the farmer who has a sheltered market will get a fair market price for at least part of his grain? And, sir, for a man to stand up, like the hon. member who just preceded me, and say that this advantage is of no use to the farmers of Canada surpasses the imagination of man. What pertains to wheat applies also to bacon. What industry in Canada today offers to the farmers greater hopes than does the hog industry? When we have so much cheap grain, when hogs are capable of multiplying so quickly, and when we have a preferred market in Great Britain for 2,500,000 hundredweight per annum, is there anybody who will suggest that we are not reaping an advantage? If anyone would make that statement I think he had better not go back to the farmers; they would not believe him.
I must not spend too much time speaking about the once great Liberal party, but shall now direct my attention to some industries in my own constituency. The statement has been made many times by hon. members opposite that the articles in the agreement are of no benefit, and that the preference for lumber is useless. In that connection I should like hon. members -who did not hear him to read the speech by the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson). I have some evidence which I should like to place before the house. After all, definite statements by the heads of industries are the most reliable sources of information. In my constituency a hardwood industry is in operation. On Sunday last I telephoned and asked what effect the advantages in the new schedule would have. In reply to my question I received the following answer:
Following 'phone conversation of today in which you asked us if we had secured any benefit from the imperial conference; without any hesitation we can say "Yes." We have apparently had considerable advantage.
Previous to March last year we had been shipping occasional cars to the British Isles; commencing with March or shortly after the

United Kingdom
ten per cent preference wag placed against hardwood flooring, we received many more inquiries from Britain. These inquiries resulted in considerable business. Since the conference the offers of business we have received from the other side have increased threefold.
That is the direct result of the Imperial economic conference.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: I suppose that letter is
from a Tory firm?


Peter McGibbon: No, they arc Liberal.
The letter continues:
Just at the present time we have orders for at least 400,000 feet of hardwood flooring to go to England before the close of navigation out of Montreal.
Is that any benefit to the working man of my riding? Is it any benefit to the farmer who sells the timber to the lumberman? I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the members of this house realize that the $4 duty recently put on lumber going into the United States simply blocked our market there completely, so that we could not sell a board. More than that, the lumber dumped into Great Britain from Russia was sent there under an agreement to be sold for $4 a thousand less than the Canadian price. Is it any wonder our lumber mills have been idle, and men walking the streets, when we are shut out of the United States and shut out of Great Britain?
But now, sir, the whole picture is changed. Today there is some hope for the lumberman, hope that is materializing already in orders, and that will be reflected more and more as the days go by and as stocks already in the market are consumed.
Now, sir, I want for a moment to touch on the woollen industry. I have a woollen mill in my riding, I rang them up last Sunday and asked them to give me a similar statement, and this is what I was told:	Taking
1927 and 1928 as normal in employment, 1930 dropped to forty per cent, 1931 recovered to 50 per cent and 1932 to 65 per cent. All this increase, they said, replaced goods formerly imported into this country from Great Britain. He also said that if these importations had not been stopped, had it not been for the assistance they got from this government, they would have had to close the doors altogether. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if that is worth anything to the workingman of this country? He also submitted to me a list of his prices, I am not going to read them, but I will tell you prices have fallen nearly thirty per cent since they got protection from this government in 1930.
53719-39 J
That was a particular instance pertaining to my own riding. Here are some figures that pertain to the whole Dominion of Canada. For the calendar years 1930 and 1931 the increase in production of worsted yarns was 25 per cent, worsted cloth 21-6 per cent, woollen cloth 38 per cent, socks and stockings 25 per cent. That much more work was given to the people of this country by stopping these importations from Great Britain. Are we more interested in the workmen over in Great Britain or the workmen in Canada? And as I have indicated, prices have not gone up, but have gone down.
Taking general employment in forty of these fifty-seven woollen mills in the country, we find the following: the employees have increased 20-5 per cent, and the number of hours from 8,900,000 in 1930 to 11,000,000 odd in 1931. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, is that worth anything to the people of this country? Is it worth anything to have more men employed, more wool that the farmer grows fabricated into the commodities we need, or should we bring that in from the old land and give them the preference? This industry, I am told, now has a payroll of over $22,000,000 in the Dominion of Canada. It was practically down and out until my right hon. leader came into office and gave it some support in 1930. Now it is coming back, men are getting employment and farmers are getting a market for their wool.
Now, sir, I want to talk for a moment of another industry, the tanning industry. If there is one industry in this country that has been pretty hard hit in the last few years it is the tanning industry. Previous to the war fifty per cent of its product went to Great Britain. The industry over there was so expanded during the war that for a number of years afterwards they largely took care of their own requirements. Then about eighty per cent of our leather production went across the line until about one and a half years ago when a prohibitive duty was put on so that we could not send a pound to the American republic, and most of the tanning plants closed their doors. In my town we had two, both were closed, one tom down. But this preference has given that industry some hope. After the United States market was closed to us they dumped their surplus on the United Kingdom market at anything they could get, consequently we lost the United Kingdom market as well. But I am told that business lias materially increased since last March when they got some protection, and now with a pref-
2	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
erence against the world they tell me that in a short time they expect to recover at least fifty per cent of the market in Great Britain.
So, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion this agreement that we are asked to ratify gives more hope to one quarter of the world than anything that has happened since this depression came upon us. I think, sir, we are starting a new chapter of world history. One quarter of the world's people have amalgamated for future benefit and mutual protection, and I think that offers possibilities for the future that we little realize, because as time goes on and these new channels of trade are established I conceive of the British Empire taking yearly more and more of our products, with greater and greater prosperity resulting to every part therefrom. We have some protection there, sir. We know we receive no consideration from the other nations of the world. Look what the United States have done to us. Look what Germany did to our wheat, France and Italy likewise, practically prohibited entry. But here we have at least sympathetic consideration in the different parts of the British Empire, and scattered as they are over the whole world, taking in every climate and both hemispheres and producing everything that man needs I can see possibilities for the future such as have never been presented to Canada before.


Mr. L. E. PARENT (Terrebonne):: 
Mr. MICHAEL LUCHKOVICH (Vegre-ville):: Mr. Speaker, in the course of a conversation with some prominent men I was greatly intrigued ;by their reference to the high tone of some of the contributions to the present debate. My own desire at the moment is to add something to the commendable tenor of the discussion so far, and if I should fall short of the mark, the fault will lie, not in my effort, but rather in the accomplishment.
The trade treaties with all their articles and items deserve careful study. With all its merits, however, the debate has so far lost sight of what I think is a very important aspect of this discussion. All the criticism that I have so far heard has been levelled at the rates of duty imposed by Canada: I have not heard a single argument in regard to the duties levied foy Great Britain against foreign countries. It seems to me that the relative effect of British duties is as worthy of consideration as the effect of our own duties here in Canada, and thus I believe that no true picture can be drawn unless the various angles of the trade treaties are thoroughly investigated.
In view of the various interpretations and constructions that have been placed upon the articles and items of the trade agreement, I cannot see how one can come to an intelligent conclusion as to the merits or demerits of the -.rade pacts under consideration until we know ust what they mean. It is very much like putting one's money on a blind horse: one does not know which way it will turn.
There is a matter over which I am very much exercised. I have here a Canadian Press despatch, dated October 26, reading as follows:
Irish Free States failed to conclude any trade agreements with the United Kingdom at conference. Loses advantage of preference November 15.
The Irish Free State will lose the advantage of imperial tariff preferences in the United Kingdom on November 15, J. H. Thomas, Dominion's Secretary, told the Commons today.
616	COMMONS
Imperial Conjerence-Trade Agreements
Some of the members in this comer have already expressed their views with respect to these trade pacts and in doing so have placed themselves very much in the position of the patient who has to take a dose prescribed by the doctor which he does not like but which he nevertheless must swallow.


Mr. STEVENS:: For the benefit of his
health.


Michael Luchkovich: I am not goiug to
say whether it is for the benefit of his health or not, but I do say that the item I have just read is worthy of consideration, and between now and the time of voting I am going to consider it, and my conclusions will decide the way I am going to vote on the present trade pacts. Probably there is a ray of hope in this negative statement, and if there is, no matter how slight that ray may be, if there is a silver lining, no matter how thin it may be -unless it turns out to be a mere smoke screen hiding the silver lining-it will decide the way I am going to vote on the present trade agreement.
I am very sorry that the delegates at the conference did not take up the question of monetary reform, because I think it is deserving of very serious consideration. Owing to the present disparity in exchange as between the different members of the British commonwealth of nations, I believe that any benefits that might accrue from these trade agreements will be largely nullified. I therefore think that these agreements should be considered in detail in committee before parliament is asked to pass its verdict upon so momentous a question. My purpose, therefore, in speaking today is to deal with matters emanating from the more or less relevant topics which have so far been discussed in this debate.
One of the most perplexing questions taxing the intelligence of the Canadian people today is that of state participation in industry, or the degree to which control should or should not be exercised therein. For many years this problem has been of paramount interest, but at no time has a final solution been more to be desired than in this unprecedented post-war period of financial stringency and economic chaos. My purpose is not to enter into any metaphysical or philosophical discussion of the causes of control, but rather to draw attention to the extreme necessity of an intelligent policy that will prevent a virile people from wallowing in degradation, from disintegrating in idleness, and from starving to death in the midst of plenty, because governments the world over in their vacillating impotence are unable to

distribute the goods that we produce in such superabundance to a consuming public bereft of the purchasing power to buy the necessaries of life.
I believe that the present crisis is due to a breakdown in finance, to a collapse of our outworn, inadequate monetary system. No less an authority than Henry Ford recognizes this, as I am going to prove to the house by reading a statement made public by the National Broadcasting Company of New York, on October 20, 1932:
The next big job is to improve the money system. Congress cannot keep its constitutional control over money. It farmed out the national money system to private hands. It would never dream of farming out naval defence tax collection, or postal service in the same way, congress should take back full control of money and give the United States a public service money system, as opposed to a private profit money system-a money system managed as our rivers and harbours are, for the promotion of the public's business, managed as our postal service is for the service of the people's business, managed as our weather service is for the protection of the people's business.
That is what we need and that is what we may have if congress will take over control originally delegated to it by the constitution.
I am convinced that our money system is antiquated. We have plenty of men and plenty of material, but money which is not so important as men or material, is holding up progress. This must be changed.
Broadly speaking, the causes of control are represented in three predominant desires: the desire to control the many in the interests of the few; the desire to control the few in the interests of the many; or the compromise found in the desire to control the many in the interests of the many through a government, as Abraham Lincoln said, of the people, by the people, for the people, and not of the financiers, for the financiers, by the financiers.
Reference has been made to the monetary system:	How shall money be controlled so
that it may become the vital factor of national life? How is it to be organized so as to be set circulating throughout the arteries and veins of the whole nation and not confined to extremities only? One must choose between the recognition of the rights of the few financiers and the rights of the many producers, or combine the rights of both. The difficulty, however, can be solved by a proper and reasonable compromise between the two extremities, financiers and producers. For, Mr. Speaker, in my mind civilization is not a standard, but a continuous creative process requiring two simultaneous impulses, the cooperation that consists of the fulfilment of a common desire, and that which comprises the pooling of

