March 16, 1931

?

An hon. MEMBER:

How do you know?

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY MOVED BY MR. MAX. D. CORMIER AND SECONDED BY MR. VICTOR C. PORTEOUS
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

How does anybody known anything? By using ordinary intelligence. The Prime Minister knew before he went to England that the present government in England would not change its fiscal policy. The Liberal party in England has for generations been committed to the policy of free trade. Will it change? Will it negotiate on a basis which would alter the fiscal policy of Great Britain? Nothing could be done by negotiating with the Liberal party, and yet that party combined with the Labour party represent by far the majority of the British people. Come to the Conservative party. So far as the Lord Beaverbrook wing is concerned, that is the Empire Crusaders, my right hon. friend made the statement in plain English, "We will have nothing to do with

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

you." and they were