United Kingdom
separate, individual contributions. It is a matter of bringing capital and labour into closer harmony and cooperation with one another, or the destruction of capitalism and the super-imposition of a new system in its place.
The future must decide whether the worker is to be the cause or effect of his work; whether he is to control the means of production in the interest of himself and the many, or be controlled through them in the interest of the few. Herein lies a question, that of competency. Labour has often been charged with too much heart and too little brains, just as capital is said to suffer from too much brains and too little heart; but who in this house will say, in view of the serious condition in Canada today, that the capitalist has either heart or brains? I have always felt that the world is subject to change, that all we know has been derived from the experience of the past and the experimentation of the present. The processes of evolution, according to Lincoln Steffens, show that nothing is ever done finally or right, and that nothing is ever known absolutely or positively. The trouble with human beings is that they become too sure of themselves, that they become too much attached to old fashioned ideas in new fashioned times. We will take for example the lovable member for Weyburn; we know he believes that the abolition of tariff is a cure for all evils. Yet, even an expert as able as the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore) is confident that a little tariff tinkering will get us out of the present world difficulties and that a little patching of the system will help a great deal. Here is what he has to say:
We used to hear a lot about tariff tinkering. The tinkerer is a useful man in the community.
The hon. member for Ontario believes in patching, but may I remind the house that there is a limit to which the old garment can be patched. If the world crisis is to be solved by tariff tinkering, all the changes in the customs tariff made while the opposition were in power would, in the language of the Ottawa Citizen, have as much effect upon the situation as a small garden hose would have on a large forest fire, or the waves on the rise or fall of the tides. The trouble with most of us is that unwittingly we are slaves to old ideas and the unwilling disciples of new ones.
The small group in this corner of the house suggest going off the gold standard, depreciating or inflating our currency. The hon. member for Weyburn protests in these words: "No, no; the monetary policy or reform cannot hold a candle to the tariff, so far as importance is concerned." And while he makes that statement one could not help but notice the simultaneous nod of approval, a sort of "absolutely Mr. Gallagher, positively Mr. Shean" attitude on the part of hon. members sitting behind him. The incantations of this Liberal tariff medicine man fills the sick Canadian patients with awe, but leaves their health absolutely unchanged. Likening our tariff to an appendix he would cut it out, in order that the patient may live happily ever afterwards. Suppose, however, the patient is suffering from a more serious, a vital disease, such as heart trouble. As one writer has described it, finance is the heart of our economic system, and when once its effectiveness becomes impaired hon. members know quite well what may happen. Credit is the life-blood of our commerce and industry, and when the heart stops furnishing the body with blood the body dies. In like manner when our monetary system goes bad the rest of the body politic is bound to suffer.
The present difficulty, Mr. Speaker, is essentially financial. In my view tariffs are but the means to protect the present gold standard. As has been pointed out by Sir William Beveridge, head of the London School of Economics, the first point to remember is that we are faced with a money crisis. There is a breakdown in the machinery of exchange and the regulation of production by prices. The outstanding feature of the present condition is a general fall in prices, measured in terms of money. It was Lincoln Steffens who asked Albert Einstein, scientist and philosopher, how he had been able to discover anything new. Mr. Steffens reports the answer and comments upon it as follows:
His answer is the answer. He did what he did by challenging an axiom. That's what our statesmen who can't find the way out of depression are unable to do. They cannot challenge an axiom. And that's what some of our boys and girls will have to do. They will have to challenge a lot of axioms, and my suggestion to all parents and teachers is to teach the children no axioms, nothing positive, but everything as the more or less tested theories and hypotheses of us old dubs, whose most valuable heritage for our children is a definitely taught body of conscious ignorance, obvious failure. Then maybe they will be free minded enough to see why we could not distribute plenty and leisure, make peace in the world, and remove the causes of war, graft, and incompetence.
That, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what the hon. member for Weyburn will not do. He will not challenge an axiom. In this connection I quote the words of John Stuart Mill:
A greater number of people cannot in any given state of civilization be collectively so well
618	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
provided as a smaller. The niggardliness of nature and not the injustice of society is the cause of the penalty attached to over-production.
T believe the changed conditions of today, the introduction of machinery and the applications of scientific methods have shown that such is no longer true. As pointed out by Henry George:
The very reverse of these propositions is true. I assert that in every state of civilization a greater number of people can be better provided for than a smaller. I assert that the injustice of society and not the niggardliness of nature is the cause of the want and misery which the current theory attributes to overpopulation.
Henry George's attitude, as the antithesis to that of Stuart Mill's, to me proves that nothing is known positively and completely. There is no doubt that orientation in regard to the functions of government has changed considerably during the past few decades. As far back as the close of the eighteenth century no less an economist than the great Adam Smith made this pronouncement:
Government does not have any other aim except that of increasing the wealth of its subjects.
But in the judgment of our twentieth century statesmen this condition can be brought about only by the ingenuity, selfreliance, adaptability and resourcefulness of individual effort. Generally speaking, I think this is so, but there are different kinds of individual effort. There is the commendable activity of the plebeian bread-winner who provides for his family on the one hand, and the rapacious manipulations of the unscrupulous patrician financier on the other. The struggle for emancipation from the rule of the latter class has continued down to the present day with varying success. Certain social changes and services have been achieved through the daily and persistent activities of reformers, while other aims unfortunately have been attained only by resort to violent revolution. It is said of the Bourbons that they never learned anything nor did they ever forget anything, and so ruling classes, unable to read the 'handwriting on the wall, the signs of the times, have been ruthlessly overthrown never to return.
But we have had many examples of this cycle repeating itself. Changed conditions I think demand new methods of approach. For what else are these revolutions of which I have spoken, Mr. Speaker, but struggles, as one writer put it, to batter down a system of life linked to means that no longer exist, and to trample underfoot the thousand obstacles which faith, morality and tradition have put

in the way of the industrial, economic, philosophic and scientific progress towards which all classes turn. We have in Canada to-day obstacles in wider variety and greater range than ever existed before. For the first time in our history this country is actually threatened-no doubt about it-with starvation in the midst of plenty. The present so-called "great age of industrial progress" has developed deep-rooted defects which jeopardize the very existence of capitalism unless they are remedied. Foremost among these defects I contend is the lack of proper balance between production and consumption, or the difficulty of distributing the vast mass of agricultural and manufactured products to a consuming public bereft of the means of purchasing the necessaries of life. In this corner of the house we believe the fundamental cause of the depression is attributable to the breakdown of finance, in other words, the failure of money to function as a medium of exchange and a measure of value. We believe that the machine age has introduced a whole series of new situations to which the old categories do do not apply, and that the next stage of development cannot possibly retain the old laissezfaire attitude. We believe that the solution of our fundamental economic problems must be worked out by preserving the best features of individual initiative, yet gaining the advantages^! collective effort, and that as a guiding principle the ideal of service must be accepted in lieu of the pursuit of economic reward. Hon. members will agree that science has given us a new world, But it has also left many tremendous difficulties in its wake. I think, however, the fault lies not in science as such, but rather in the wrong application of science. The simultaneous existence of wealth and poverty, the tragic march of progress resulting from the use of machinery, has forced people to check up on themselves, and so more and more are men the whole world over beginning to realize the necessity for a thorough-going reconsideration of old tenets, precepts and ideas, or as one writer put it, a revaluation of all ideas.
We live in an age of transition, we are imperceptibly passing into a new age. Meanwhile all these battles of ideas are going merrily on. The average citizen, I take it, is bewildered by it all, fearful lest the social fabric give way under the strain. The inr telleetual, pondering over the pages of history, notes the destruction of other civilizations in similar crises and deduces a similar fate for our own. But I believe that while there is life there is hope, a hope that is embodied in the spirit of exact knowledge inspired and infused

United Kingdom
with the scientific spirit, and utilized to avoid what I consider the world's great twin evils, reaction and revolution. Reaction and revolution, overproduction and underconsumption, passion, prejudice, unreason, these all can be solved by looking at things in terms of basic reality untrammeled by preconceived ideas or mutilation of facts.
I believe the world is suffering from a breakdown of finance, but nothing is done-I believe all governments have the same fault-except the policy of aimless and hopeless drift. In a country such as this American continent where, as one writer said, money has always been the aim of all social effort, the money lender, the banker, is allowed to reign supreme. The farmer, sitting behind his plough, may poetically be said to be monarch of all he surveys, but the products of the field, the very land on which he is living, are rapidly passing from his control to that of the king of the castle on St. James street. This is accomplished by a period of deflation, and the sheriff is allowed to do the rest. Thus poverty and misery have increased, the dollar becomes unstable, prices fluctuate, unemployment increases, and the purchasing power of the people is reduced to nil. Meantime the money lenders are grabbing off everything worth while, and will not resume business until all their bad debts are wiped out by the people, and governments have unloaded upon the taxpayers losses which should be borne not by the poor but by the financial sharks who, I claim, have created them by their policy of vicious deflation in their periodic drive to skim off the cream, thus sweeping more and more wealth into still fewer and fewer hands.
What a strange thing this bugbear of credit has become. How easy it was to get credit before 1928, and how hard it is to get it today. Only a very small handful of money is available now in comparison with that what was available before 1928. By holding to the gold standard, by forcing currency down, and by hoarding money, the financiers have time and again set their own price on the release of credit. You may call it money if you will, but it is not money; you could not take it away from them at the point of a shotgun. You cannot get it in any way except by their voluntary act and deed. The farmers in my district have not the credit they need. Credit is available only when you can put up those good notes and securities and pay the interest. I claim that the farmer in the west, who has been producing wheat for less than the cost of production during the last few years, cannot put up those good notes and securities which the banks demand. One writer has said that
Christ was betrayed for thirty pieces of silver. Today suffering humanity, as represented by the farmers of the west, is being betrayed for thirty pieces of gold. It is said that all the gold in the world could be put in a space thirty feet long, thirty feet wide and thirty feet high. There is no question but that the farmer is being crucified on a cross of gold.
The recent deflation of credit has hurt no one as much as it has hurt the farmer. The price of wheat now is so low that he cannot possibly meet the obligations which he incurred before the depression. What makes the situation so bad is that other commodities have not fallen in the same ratio, while freight, interest rates, taxes and the cost of public services for the most part actually have gone up. Therefore I believe the government would be well advised to relieve the situation by a general scaling down of the liabilities of the farmers. For the life of me I do not see how a farmer can be expected to continue indefinitely to produce for less than the cost of production, pay his taxes, send his children to school and meet all the other obligations which are imposed upon a citizen of Canada today. I say there is something radically wrong with a system that penalizes the basic industry of the country to the extent I have indicated. It seems to me, therefore, that the only alternative is a change to a system which will bring about a more equitable distribution of wealth as well as of goods and services generally. When one recognizes the fact that the aggregate tangible wealth of the Dominion of Canada amounts to about thirty billion dollars, apart from our natural resources, and that agriculture accounts not only for the greater portion of Canada's net wealth, but also for a portion of net income greater than that produced by any other industry, the knowledge gained therefrom should awaken us to the gravity of snowing under an industry from which ordinarily so many blessing should flow but which, like the goose that laid the golden egg, is being killed to the detriment not only of other industries but of all people in all walks of life.
I repeat that the financial policy of this country should be altered. The very fact that banks no longer are willing to extend the smallest amount of credit is an admission on their part, I believe, of the bankruptcy to which the system has driven the farmer. It may be all right to say that this crisis is the result of an act of God or a law of nature; nevertheless one cannot gainsay the fact that it is due to inherent defects in the system itself. I have supported resolutions presented in this house asking for a wheat
620	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
bonus. I think that while the farmer is producing for less than the cost of production he should have a bonus to tide him over the bad times from which he is suffering. Therefore I should like to put myself on record as being in favour of a bonus, not of five cents but of twenty-five cents if we can get it. When the five cent bonus legislation was put through this house some time ago one member asked another whether he was going to be insulted by the bonus, and whether he would take that five cent insult. The member replied, "Well, I would rather be insulted to the extent of twenty-five cents, but if I oannot get a twenty-five cent insult, I will take the five cent insult." I am willing to be insulted to the extent of twenty-five cents, but if I cannot get that I will accept very willingly the five cent insult.
Think of the ridiculous and yet tragic position in which the farmer finds himself to-day, trying with wheat at 25 cents to pay a mortgage incurred when wheat was selling at $2, and think of the far greater number of bushels the farmer must raise now to pay off old debts. Is it fair to compel the debtor farmer to pay in a medium so unreliable and so dishonest? In common justice there should be a scaling down of the indebtedness of the farmers.
I have a resolution which I should like to put on Hansard before my time is up. It reads as follows:
Honoured Sir,-
Are you aware that the Finance Act of Canada was conceived and made statutory when our country was facing a national crisis; and that in the year 1923, advantage was taken of the position secured by the chartered banks under the said act, to further consolidate their privileges, in such wise that they are now in position to absorb the sovereignty, as well as the rights and duties of the government and people of Canada?
Under the provisions of the act as it now exists, provincial and municipal governments can only obtain advances, on their bona fide securities, from chartered banks, at an interest of not less than five per cent per annum; whereas the banks themselves may obtain these advances from the government of the people of Canada at a present maximum of three per cent per annum. Thus is presented the ridiculous anomaly of the people borrowing from itself to enrich private corporations.
To remedy this evil we earnestly recommend the amending of the Finance Act, so that, upon the deposit of approved securities, the provinces and/or the municipalities may obtain advances direct from the government, instead of being compelled to use the medium of the chartered banks.
So far as I am concerned the Bank Act can be revised tomorrow, if that will mean something towards alleviating the distress of the farmer in the west; for I repeat that

something must be done to relieve the present unbearable situation in which he finds himself. The other day the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore) expressed it as his opinion that the ship of state should not sail to uncharted seas; he likened the nations of the world to ships which, in time of storm such as the present, should be safely moored to what he called a central buoy, represented by the gold standard. Experienced sailors have told me that in stormy weather it is far safer to put out to sea than to be moored to any central buoy; Mr. Moore, however, prefers to be more than ever moored to the gold standard.
We are told that the only way to bring the two major problems of production and consumption into their proper relationship is by reducing production and increasing consumption. In view of the fact that it now takes more goods to pay debts, reducing production would entail too many hardships, and it would also tend to increase unemployment, turning more people out of work. Increasing consumption can be brought about only by increasing purchasing power, and here is where the government should step in with a more vigorous and constructive policy. Why not put more money into circulation? Why not build the Peace River outlet, about which the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) has been talking so much in this house? Why not start something in connection with the St. Lawrence waterway? Inflation alone would not do much good without inaugurating such a building policy as I have suggested. The government can, at will, either directly or indirectly, increase the purchasing power of the Canadian people. It can increase it directly by continuing the wheat bonus, to which I have referred; it can do it by scaling down debts, it can do it by building the Peace River outlet; it can do it by inaugurating housing schemes such as have been advocated by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote); and it can do it by loaning money to certain utilities in this country which, by means of such loans, could put more people to work. It can do it indirectly by depreciating or inflating our currency.
We have all listened to the able speech delivered by the hon. member for Macleod in which reference has been made to the manner in which Australia is rounding the corner. We have been told how the depreciation of her currency has given her such a tremendous advantage in the world's markets, and how in comparison a premium on Canadian currency has seriously handicapped our producers. The hon. member for Macleod

United Kingdom
pointed out that the Australian grower, with his nine cents a bushel bonus, is getting over 80 cents while the Canadian farmer obtains only 26 cents. That is possible because the British pound is worth $3.85 in Canada while it brings over $6 in Australia. We w'ere further told of the scaling down of 22| per cent in interest rate on mortgages in Australia. Why can we not do something of that kind in Canada? Either let us improve on what we have in order to relieve the situation temporarily, or let us live a little more dangerously in order to live.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. A. E. MUNN (Vancouver North):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate, but since so much has been said in connection with other industries and so little about the one in which I
Wood industries.. .. Wood-using industries Sawmilling industries.
am particularly interested, I feel I should place its position before the house.
Much has been said as to the trouble facing the farmers. As a business man I sincerely sympathize with them; we have always found that when the farmer is able to get a fair price for his products he is a large spender and the businessman derives the benefit. I intend to deal particularly with the lumbering business, with which I have been associated all my life, a good many years. I can assure hon. members that this industry has been hit just as hard as any other in Canada, and perhaps harder. There may be some benefits to be derived from the agreements reached at the conference; if there are, let us have them, but I am opposed to the principles contained in the five year clause and the ten per cent preference.
I should like to put on Hansard the following figures, averaged for the period 1926 to 1930, to show the importance to Canada of the lumbering business:
Capital invested $ 183,400,000
136.458.000
175.600.000
Number of employees
91.000
35.000
43.000
Wages
paid

Total

169,000	$ 145,508,000
It will be seen from these figures that there is quite a substantial investment in the lumber industry. The capital investment in this industry in British Columbia for various years is as follows:
1925
1927
1929

These figures do not include investments in standing timber, in pulp and paper plants, in furniture plants and wood-working establishments; it covers only the investment of producers of lumber. In normal times about
40,000	people are employed in the whole industry, which includes the paper mills; so it will be seen that this industry is of importance to British Columbia. The following figures show the all Canada and British Columbia production in feet board measure:
British
All Canada Columbia
1923	
3,543,000,000	1,577,000,0001924	
3,678,000,000	1,595,000,0001925	
3,683,000,000	1,725,000,0001926	
3,967,000,000	2,102,000,0001927	
3,877.000,000	2,173,000,0001928	
4,080,000,000	2,289,000,0001929	
4,471,000,000	2,456,000,0001930	
3,711,379,000	1,928,902,000
The average value of the shingle production during this period is eight and three quarter millions of dollars yearly. Let us see where all this material goes. The value of exports of planks and boards to the United States is as follows:
1924		 $58,104,459
1925		 48,140,607
1926		 53,457,655
1927		 48,252,034
1928		 42,519,884
1929		 36,378,168
1930		 38,399,785
1931		 22,935,928
1932		 18,766,452
This is a yearly average of $10,665,456. The average value of the exports of shingles and of lath during the same period is about $15,000,000, making a total of $55,665,000 for lumber, lath and shingles. In addition there are exports of logs, poles, piling and other wood products which would increase the $55,665,000 by twenty-five per cent.
We have heard a good deal about lumber going to the United States from Canada and coming into this country from the United States. Some of the figures that have been given are correct and others are not. The figures I am about to give are correct and can be confirmed:
G22	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
Imports from the United States into Canada Total wood not further manufactured than rough sawn or split, and planks and lumber not further manufactured than dressed on one side only:
1926		 $10,473,692
1927		 13,087,938
1928		 14,269,634
1929		 16,639,349
1930		 15,348,150
1931		 9,808,816
1932		 5,755,866
That represents an average yearly importation of 111,417,000.
In passing, I wish to refer to a statement made by the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) the other evening. He stated that in 1931 we bought $8,000,000 worth of lumber from the United States. He also stated that we sold to the United States $15,000,000 worth of lumber. The correct figure is $22,935,000.
Now I shall give our lumber exports to the United Kingdom. The hon. member for East Algoma stated that in 1920 we had shipped to the United Kingdom 1,250,000,000 feet. Here are the figures:
Total Canadian Exports of Planks and Boards to the United Kingdom (Thousands of feet)
Value
1920	.. .. 703,765	$14,000,0001921	.. .. 428,059	8,500,0001922	. . . . 113,223	2,225,0001923	.. .. 315,699	6,225,0001924	.. .. 284,373	5,750,0001925	.. .. 235,248	4,750,0001926	.. .. 239,336	4,750,0001927	. . . . 164,745	3,225,0001928	. . .. 217,737	4,225,000]929	3,750,0001930	. . . . 187,771	3,750,0001931	.. .. 163,995	3,225,000
If hon. members will compare our exports to the United Kingdom with our exports to the United States it will be observed from the figures I have given that there is a substantial difference in favour of the United States. The figures I have given cover shipments from the whole of Canada. Now I will give our exports to the United Kingdom from British Columbia and from Washington and Oregon:
I admit that a ten per cent preference will help us in supplying the United Kingdom market with this particular material from the-Pacific coast, because naturally the business that has been going to Washington and Oregon we in British Columbia should be able to get; but whether it is going to help us eventually is a question. For instance, we have on the Pacific coast timber that will produce sawn lumber of large dimensions. The bulk of our shipments to the United Kingdom is comprised of this large dimension timber, and on account of the long haul- in other words, a matter of geography-this is practically all the lumber that we have been able to sell to the United Kingdom. They can get this particular class of material nowhere else in the world than from the Pacific coast. But we would have no chance at all in the United Kingdom market for ordinary lumber like that supplied by Scandinavia, Russia and eastern Canada. That is a very important point, and it is absolutely true.
There is another feature. In cutting that large stuff for the United Kingdom or any other market there are a lot of side-cuts, in normal times, which we have to sell either in the United States or on the Canadian prairies. At present, of course, there is no market for that in any direction, but in days gone by the bulk of that low grade small stuff went to the United States and the Canadian prairies. If we get an increased demand for our large dimension timber in the United Kingdom market, it will mean that there will be a big percentage of side-cuts and small low grade stuff for which we shall have trouble in finding a market, and the ten per cent preference will not help us to dispose of that. The committee of the Canadian Lumbermen's Association expected to get a twenty per cent preference, and in fact I think most of them went home figuring that a twenty per cent preference had been granted, but actually the preference is ten per cent.
Exports to the United Kingdom
British	Washington
Columbia	and Oregon
Year	feet	feet1924	
41,527,008	52,917.7561925	
53,845,679	86,902,8251926	
41,575,593	57,640,2841927	
36,427,449	144,421.4451928	
67,075,872	235,512,2051929	
69,903,655	284,384,0401930	
98,057,621	305,807,1771931	
81,356,058	99,396,866

I would like to give the house some idea of our exports to Australia and New Zealand. During the last two or three years our trade agreements with those two countries have helped us in that market, and as time goes on we should be able to get most of this business from Australia and New Zealand. Here are a few figures of the exports of rough sawn lumber from British Columbia and from Washington and Oregon to Australia:

United Kingdom
Exports to Australia
	British	Washington
	Columbia	and Oregon
Year	feet	feet1926.. ..	.. .. 36,809,373	240,315,5931927.. ..	.. . . 53,502,046	298,047,6981928.. ..	.. .. 29,843,132	181,956,4871929.. ..	.. .. 41,493,476	224,631,9721930.. ..	.. . . 33,076,587	81,903,1831931.. ..	.. .. 50,803,023	26,723,913Hon. members will note that in 1930 we begin	to get a better share of the Australian busi-	ness. Then,	the exports to New Zealand are	as follows:	British	WashingtonYear	Columbia	and Oregon1926.. ..	.. . . 16,201,328	10,359,3921927.. ..	. . . . 10,847,545	10,201,2141928.. ..	. . . . 8,531,322	10,911,7271929.. ..	. . .. 8,559,208	10,354,7221930.. ..	. . .. 6,416,105	6,742,8051931.. ..	.. .. 2,578,740	272,386We are gradually getting into	that market,
but the same argument applies there as applies to the United Kingdom. The business is in large sized material, although we do have some call for box lumber.
I wish to give an idea of the condition in which we in the province of British Columbia find ourselves. There are a few mills running, but production is very small. The product from those mills is not of a type which would help us to any great extent. Our natural resources are being dissipated and nobody is being helped. For instance, a report was published in the press that a large order had been placed by Great Britain for British Columbia lumber. A month or so ago, before I left that province, I went through the part of the country from which this order was being supplied, and I found that all they are getting is $8 per thousand alongside the ship, Vancouver harbour. Hon. members will realize there is very little profit in that. 1 am sorry to say most of the work on this particular order is being done at the mill by Hindus.
The hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser), could tell of the distress in his riding so far as the lumber business is concerned. A short time ago a mill situated at Giscome in the Cariboo district was sold. In the sale were included the mill building and boarding houses, in all about fifty or sixty buildings. There were 8,000.000 feet of lumber in the yard and 16,000,000 feet of logs in the lake. Although in better times this mill would have been valued at $1,500,000, the whole jack-pot sold for $85,000-mill, buildings and lumber, which in normal times would have been valued at about $3,000,000. Their trouble is they are situated inland and cannot handle offshore
business. The ten per cent preference would do them no good whatever because they depend entirely upon the markets available in the United States and the prairies, and particularly the United States. The mill was erected with the aid of American capital for the purpose of shipping to the United States. That is one instance, and I could give many others almost as bad.
At the annual meeting of the North Vancouver Board of Trade held a short time ago, the chairman, Captain Cates, a prominent business man in that section of British Columbia, made a speech. His remarks as reported in the press under date of October 21, are as follows:
It is true that Canada has received a preference on lumber in the British market, but it is doubtful if this will be of much assistance to our British Columbia lumber industry. Against this preference we are handicapped by the great distance between ourselves and that market as well as the proximity of European producers to Great Britain.
So stated Captain J. H. Cates, President of the Board of Trade, in his annual report to the board on Thursday night. Lower standard of living of European competitors which make possible lower cost of production, was also cited as a factor with which the lumber industry of this province has to contend.
"We who are in business in this city, depend largely on our lumber industry and the export of wood products," stated Captain Cates. "Our markets for these products have principally been United States, Japan and our middle west. At present these markets are practically barred to us."
Captain Cates explained that the United States impediment is the prohibitive tariff. In Japan continued depreciation of the yen is the big factor and in the middle west it is the low price of wheat which has greatly reduced the purchasing power of the prairie farmer. Captain Cates declared that until these conditions are remedied there is little hope for much improvement in the lumber industry.
The trouble with the lumber industry so far as the agreement is concerned lies in the five year term, or we might term it the five year plan. At the present time the consumers in the middle west and the United States are not worrying, because they are not buying lumber. They have been getting their lumber from the Pacific coast. The time will come, however, when they will want lumber in large quantities, and then they will wake up to the fact that the exorbitant prices they are paying are caused by the $4 duty on lumber from British Columbia. In my opinion there may be such an agitation in the United States against this duty of $4 a thousand that they will come to us and say: "What can you give us if we take this duty off?" We wni be in the position that
624	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
we will have nothing to offer. If we have to hang on by our shoestrings for another five years there will not even be the shoestrings left. In five years they will all be out of business. For that reason I am opposed to the treaty. We should be in a position to negotiate with the United States to have this duty, which amounts practically to an embargo, removed. When in Washington there was lobbying for the imposition of this duty on Canadian lumber, one of the arguments used was "Canada is getting a New Zealand preference, also a preference from Australia and the United Kingdom; yet they are getting our business." That is all right. I was in favour of the . New Zealand treaty, and I am in favour of enlarging our market in Great Britain as far as possible, but not at the expense of losing a market we have enjoyed ever since I can remember. Geographically the market in the United States is the logical one for Canadian wood products. Since I began business in the lumber industry we have shipped to the American market; that has been our big source of trading. Any lumberman in this house or anywhere in Canada will state that that is where he made his money-from lumber sold in the American market. The five year plan, however, puts us in a position, as I see it, whereby we cannot do any bargaining to have that duty removed.
The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie) the other evening was very much concerned about the unemployed in the United States, who number, he said, eleven million people. Before leaving the coast I had the pleasure of listening to three or four addresses over the radio by Mr. Roosevelt, the democratic candidate for president of the United States. He was emphatic in stating that in his opinion the high tariffs were the cause of a great deal of the unemployment, and he pledged himself at every meeting that one of the first things he would undertake would be, the reduction of tariffs to a reasonable standard. The United States of course started this tariff war back in 1928, and I figure they are the prime offenders. But now they have an election on, and I think my good friend from Nanaimo will get his answer on the 9th of November as to whether the people of the United States think high tariffs are the proper thing.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill)made reference to the difference in transportation on lumber from Scandinavian and Russian ports to Great Britain as against shipments from the Pacific coast, and after

allowing for the 10 per cent preference there would still be a balance of $3 per thousand in favour of the Scandinavian and Russian shipments. I have figured this out and I find he was very conservative in his estimate.
The hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson), who spent, he says, five months plus the time of the conference as lumber expert advising the government, no doubt has been a successful business man in his line and has shipped a good deal of lumber to the United States, but I think in this instance his judgment was biased. I do not suppose there was anyone in Canada more disappointed than he was when instead of getting twenty per cent they got only ten per cent. He said this about the committee's conclusions:
A tariff preference of twenty per cent will, we are confident, enable us to overcome high production costs, long distance from markets, etc., and compete against any country in the world with the exception of Russia. With regard to the latter country we cannot suggest any preference that would enable us to meet the class and character of the competition that Russian economic and marketing methods present.
I am not going to say anything about Russia. I believe that any industry should pay a fair wage. I do not think anyone should be allowed to dump any kind of product on any market at less than the fair value. But we have this situation facing us: in time Russia is bound to be a factor in the lumber situation. They have more timber in Russia than we have on this whole continent, and it is obvious that some day it is going to be marketed.
Then in reference to the five year plan, the hon. member for East Algoma said:
I come now to the five year period for which the agreements have been signed. Personally I look upon that length of time as one altogether too short. I have the consolation however, that no government coming into power in Canada will presume to make any attempt at interference with these agreements. As a matter of fact all governments will look upon them in exactly the same sense as the delegates looked upon them; all governments will consider the agreements as the beginning of a great scheme of inter-empire development. In regard to the stipulated time, I say without hesitation that many of the industries which will ultimately profit by the agreement cannot hope to reap full advantage from them within a space of less than five years.
If we have to wait for five years a lot of people depending on the lumber industry will go hungry in the meantime.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the leader of this government (Mr. Bennett).
I have a great admiration for him; I think he is a very clever man. He is a man of action, and he is boss on the job. I think any

United Kingdom
leader of a government should be the boss, and I wish I could say the same thing of the leader of the British Columbia government. But the Prime Minister also makes mistakes. I sympathize with him in his difficult task. Any leader of a government, handling the biggest business in the whole of Canada, is bound to have troubles in these strenuous times. But in my opinion he is not a good organizer. I was very much surprised when he selected his cabinet. He had an abundance of material to choose from, business men who have been tried and proved, but instead of building up his cabinet with first-class business men he turned to the professional class. I do not wish to Ibe personal, but it is generally conceded that professional men are as a rule not good business men. I think he has too many professional men and not enough good farmers or good business men-of course they may be good politicians. I would like to refer to one glaring example, that is, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman). If there is any department of this or any government we ever had in Canada that is as unpopular to-day as the Department of National Revenue, I do not know it. To-day you do not know what you are going to have to pay to-morrow by way of tariff, and that has been the condition for months and months. That is not business; it is not common sense.
Just one word in conclusion in reference to unemployment. The situation is very serious, and there does not seem to be the organization there should be. Speaking of our own province of British Columbia, when I went home in June I was interviewed by several delegations from municipalities. I rvent to Victoria with the representatives of two municipalities. The deputy finance minister of British Columbia said: We cannot buy your bonds; they are no good; we cannot lend you any money; your credit is no good. I said to him,-and I would like to be corrected if I am wrong,-"I understood the Prime Minister, Mr. Bennett, to say that nobody would 'be neglected; everyone would be taken care of. If the municipality could not borrow the money, if its credit was not good, the province was to borrow that money from the federal exchequer, lend it to the municipalities and take their promise to pay." But they knew nothing about it. So I say, sir, that there should be some definite plan, no matter what it is, to work on, if we are to avoid a lot of misunderstanding and a lot of suffering.
Speaking of loyalty to the empire, I am a Canadian, and I am just as loyal as any other Canadian. At the same time, while everything else being equal we prefer to trade within the empire, we believe that with our immense 53719-40
natural resources we must have also a world market.


Mr. R. S. WHITE (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, every hon. member of this house ie the keeper of his own conscience and is responsible, by voice and vote, only to his own constituents. But I must express my surprise and regret at the fact that the proposed legislation giving effect to the conclusions arrived at by the imperial conference has been received in the manner that has been indicated by hon. gentlemen opposite. In my innocence and simplicity I had thought this would have received some favourable consideration and that it would have been accepted at least as an instalment, a step in the direction of the extension of empire trade, but it seems that no good thing can come out of Nazareth. From beginning to end, with scarcely an exception, no word of approval of any portion of the agreement has been uttered from the other side of the house.
In all sincerity I say that I do not believe these gentlemen reflect the opinion of the great majority of the Canadian people. The Liberal party of this country attributes to itself the introduction of the first preferential tariff towards Great Britain, and that is true if you call lower duties upon imports a preferential tariff. I call it rather jughandled. I would not inflict upon the house reminiscences of more than forty years ago, when hon. gentlemen opposite stumped this country from end to end in favour of commercial union with the United States, but for a parallel of their sudden conversion to a new faith you must go back to the story of Paul on the road to Damascus, for in one night these gentlemen deserted the policy of commercial union or, as it was softened in terms, unrestricted reciprocity with the United States, and came out as the proponents of a preferential tariff towards Great Britain. Is this house aware, and do hon. gentlemen realize, that the policy of preferential trade with Great Britain as designed by the Liberal party of nearly forty years ago has been a signal, a dire and an utter failure? I make that statement advisedly, and I am going to give the house proof.
In 1896, the year before the preferential tariff was introduced, imports into Canada from the United Kingdom amounted to 31.2 per cent of our total imports. In 1930, thirty-four years after the preferential tariff was introduced, the percentage of our total imports which came from Great Britain had been reduced to 15.2 per cent, or cut literally in half. Oddly enough, the only increases in the percentage of our imports from Great Britain

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert Smeaton White: Hear, hear,
and I agree.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert Smeaton White: It came into office two years ago on a policy of protection, and it.does not propose to sacrifice the industries of Canada upon the altar of empire or any other country. Let that be well understood. However, apart from the protective features, apart from those interests which require the encouragement and shelter of a protective tariff, there is a large avenue of trade which can be cultivated to the advantage of the sister nations of the commonwealth. It is those avenues which are attempted to be exploited by the agreements reached in Ottawa.
There is one subject of prime importance which has been touched upon now and again, here and there, in this discussion, that of currency, credit and exchange. No more involved, no more intricate, and no more difficult subject is today before the minds of economists than that of currency, credit, and exchange. In my opinion not only is it worthy of the most serious consideration, but it may be that some step will have to be taken towards restoring a parity between the Canadian dollar and the pound sterling if means to that end can be found. But 1 would point out this, that the exchange situation has absolutely no relation to and no bearing upon the resolution now before this house; none whatsoever. Whether the house accepts or rejects the resolution now before us it will have no bearing whatsoever upon the money end of the question. I am well aware of the difficulties that the wheat growers of the west and other producers in Canada are having because of the low price of the pound sterling in comparison with the Canadian dollar, but you cannot improve that condition by accepting or rejecting this resolution. This resolution has no more to do with that than have the Greek kalends. Let us deal with that subject in due course when we reach it. Because there was failure at the recent conference to devise any plan of a monetary character is no reason for refusing to accept what is before us.
Many other arguments have been put forward-for instance, that the hands of parliament are being tied. I do not think anybody takes that argument seriously. The hands of the British parliament are also being tied, but nobody is protesting against that-yes, a few are protesting; the gentlemen who left the nationalist government in Great Britain

do Object, but they are an exceedingly small minority.
Again it is said that the duration of five years is too long. It has been pointed out that the late government made a treaty binding Canada for twelve years. Personally I would be rather disposed to complain that the term is not longer than five years, believing as I seriously do that the results of these pacts will be of great advantage to Canada.
Our friends on the other side are very solicitous about the extension of the trade of Canada to foreign markets. The hon. member who last spoke talked about the United States market for the lumber industry. Suppose we admit all that, for the sake of argument, at any rate. Where do we get? Nowhere. Every country in the world has raised its tariff against every other. Since the abrogation of the Elgin-Marcy treaty with the United States in 1865, a long time ago, the United States has never been willing to enter into any commercial treaty with Canada that was worth a hoot, and I say that the prospects will not be altered very much in the present state of affairs under either Mr. Roosevelt or Mr. Hoover. But the cry is for foreign markets. Never mind this pact for better markets within the empire: it is foreign markets that hon. gentlemen want.
Those steady patriots of the world alone.
The friends of every country but their own.
Let me conclude with a story perhaps familiar to you all, one that was current many years ago when we were fighting the battle against the then policy of commercial union with the United States. It runs like this: An English pedestrian walking along a highway in Ireland met Paddy driving a little pig ahead of him on a string. The Englishman stopped him and he said: "That is a nice little porker you have there." "Yes sir," said Paddy. "Where are you taking him?" "I am taking him to market," said Paddy. "How much would you get for a little porker like that?" asked the Englishman. "It may be a matter of three or four shillings." "Oh," said the Englishman, "why, if you had that pig in London you would get four pounds for him." "Yes," said Paddy, "and if I had the Lakes of Killarney in hell I'd get a shilling a glass."


Mr. A. M. CARMICHAEL (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter now before the house has been under discussion for almost two weeks, and one might naturally conclude that almost every argument that could be put forward either pro or con had been worn almost threadbare. I have noticed as I sat here listening to the debate the arguments

United Kingdom
advanced by those who sit to your right. There has been nothing but enthusiasm for this agreement on the part of those 138 good men and true, who all see eye to eye in connection with this trade agreement. I have noticed that those who sit to your immediate left, Mr. Speaker, some ninety in number, take just the opposite view. They are unable to see anything good or worth while in this trade agreement. They are able to show certain features in connection with it which are not commendable, and strange to relate, all of them, some ninety in number, seem to see eye to eye. It strikes me as strange when so many good intelligent men on one side take one view, without any division among them, and so many good intelligent men on the opposite side view the matter in an entirely different light and can see no good whatever in it.
In this corner of the chamber, though small in numbers, there is an honest division of opinion among us. Some of us see in the trade agreement certain points which commend themselves to us, while on the other hand some of us see in the same agreement certain items which do not commend themselves. The previous speaker gave a most instructive address based on trade matters affecting both the United States and the United Kingdom for a period of years past. I hold the personal view, and I do not fear to express it, that the United States is our best customer -if she would let us trade with her. That great country immediately to -the south of us, stretching the full length of our southern border from east to west, holding within its confines a population of about 120,000,000 people, with its large urban -centres, offers to us markets for the products of our primary industries which cannot be excelled. In that country we see a market for the products of our farms, our forests, our mines and the seas. There would seem to be a ready market in those thickly settled centres to the south of us. I purpose to deal at this time with trade conditions as they have existed between Canada and the United States for the past ten or twelve years.
I have before me The Commercial Intelligence Journal of October 22, 1932, in which I find a comparison between trade figures for the month of September 1920 and the same month of 1932. No doubt hon. members will find these figures most interesting. Although a number of commodities are mentioned, I have selected only four; as I am chiefly interested in farming, those commodities deal particularly with the farm. In the month of September, 1920, Canada exported to the
United States market 1,478,469 bushels of wheat on which there was no duty charged. In September, 1932, last month, at a time when there was a duty of 42 cents a bushel against our wheat, we exported only twenty bushels. In that commodity alone the figures show there has been a drop from almost a million and a half bushels down to twenty, and in that time the duty has been raised from free to 42 cents per bushel.
Then, dealing with cattle, we find that in the month of September, 1920, we exported 37,569 head on which no duty was charged; in September, 1932, we exported 666 head. In the meantime the duty has risen to a point where on cattle up to 700 pounds in weight the rate was 21 cents a pound, and on cattle over that weight, 3 cents a pound. Of course the increase in duty caused the decrease in the number exported. Let us examine the figures as they apply to butter. In September, 1920. there was a duty of 2i cents a pound against our butter, and under that duty we exported 4,500 hundredweight. In September, 1932, we exported only 23 hundredweight, because in the meantime the duty had risen from 21 to 14 cents per pound. In September, 1920. we exported 23,676 dozen eggs on which no duty was charged. Last month we exported no eggs at all to the the United States. In the meantime the duty had risen to ten cents a dozen.
There are 43 items on this list, and with regard to each a similar story could be told. In 1920, twenty-five of those items were on the free list, and the remainder were subjected to only a very low tariff. If we check the statistics for the month of September, 1920, we find that the exports to the United States were very considerable. But when we look at the figures for the month of September, 1932, we learn that each of those 43 items has had a high tariff rate registered against it. and the exports are very low indeed.
During that twelve year period from 1920 to 1932 what has been the attitude of the United States towards Canada? As I have stated, in 1920 most of the commodities were free of duty. In September, 1922, the Ford-ney-McCumber tariff bill became effective. Through that legislation wheat was removed from the free list, and began carrying a duty of 42 cents a bushel. Cattle were raised from the free list to 1^ and 2 cents a pound, butter was raised from 2i to 12 cents a pound, and eggs from free to 8 cents per dozen. In the month of June, 1930-and I ask hon. members to take particular notice of the month-the Hawley-Smoot tariff bill was passed by the United States government. By that legislation the duty on wheat remained at 42 cents per
630	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
bushel, but the rate on cattle was raised to 2J cents and 3 cents per pound; the duty on butter was raised to 14 cents per pound, and on eggs to 10 cents per dozen. I do not intend to go into details as to the other items; I have given the figures only as evidence of the attitude of the United States towards us. By two successive steps between the year 1920 and the present time they raised the duties on a large list of commodities which materially affected the quantity of trade between that country and Canada.
What has been the Canadian attitude during that period? When in 1922 the United States tariff on our wheat was raised to 42 cents per bushel, our tariff on American wheat was only 12 cents per bushel. When in the same year the United States tariff on our butter was raised to 12 cents per pound, our tariff on American butter was only 4 cents. When they raised their tariff to 14 cents we were very patient and long-suffering, choosing to leave ours at 4 cents. Probably by our lack of retaliation we showed a commendable attitude. A most interesting factor in connection with this trade review is that in the twelve months ending March, 1930, according to trade statistics, Canada imported from the United States 1,146,205 bushels of wheat and exported 6,804,099 bushels. When we come to the twelve months ending March, 1931, Canada imported a little over 148,000 bushels and exported over 10,000,000 bushels. Now, that is rather a strange situation. I might perhaps emphasize here that our duties on wheat were raised in the month of September, 1930, to 42 cents a bushel. Yet we exported more than we did the previous year when the duty was lower. The same applies to butter. In the twelve months ending March, 1930, when the tariff on butter was four cents a pound, we imported over 176,000 pounds and exported over 20,000 pounds. For the next twelve months, ending March, 1931, we imported a little over 26,000 pounds and exported over 70,000 pounds. That struck me as very strange. I figured it out in percentages, and I find that by raising the Canadian tariff against American wheat we decreased our imports from the United States eighty-seven per cent and increased our exports over thirty-four per cent; we decreased the imports of butter over eighty-five per cent and increased our exports seventy per cent. Another point in connection with that is that the increased tariffs were not in effect for the full year but only from September, 1930, to the end of March, 1931, some six and a half months. If any hon. gentleman cares to trace that a little further and take the next year's imports and exports he will find that in comparison

with 1930 it shows the same favourable situation.
Now, after looking at the United States tariffs, and our tariffs towards them, I would like to ask the question: Is the attitude of the United States towards us changing in any respect? A couple of years ago some one thousand university teachers, professors and economists visited the White House, urging the president to review the tariffs of the United States, because they were having an adverse effect upon American trade. Rather a strange feature is this, that on October 17, 1932, just ten days ago, the Journal of Commerce, published in New York, carried the headlines:
180 Economists Ask President Hoover to Lower Prohibitive Tariffs.
Hold that Rates Defy Sound Economics, Strangle Trade, Spread Unemployment.
The article continues:
Attributing to the rates of duty in the Hawley-Smoot tariff law the strangling of commerce and the spread of unemployment, members of the faculties of various educational institutions throughout the United States today called upon President Hoover to use his official powers to remove the world trade barriers occasioned by this law.
They stated that the Fordney-McCumber Act of 1922 and the Smoot-Hawley law of 1930 caused foreign nations to retaliate.
Well, I would wonder if they did not, although it did take Canada a long time to retaliate. We were patient and long-suffering from 1920 through 1922, up through June, until September, 1930; then Canada did retaliate. The article goes on:
So that foreign trade in export value in 1929 amounted to $5,240,995,000, in 1931 $2,377,981,000.
A decrease of over fifty-four per cent. They further pointed out that for the first eight months of 1932 their exports were further reduced $500,000,000 below the same period of 1931.
I again ask the question; Is the attitude of the United States toward the trade she once enjoyed with Canada changing? My own opinion is that it is changing considerably, and that is one good feature that I see in connection with this trade agreement. It looks to me as though it is a club being swung over the heads of the people of the United States. It -may not be a charitable course to pursue toward a friendly and neighbouring nation, but let us bear in mind that in 1922 we received from the American law makers a very severe slap on one cheek, nationally speaking. In a docile manner we turned the other cheek and received a very severe slap on it in June, 1930. We were seripturally correct-

United Kingdom
"whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." That, nationally speaking, is what we have done. But, Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of a story I heard of a very orthodox preacher who taught what the Man of Galilee said in that respect. He ran across an obstreperous individual who endeavoured to try him out on it, and after some argument on a trivial matter his would-be persecutor hit him on one cheek. The preacher said: "Well, the Scripture says, whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also'"; so he turned the other; and the man struck him on the other cheek. "Now'," the preacher said, "The scripture does not say what you are to do," so he waded in and gave the man a sound thrashing. Nationally speaking we received a swat on one cheek in 1922; we turned the other and received another good one in June, 1930.	1
think at that point we were scripturally correct in starting in to give the United States a good thrashing. In September, 1930, tariffs were raised against the United States, on the principle, as I think it was stated at the time, of "brick for brick." Now, while I advocate low tariffs and am a proponent of free trade, certainly if one nation puts its tariff against our wheat at 42 cents a bushel I cannot see any reason for keeping ours at 12 cents. Our tariff at that time was raised to a parity with that of the United States. This Canada-United Kingdom trade agreement is following along somewhat the same lines, that is, it is continuing to give the United States just a little bit of a thrashing, economically speaking. That is one good reason why I feel like supporting this trade agreement.
Another favourable feature I see in connection with the trade agreement is that it is diverting trade to our own mother country. While the United States is the natural country for us to trade with, if they refuse to do business with us I think the reasonable course for us to pursue, is to trade with the mother country. A large number of us here either came from the mother country or are descended from ancestors who did, and naturally our feelings turn in that direction.
Another feature I see in connection with this pact is that it lowers duties on many commodities that will be exchanged between Great Britain and Canada. It does not go so far as I would like to see it go, but it goes a short distance at least. While perhaps a number of steps were taken in the wrong direction, you might say, by increasing tariffs, this is a short step in the right direction by reducing tariffs on a number of commodities which we require and which we expect to secure from the mother country:
Another very important reason why I favour this trade agreement is that under it we have a preferred market in Great Britain for our Canadian wheat. Someone may ask whether we expect the price of wheat to be raised. Possibly it will not, but the United Kingdom offers to us the best market in the world for our wheat. There is no other country on the face of the globe that has been using, or is likely to use, as much of our wheat as does the United Kingdom. I can understand hon. members to your immediate left, Mr. Speaker, taking the stand they have taken. Possibly they are looking into the future, but members in this corner of the house would put themselves in rather a strange position, I think, if they took the attitude that they did not want a preferred market for Canadian wheat. I have before me a clipping from the Ottawa Citizen which points out that after November 15 the Irish Free State will be in an unpreferred position in regard to tariffs because the country failed to conclude an agreement with the United Kingdom at the Ottawa conference. As a result the Irish Free State will come under the ten per cent extra tariff after the middle of next month. If we reject this trade agreement, we say in effect that we do not want it. If the government did not have a majority sufficient to carry this agreement and we saw it defeated in this bouse, we would be in the same position as the Irish Free State; we would be subject to the extra 10 per cent on commodities passing between Canada and the United Kingdom and, in addition, we would have the extra charge of six cents per bushel against our wheat. I wonder how many farmer members of this house could go back to the prairies and justify a vote against a trade agreement which would have that effect. I represent a constituency that is entirely agricultural; my people grow wheat almost entirely, and I would hesitate to go back there and attempt to justify a vote against this agreement even though it does not give us all we might like. In the matter of wheat it does give us concessions that no one can deny.
Under this agreement we also get a free market for a quarter of a billion pounds of bacon and ham annually. That is quite a concession. It opens up to the Canadian farmer, both east and west, a market for pork products that in the future will be of considerable benefit to Canadian agriculture. It also gives us an improved live stock market, which will be of benefit to both western and eastern Canada. Our natural market for live stock in western Canada was the United States; they went by way of Winnipeg or
632	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
Calgary down to such large centres as Chicago, Minneapolis, Duluth, Denver and so on, but we cannot send them there now because there is a prohibitive tariff against them. Our only other market is Great Britain. It is true that this market is a. long distance away, but it is true also that the agreement makes available to us certain advantages in the live cattle trade that will be of at least some benefit to agriculture.
In addition, the fact that the recent Imperial economic conference was carried through to a successful conclusion has made it possible to call together the world economic conference which is to convene in the near future. We hope that this coming conference will be perhaps even more successful than the conference in Ottawa, especially in dealing with monetary questions, with the exchange situation and other problems.
I have given just seven reasons, Mr. Speaker, why I feel like supporting this trade agreement. I think they are quite sufficient. I can see in the agreement enough to convince us, as an agriculturist and as one representing a constituency interested in farming, that my constituency will be best served by having this agreement completed.
Mr. CHARLES E. FERLAND (Joliette) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, the constituency of Joliette which I have the honour to represent in the house, is semi-rural and semi-urban. Its adherence to the Liberal cause, almost traditional, clearly indicates its political preference. The people of this county have had the opportunity, in many elections, to show their opposition to England's military imperialism. In 1911, ignoring the advantages of the reciprocity treaty agreed upon, between Canada and the United States, under the leadership of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the greatest diplomat and most accomplished statesman that the French race in America has produced, they gave a slight majority to the nationalist candidate, notary J. P. A. Guilbault, notwithstanding the great popularity enjoyed by the defeated Liberal candidate, Mr. Adelard Du beau, since then appointed judge, in order to follow the policy of the great nationalist leader, the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), who was then at the height of his fame and was rightly considered, together with the standard bearers of the Devoir, as one of the foremost champions of the rights of the French Canadian minority of this country. Since that date, the people of Joliette have always sent Liberal members to the House of Commons, and in 1917, they unanimously manifested, together with almost all the electors of Quebec, their opposition to military
	.
imperialism as advocated by the Conservative party, whose present leader, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) proclaimed, in 1929, in the house, that when England is at war, Canada is at war.
The people of this dominion will be called upon at the next election to give their verdict on a new form of imperialism; economic imperialism, and on the high tariff policy of the Conservative party.
Since the election of 1930, a disquieting, enervating atmosphere, and a material and moral depression has spread over the land, and is felt in the county of Joliette as elsewhere, among the farming class as well as among trades people. The agreements entered into at the last Imperial economic conference in August last at Ottawa, rest essentially on an economic policy of imperialism and complete isolation. May I, sir, state that in my humble opinion, we should strongly and courageously oppose this new doctrine ol economic imperialism. From my viewpoint the main reasons which should guide us in our opposition to this new aspect of the Conservative policy, in Canada as well as in England, are the following: These imperial agreements, the right hon. Prime Minister admits it himself, are founded on Conservative principles, namely, the policy of very high protective tariff.
These agreements will result in forcing the rest of the world to pay Caesars tribute to the British Empire.
By erecting a tariff wall around the empire, isolating it from the other nations, these agreements will inevitably result in further restricting Canadian exports and greatly spreading unemployment.
The said agreements bind Canada for years, this will hinder the government from negotiating advantageous trade treaties with foreign countries, considering that economic conditions are ever changing in the world and Canada must therefore always be ready to modify and readjust its tariff to suit the occasion.
The imperial economic agreements are totally in contradiction with the recommendations and resolutions of the League of Nations to which Canada is a party. May I, by the way, take the opportunity of welcoming home, and in the house, Canada's representative at last year's League of Nations meeting: I refer to the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre), "my pair" in the political order of things, who played me the mischievous trick-I do not blame him-of preventing me from casting my vote during

United Kingdom
the whole of last session, because I had agreed, without knowing that he was sailing for Europe, to pair with him.


Mr. DUPRE (Translation):: Thank you.


Mr. FERLAND (Translation):: These imperial agreements, founded on rejected principles by the League of Nations which advocates the lowering of tariff walls among all nations, are also disapproved by the world's greatest economists, because of the policy of imperialism and high tariff involved. The hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) who just preceded me in this debate, stated a moment ago, that well known economists in the United States, and professors of the leading universities of that country-and he could have added of the world's most prominent economists-advocate at present lowering the tariff walls which are of a nature to disturb the peace of the world and increase disorder and all ills from which we suffer.
Might not these empire agreements result in provoking on the part of other countries where unrest prevails, retaliatory tariffs, which might be disastrous to Canadian trade and even to that of the other nations of the commonwealth?
The imperial agreements, which we are requested to approve, are also entirely contrary to the century old traditions of England's policy, and m our own country, to the principles which have regulated our interimperial trade since 1897, and conferred on Canada advantages the loss of which cannot be retrieved in the state of isolation of the commonwealth, even were London to become the financial centre of the universe.
Finally, the few particular advantages which might result from these empire agreements- there might be certain advantages, though I cannot discover any which would benefit Canada, as a -whole-these particular advantages, I say would not compensate Canada for the loss she would sustain in the rest of the world.
And, to conclude, the following is the last reason for my opposition:	The economic
structure of Canada, rests on a world foundation, closely bound to her international trade. The Conservative party, by its high tariff policy, has sapped the source of our vitality by restricting its field of action, to one world empire, even though the largest.
The main objections, from my viewpoint, which should prompt us to reject the agreements under consideration by the house, are these: Does not our political history teach us that Canada is an essentially exporting country and it cannot carry on its political and economic existence without an extensive exportation? I think we all agree on this point, Liberals, Conservatives, United Farmers, Independents, all proclaim the necessity of Canada exporting large quantities of products abroad, because our young country with its immense natural resources and small population cannot consume its entire production. Without a considerable foreign trade, without markets abroad to absorb our surplus production, we are bound to have a crisis and distress in this country. The causes of a crisis are numerous. What are the signs? The most apparent ones are first a drop in our foreign trade and unemployment. Unemployment is a direct result of the disruption in our foreign exports. What, however, is the main cause of this drop in our exports, if not the error made here, as in the United States and in all countries where the same distress prevails as in Canada, that policy, based on high protection, of the Conservative party?
The tariff policy of the Conservative party is essentially bad and ruinous for Canada, and the fact of its being applied to England or other parts of the British Empire does not improve it.
We judge of the value of a policy by its results.
Our country has known years of prosperity under the Liberal regime, from 1921 to 1930. Did not Canada, thanks to a foreign policy proportionate to her requirements, thanks to a large trade with all the countries of the world, attain, under Liberal rule, the fifth place among the trading nations of the world. However, sir, in less than two years, with the drop of our exports due to the high tariff of our Conservative friends, our country is now in the seventh place.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): Shame!


Charles-Édouard Ferland: Is there,
sir, in Canada, any province, any county, any individual who would not rejoice, today, if it were possible, to bring back, by some miracle, the prosperity which we enjoyed from 1921 to 1930?
If our foreign and world trade is the key to our prosperity, we must note that, during the last years of the Liberal regime, Canada carried on a most profitable business with the entire world. Is it not known that, under the Liberal administration, we had invaded almost everywhere foreign markets, in the east as well as the west? Is it not known that, during the last years of Liberal rule, we traded profitably with all continents and that in every case the trade balance was greatly in our favour? If we figure out the
634	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
total of our foreign exports to Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania and South America, we find that we sold to these continents more goods than foreign or Canadian ships brought back to Canada, and thereby, through a favourable trade balance enriched Canada and Canadians. Only the United States exported to Canada, during that period, more goods than they imported. I think that if we add to the apparent trade balance, all that remains invisible, namely that which does not appear in the statistics, such as United States capital invested in Canadian industries, and the money left in this country by United States tourists, about $300,000,000 per year, it will become evident that even in our trade transactions with the United States, under the Liberal rule, the trade balance was still greatly in our favour.
This government now endeavours to prove that the depression prevailing in this country is not due to its poor policy but to the fact that the crisis is world-wide, and, as remedy, it offers us the Imperial agreements which are under consideration.
I have shown, sir, that our trade relations must be international. Our trade relations with the British Commonwealth are not international, but constitutional in character. It is by virtue of our constitution, the British North America Act, of 1867, and of certain Imperial statutes, as interpreted in a number of Imperial Conferences, notably those of 1923 and 1926, and clearly defined by the recent Westminster statute, that Canada has become an autonomous nation in the British Empire, united to England and the other sister nations solely by a moral tie and by a common allegiance to our sovereign, the king.
Canada's bond of union with England and the other parts of the British Empire is therefore constitutional and not international in character. Just as Canada cannot carry on its economic existence independently of world trade or as the Dominions of Australia and New Zealand must resort to foreign markets to sell the surplus of their products or as England herself was obliged-to ensure her prosperity and power-to invade all world markets, or as any nation in the commonwealth cannot remain isolated, thus the association itself of all these sister nations is unable to exist, maintain or bring back prosperity to its people, independently of international or world trade. The principle of economic imperialism which is at the basis of the empire agreements, under consideration, had already been submitted to England, previous to the conference of 1923, by the leader of the Conservative party, Mr. Baldwin. How-
I Mr. Ferland.]
ever, this proposal which was rejected by the Imperial Conference of 1923, provoked in England an outburst of protests, not only among the opponents of the party in power, among manufacturers and business men, but in the very ranks of the Conservative party. And, shortly after, at the election of December, 1923 this economic policy was rejected by the people.
The well known French Economist, Andre Siegfried, who took part in the inquiries of the "Musee Social" in France, in cooperation with the Franco-British Association, and who is a distinguished writer, having published many books dealing with economic conditions in England, France, Canada, Germany and the United States, a person we can look upon as an entirely disinterested observer, tells us what were the feelings and views, in England, as a result of this policy introduced by the Conservative leader, at the Imperial Conference of 1923. The following is what he wrote in his volume entitled "England of Today," page 116:
The idea of a closed empire is in contradiction with the whole contemporaneous British tradition, which places in the complete liberty of trade the very foundation of national prosperity and has penetrated the British mind to a depth unsuspected by us. Some industrial centres may be under the spell of the preferential remedy. But exporters and business men as a whole cannot lose sight of the fact that England carries on two-thirds of its external trade with foreign countries, one-third of which form part of Europe. They must aver that in spite of the preference, British exports to the colonies have during this crisis fallen off in the same ratio as those destined to Europe. Accordingly they feel rather chary over engaging on a large scale in an experiment the purport of which is to replace foreign retail markets by those of the empire, for even though suoh a shunting and disconnection of trade channels were found to be feasible, it would take to say the least a whole generation to effect it. At any rate is it not a purely theoretical policy that which consists in proposing "to abandon Europe to its sorry fate," and in "turning one self towards colonial markets." An entirely new equipment would be required to carry it out, not only as regards distribution, but also as regards manufacturing, as goods required in new countries are totally different from those of which old countries in an advanced state of industry are in need. Besides, is it at all likely that the buying power of the dominions will increase in sufficient measure to absorb in the near future the greater part of the British exports? Imports of Australia per capita amount to an imposing figure, no doubt; but how many Australians are there? Five millions and a half at most. And how many will there be ten years hence? And then, who will guarantee that India will agree to remain the magnificent outlet she has heretofore been for England? As for Europe, who will seriously suggest that we should no longer concern ourselves about it, when even to this day it absorbs 35 per cent

United Kingdom
of British exports. Neither should we forget that its prosperity reacts on that of far away producers whose good will is most anxiously sought. Such were the anxieties to which the powerful Federation of British Industries gave expression on the eve of the assembling of the Imperial conference of 1923.
Those who are interested in this question I would refer to a work entitled "Interimperial Trade, First Interim Report, June 15, 1923," published by the Federation of British Industries.
We must note the essential difference which exists between the imperial preference enacted by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1897, and the policy of economic imperialism which the Conservative party wishes to sanction by the agreements submitted to us. Under the British preference of Laurier and his successors, England was granted advantages by Canada, in the form of customs privileges. While England, on the other hand, did not pledge herself to reciprocal obligations in theory; however, in practice England always granted us great advantages as to our exports. The short time allotted to me precludes my quoting statistics; however, all members of this house and all who are interested in economic questions are aware that we carried on a very profitable trade with England, long before these empire agreements were ever signed.
I shall borrow from a highly disinterested observer, a French economist, an appreciation of the British preference granted by Laurier.
Previous to quoting this article may I state that the Conservative party of today falls very short of the policy adopted by the same party in the past, and more particularly of the policy laid down by Cartier and Macdonald, those two great statesmen whose names appear in all the speeches of Conservatives. To remind hon. gentlemen how great is the difference between the policy of Cartier-Macdonald and the imperial policy of the present Conservative party, I shall refer to a letter published in the Canadian press in 1921, by the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve), in which he alludes to the military imperialism of his party. He stated, among other things, the following:
The Conservative party, in Quebec, for the last ten years, has estranged itself too much from the policy laid down by Cartier and Macdonald, and it has been more Tory than Conservative.
The following is what the French economist, to whom I referred a moment ago, stated:
It is known that for various reasons, in which loyalty plays an important part, but from which the hope of reciprocity is not excluded. Canada, in 1897, the Union of South Africa, in 1903, New Zealand, in 1907, Australia, in 1908, granted to British products
a tariff preference: the advantages in connection with this preference as applied to foreign imports is on an average of | in Canada and Australia, J to S in New Zealand, and i in South Africa. Certain crown colonies grant a greater preference, but India disassociates herself from this preference on English goods, and even is contemplating raising her tariff which would directly affect English products. The dominions showed the most good will. If in a general way they provided, by the establishment of an "intermediary tariff," for the possibility of negotiating trade conventions with foreign countries, they have, nevertheless, taken care, heretofore, that the imperial tariff -under reserve of isolated concessions-would exclusively apply to the mother country and the various parts of the empire. In agreement with them, the British government explains to outsiders, that the imperial preference is a domestic affair, and does not affect the clause of the most favoured nation.
It is known that the Imperial conference of 1930 was a failure. I shall not discuss the details of this conference, however, I shall refer those whom this question interests to the clear views of an economist who contributes to the editing of " lTllustration," in France, and to the monthly editions of Larousse, volume 8, December, 1930; these views were expressed after the Imperial conference and show that it was an actual failure.
We now come to the Imperial economic conference of 1932. The nations of the British Commonwealth gathered in Ottawa, forming a family pact, induced England to establish a tariff against the rest of the world. Following this conference the English people, who had already condemned the same policy, at the election of 1923, have not ceased to protest, and we witnessed the resignation of Liberal ministers forming part of the British National government and officially registering their protests.
It is unfortunate that Canada, by this economic imperialism, excludes the country which should ibe her best customer, the one with which, in the past, she carried on a profitable business, I refer to the United States.
Our trade with the United States follows so natural a course that the foreign policy of the United States has a great influence on Canadian affairs and is even felt in our elections. In fact, we can prove that the United States by their tariff policy of June, 1930,- a disastrous policy to Canada,-has greatly contributed to the advent to power of the Conservative party, in connection with the sale price of butter. We know that, in 1930, at a critical moment when the Canadian people were on the eve of going to the polls, the United States, by their tariff policy, prevented the entry of our dairy products into their country, while, in previous years, they
636	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
had absorbed a large quantity of our cream and milk products, amounting to almost
35.000.	000 pounds of butter. We also note that in the autumn of 1929, no one could foresee this sudden change, the National Council of dairy industries, entrusted with the interests of our farmers, in its report of November, 1929, informed the Canadian government that it would be necessary to import into Canada in order to fill the deficit existing between production and consumption, for the year 1930, a quantity amounting to at least
35.000.	000 pounds of butter. The Conservative party took advantage of this temporary but alarming situation of our dairy producers to rouse the feelings of Quebec and Ontario, and because of our plight, which was not due to the Liberal administration, they succeeded in getting into power. President Hoover and all the financial sharks which surround him had played an important part in that election, in connection with the butter question, however, the reward of their international activities was not to be long delayed. Indeed, has not the Conservative party just handed over to the United States our majestic St. Lawrence river, by a treaty which it signed without consulting parliament, to the detriment of Canada- It is an unbelievable, unheard, inconceivable act that the Prime Minister of this country did when he handed over our greatest national heritage, to our neighbours to the south, by a treaty, which the greatest statesman, perhaps, that the Quebec legislature has known, the Hon. Mr. Taschereau, has qualified as a national crime, and this was done without even exacting in return the lowering of the tariff wall erected in 1930, and which has had such an evil and disastrous effect on Canadian trade.
Mr. ECCLES J. GOTT (South Essex): Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to extend my sincere congratulations and compliments to the former Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) for the excellent contribution he has made to this debate. I desire to join with many of his friends in western Ontario in hoping for him a speedy and complete recovery from his recent illness and a return to his ordinary vigour and good health.
I am sure the house and the country must have been amused when the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) stated that he had prayed for the conference. I notice that he did not say that he had prayed for the success of the conference, and I imagine that his prayer must have been about as follows:
O Lord, come to us in this hour of humiliation, stay by us during this period of depression. Abide with us while we are in opposition.

Vouchsafe, O Lord, to ruin any attempt of the Conservative party to restore confidence in our land. Ruin, O Lord, the Conservative party and the Dominion of Canada if necessary to grant us a return to power. We ask this in the name of the King, Amen.
I had not intended and had little desire to take part in this debate, but I felt I should do so because of an article which appeared in the Border Cities Star of Tuesday, October 18. That issue contained a very fine picture of the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the article in question was headed, "No Tobacco Benefit." I might say to hon. members of the opposition that the Border Cities Star is far more complimentary to the leader of the opposition than the Vancouver Sun. As must have been observed by the right hon. leader of the opposition, the people of Essex county in western Ontario take very little stock in what he says. In 1930 the right hon. gentleman had the privilege of addressing an audience of 11,000 people in the town of Tilbury. When the right hon. gentleman became the leader of the government, Essex county polled a Liberal majority of 11,000, but in 1930, after being nine years in office, the same county gave a Conservative majority of 11,000. Consequently I think I am right in saying that the people in that county take with a grain of salt any version which the right hon. gentleman might give of things concerning their welfare. The article in question reads as follows:
No Tobacco Benefit
The agreement purports to be doing something for the tobacco growers for ten years. Notice how insidious the whole thing is. There is nothing in this clause that says it is necessary that any duty will be retained for ten years on tobacco. If the duty to other countries goes down, down goes the margin of preference. What benefit is that to the Canadian tobacco grower? Who is going to invest in large tobacco plants on the strength of that?
I say to the right hon. gentleman that that is absolutely not so. The preference given to the tobacco growers of Canada nnd the British Empire is not a specific rate per pound; it is based on an import duty against foreign tobacco entering the British isles. The previous tariff on raw leaf tobacco entering Great Britain was $1.96 per pound, but some years ago, in order to encourage the growing of a better grade of tobacco for the British market, the British colonies were given a preference of twenty-five per cent. At this time I shall not go into the tobacco question in detail, but if time permits before I conclude my remarks I will give further particulars as to the possibility of increasing our trade -with the British Empire.

United Kingdom
Upon reading the statement of the leader of the opposition which was headlined in the Border Cities Star, I sent the following telegram to the secretary of the Essex County Tobacco Growers' Association under date of October 18:
M. H. Swatman, Esquire,
Secretary, Essex County Tobacco Growers' Association,
Leamington, Ontario.
The right hon. leader of the opposition stated on the floor of the house that there is no benefit to tobacco growers in economic conference proposals. Please give me an unbiased statement from your organization.
Eccles J. Gott.
To this telegram I received the following reply:
Growers of all types of tobacco here are greatly elated over proposals that will make permanent by legislation for ten years a twenty-five per cent preference in the British market for all raw leaf tobacco exported from Canada. Personally I think this is better than an increase in preference and will be conducive to an early large expansion in our exports to the motherland.
Up to the end of July this year Canada had exported to the motherland upwards of
7,000,000 pounds of raw leaf tobacco, which proves conclusively that Canadian tobacco is being received with favour by the British consumer.
I am glad to see that the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott) is in his seat, because I read with some pleasure his remarks in the house. I have before me a clipping from the London Free Press of October 21, reading as follow's:
The paucity of speakers among the government back-benchers came in for some comment from Hon. J. C. Elliott, K.C. (Liberal, Midlesex West). He twitted the government with fearing to call an election at the moment, because, he said, the government well knew that the present opposition -would assume the reins of power.
I want to say to the hon. member for West Middlesex: If there -was an election today in western Ontario upon these proposals, no hon. member representing a rural constituency and opposing these agreements would be returned to parliament. The hon. gentleman went further:
Mr. Elliott spoke of the removal of the cattle embargo and claimed that its removal in 1923 was a greater achievement than the widening of the regulations attained at the imperial conference.
Why was it so great in 1923, and so unimportant in 1932? I cannot understand that. The hon. gentleman went on to say:
Mr. Elliott called upon Conservative members from rural constituencies to impress upon
the government the hardship high tariffs were causing farmers.
Let me tell him of some of the hardships which high tariffs are causing the farmers of Essex county, and in which the farmers of his county are participating. I have under my hand a letter which came to me unsolicited, and which I shall read in a moment or so, to show what the conditions are in Essex county. The hon. gentleman went on:
The result of the South Huron by-election was an indication of the attitude of the people of Canada towards the government, said Mr. Elliott. It was the custom to allow such byelections go by acclamation to the party which last held the seat, but the government decided to fight. "Never in the history of elections," he said, "has there been a stronger band of Conservative organizers turned loose in a riding than were sent in to South Huron."
The hon. member was very uncomplimentary in referring to our organizers as being "turned loose." But I think the turning loose was done when that perforated percolator from West Elgin was let out to go into South Huron; or when the braggadocio who spoke with such an air this afternoon was permitted to go into South Huron or, further, when the dodo, the illustrious representative from West Lambton, was let out of the cage. Mr. Speaker, I do not like to see a former minister of the crown refer to the organizers of our party as being "turned loose." He talks about an election. Why, sir, there is not a member on the opposite side of the house who wants an election; not a solitary one; and there is no member on this side who wants an election. We believe that when these trade agreements have been functioning for two years they will return many and many a Conservative to the House of Commons and will be the cause of the defeat of many an hon. gentleman opposite.
Now I want to read particularly for the benefit of the hon. member for West Middlesex this letter which came to me unsolicited. May I say that I have not authority to read it; I intended to wire the writer for permission to read it in the House of Commons, but I am going to read every word of it, and I am sorry the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) is not in his seat.
Leamington, October 20, 1932. Mr. E. J. Gott, M.P.,
Parliament Buildings,
Ottawa.
My Dear Mr. Gott:
It is with grave misgivings that I see a lot of Liberal members talking of taking off the tariffs again. It took Hon. Mackenzie King eight years of his government allowing American tomatoes, cabbage and other vegetables to flood our Canadian markets leaving half of the Essex county crops in the field to
638	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
rot and bankrupting nearly half of the early vegetable growers of Essex county and put hundreds more so far in debt it will take years to recover.	.
This year under tariff protection from American vegetables every bushel of early cabbage, every salable early tomato was sold. It is the first time in years that the fields were stripped of their produce and all at a profit even under the unemployment situation at its worst in history. There were hundreds of truckloads bought by dealers driving here to the farms from two to three hundred miles away and every outlying distant small town was supplied by these trucks with homegrown fresh vegetables. This is the first time in history we had the distribution and sold completely out of everything. These facts should stand out even to the Liberal party if they would take the trouble to check up.
Yours for protection, as the prices this year to the consumer were the lowest they ever paid, proving protection and tariffs do not raise the price to the consumer.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


Eccles James Gott: The loud laugh that speaks a vacant mind. The letter continues:
For proof of the country's shape under the King government one has only to inquire of the Ontario government as to their trouble and sorrow as to the amount of government mortgages held on South Essex farms, made during the King government. The Hon. Mr. Bennett will be a world wonder if he can undo the damage wrought during the past ten years, given the same length of time to accomplish it in.
Yours very truly,
Charles Barnard,
Essex county farmer.
I want to assure the house that I do not know Mr. Barnard. This is just a sample of the letters that come to me every day. May I say that I represent a section of Canada that is delighted with the action of the present government. This government has had the backbone to protect the farmers and give them a seasonal tariff when they require it.
The Imperial economic conference was a direct result of the treatment which the Dominion of Canada has received at the hands of the United States; in other words, the United States forced the conference upon us. In July, 1932, Canada's exports of agricultural products to the United States amounted to less than seven per cent of her sales in that market for the same month in 1920. Canada at one time had an excellent lumber market in the United States and an excellent market for cattle and wheat, a good market for poultry and hides, and a fine market for butter, cheese, eggs, hogs and all the other products of the farm.


An hon. MEMBER:: And onions.
f.Wr. Gotl.l


Eccles James Gott: Yes, and onions. I am proud of the onion growers whom I have the honour to represent in this house. May I say further that the Liberal party in South Essex can expect very little support from the onion growers due to the treatment the Liberal government gave the onion growers for ten years.
The exports of farm products from Canada to the United States in July, 1932, were $378,000; in July, 1931, $900,000; in July, 1929, $4,000,000; in July, 1920, $6,000,000. .As a result of the McKinley tariff, the Fordney-McCumber tariff, and the Hawley-Smoot tariff, our exports of agricultural products to the United States have been steadily declining. An hon. gentleman who spoke this afternoon said that the United States was our natural market. Certainly we should and would deal with the United States if we were permitted to do so, but tariffs such as the Fordney-McCumber and the Hawley-Smoot have made it impossible for this dominion to export farm products to the United States. As a result we must look elsewhere for markets.
The figures I have given show the influence of the United States tariff on our exports to what a certain section of the Liberal party still fondly describes as Canada's natural market for our surplus agricultural production. Regardless of how natural a market it may be, it is no longer available for our agricultural products; and while Liberals may delight in looking backward at departed trade-trade which was snatched from Canada, not thrown away-it is a good thing for the country that the Conservative government has had the courage to look elsewhere for markets even though this policy has made it necessary to curtail imports of United States manufactured articles.
I am going to quote some figures. I presume, however, that they will not be at all alarming to hon. members opposite, because at the present time they shoulder no responsibility. Through no fault of ours, Mr. Speaker, the United States market has been practically closed to Canadian products. In September, 1929, the exports of farm products to the United States were valued at $4,532,642; in September, 1920, they were $11,887,877. In September, 1932, they were $220,332. For the months of July, August and September, 1929, Canada's exports to the United States were valued at $14,316,400. In 1920 Canada's exports to the United States were $24,042,269. and in July, August and September, 1932, only $767,308. -Consequently we had to look elsewhere for our markets. The following figures

United, Kingdom
will serve to indicate the decrease in Canada's exports to the United States:
September, September, 1929	1932
Cattle	
$1,653,944	$27,563Horses	
11,855	5,695Poultry	
55,372	281Sheep	
5,503	_
Then, I draw special attention to apples. I find that the figures for September, 1929, was $21,572, whereas, in September, 1932, it is only $1,903. Then we have an item in which the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn) should take special interest. In September, 1929, we exported $26,568 worth of beans, whereas in September, 1932, we exported none.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is not in his seat.


Eccles James Gott: He is never in his seat, In
September, 1929, we exported to the United States $246,229 worth of wheat, and in September, 1932, only $20 worth. No doubt that was of some particular brand for seed purposes. Then, in September, 1929, we exported in bran and shorts, $180,494 worth, and in September, 1932, only $1,692 worth. Of bacon and hams, in which the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Factor) said he was not interested, we exported in September, 1929, $84,657 worth, and in September, 1932, $21,652 worth. I shall continue with the list:
September, September,
Fresh beef		1929 $465,495	1932 $ 2,481
Mutton and lamb. .	48.082	
Fresh pork	128,258	9.096Cheese	108,185	6,867Cream	507,186	16,460Milk	88,928	9Potatoes	228,924	Maple sugar	179,681	5,693
And so the story goes on, and we see Canadian trade with the United States dwindling away. They placed duty after duty against the imports of Canadian farm products, and made it practically impossible for the Canadian farmer to ship his goods across the line. Hence we had to look for outside markets.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask hon. members who represent the farming districts of western Ontario if the securing in the United Kingdom of a market for practically the complete range of Canadian natural products is of interest to their constituents. I ask them if the free entry of many kinds of lumber is of interest to the farmers in their communities. I ask them if the free entry into the British Isles of over one hundred commodities is of interest to the farmers in their sections of the country. Would the
free entry of Canadian hams and bacon to the extent of 2,500,000 hundredweight be of interest to the farmers represented by the hon. member for West Middlesex. Would it be of interest to the farmers represented by the hon. member for West Lambton? I ask if the modification of regulations governing live cattle is of interest to western Ontario farmers. I ask the hon. members I have mentioned if the free entry of butter and cheese is in the interests of their constituents. I ask if the twentyTive per cent preference on Canadian tobacco in the British markets for ten years, brought about by legislation, is of interest to tobacco growing districts. I ask hon. members representing the tobacco sections of Ontario if this article in the agreement is in their interests?
Yesterday the hon. member for Norfolk-Elgin (Mr. Taylor) asked a silly question. I said at the time he asked it that representations such as he made had been made for ten years. For ten years application was made to the former government to bust the tobacco combine, and if the hon. member will stand with me I will do my part towards helping to bust any tobacco combine in the Dominion of Canada. I ask him, an hon. member from a tobacco constituency, if he appreciates the twenty-five per cent preference which is being made permanent by legislation. I know what he wants to say- it is this:	"Oh, we have had a twenty-five
per cent preference in the British market." I say to him certainly we have; I said that at the outset of my remarks, but I add that we never enjoyed that preference through legislation.


Mr. TAYLOR:: Since 1925 or 1926.


Eccles James Gott: But it was not given by the
Mackenzie King government. I remind the hon. member it was given by the British government to British colonies for the promotion of the production of suitable tobacco for the British market. That is why it was given.


William Horace Taylor: It is the same now.


Eccles James Gott: Does the hon. member say
it is the same now? He knows very well it is not the same. Whereas before we had it only by regulation, we now have it by legislation. The regulation expired this year, and through legislation we are now going to have it for ten years. I want the hon. member to know that. I ask the hon. member representing Norfolk-Elgin, one of the finest tobacco constituencies in Canada, if when sitting on the government side he
G40	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
ever rose in his place and spoke in the interests of the tobacco growers in his constituency. I want	to	ask him if	he	rosein this house in the interests of the tobacco growers of Norfolk and Elgin when he was on the government side. No, the hon. gentleman never did,	and never	will. Ichallenge him now to get up and make a speech in this house in the interests of the tobacco growers he has the honour to represent. Let me tell him that few of them will support him in the next election. I want to ask him further, and ask the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) who smiles at any constructive suggestion that is made-and there is little or none coming from the other side-I ask him if	he	appreciates	the	factthat apples go into	the British market	free.


Mr. BROWN:: I do not eat apples or use tobacco.


Eccles James Gott: You wouldn't know good
tobacco if you saw it.


Albert Joseph Brown: I certainly would not.


Eccles James Gott: I want to ask the hon. member, if apples from Canada go into the British market free while from foreign countries there is a duty of 4s. 6d. per hundredweight, is that a benefit to the apple growers he represents? I ask all hon. members who represent farmers, for whom they say their hearts bleed, if there is any benefit to them in the preference on pears, plums, canned tomatoes, and ketchup. I am going to read an article in a moment pertaining to ketchup. Are they in favour of the free entry of eggs, against a duty on foreign eggs? I presume they are all going to vote against this agreement; consequently they are all opposed to a preference of 7 shillings a hundredweight on Canadian honey, and ten per cent on barley; they are opposed to the free entry of Canadian wheat against a general tariff of 3 pence per bushel. They are opposed to the free entry of wheat flour, rye, oats, shorts, and millings, oatmeal, peas, clover seed, hay, bran, rolled oats, et cetera. The}' are opposed to the free entry of unsweetened condensed milk. Yes, they are opposed to that, although there is a ten per cent general tariff. I presume, Mr. Speaker, they are opposed, as they have been for the last ten years, to anything that would be in the interests of the farmers they represent. The former government in its nine years in office did practically nothing but rest on its oars and let the market of western Ontario be swamped with surplus farm products from the United States.
[Mr. Gott.l
I want to read something which will indicate the benefit that the trade pact with Great Britain has already had on one huge industry in the riding which I have the honour to represent. I quote from the Border Cities Star of October 21, 1932, headed:
Gets Trade from U.S.
Leamington Plant to Handle All Heinz Export Trade Will be Increase
Overseas Orders Formerly Filled at Pittsburgh to Be Taken Over
Leamington, Oet. 21.-As a result of the action of the Ottawa conference, all ketchup produced by H. J. Heinz Company for export to the United Kingdom and European countries hereafter will be made at that concern's Leamington, Ont. plant.
Ketchup for export has been produced at Leamington in large quantities, but under orders just issued by the company there will be an important increase in production.
Export business formerly handled at Heinz plants in the United States will be transferred to the Leamington establishment, and, added to the present volume, will absorb the capacity production of that plant, which was built large enough to care for this increased demand upon it.
Heinz plant at Leamington is the largest producer of ketchup in the world, and has facilities to handle a million bushels of tomatoes a season. Anticipating present conditions, the company erected large additions and increased production facilities within the past two years.
The major part of the plant's ketchup production is consumed in England, but the consumption per capita of Heinz ketchup in Canada is the largest of any country in the world.
Within the past year, export demand for products of the Leamington plant has been of sufficient size to justify shipments of full cargoes directly by water from that point to England, while there has been a large increase in Canadian consumption.
Let me say, sir, that this government have launched a plan whereby they are expending a quarter of a million dollars in the town of Leamington for the purpose of erecting docks, at which large ocean going boats can load and unload, and those in charge of export expect to ship direct from the Heinz factory to Great Britain.
Another article that I desire to quote is headed:
Canadian Lumber Trade to Benefit by British Move
But Effects of Abrogation of Soviet Trade Treaty Will Not Be Seen For Some Months
Let me say that the reaction to these trade proposals from coast to coast throughout Can-

Questions
ada, through the Liberal, Independent and Conservative press, shows that Canada is British to the heart, and that the Canadian people appreciate beyond question these excellent resolutions that are now before the house, through which it is anticipated that Canadian agriculture will receive so much benefit. The article of which I have just read the heading is as follows:
Saint John, N.B., Oct. 18.-Great Britain's abrogation of her commercial treaty with Soviet Russia, announced in London today, was hailed by the New Brunswick lumber industry as a stride in the right direction.
At the same time, no immediate benefit was foreseen, due to the discount on the pound sterling,

That, however, was dealt with tonight by the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. White), who delivered, I believe, one of the sincerest speeches that has been delivered on these proposals. Many of the speeches made by hon. members opposite have been merely a waste of time. Some speakers have merely spoken to their constituents, some have spoken because the party whips put them on, whereas the party whips on this side requested us not to speak and I am speaking tonight against the advice of our whip.
I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that forty minutes is very little time within which to discuss an important resolution such as this. I said that if I had time I would discuss some details of the tobacco exports, and the possibilities before our tobacco industry in getting into the British market. As my time has almost expired I will only say that the imports of tobacco into Great Britain from the Dominion of Canada for the year 1932 have so far surpassed those of any other year. The Canadian tobacco grower is encouraged to such an extent that he believes there is a market in the United Kingdom and the empire for millions and millions of pounds of Canadian tobacco, because the British market consumes annually
230,000,000 pounds of which 200,000,000 pounds have heretofore been imported from the United States. With this twenty-five per cent preference made permanent for ten years the Canadian tobacco growers anticipate that they will enlarge their market and that within a few years the exports of raw leaf tobacco from Canada to' the Unitdd Kingdom, instead of being eight, nine or ten million pounds, will be at least 100,000,000 pounds a year.
On motion of Mr. Gagnon the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, October 28, 1932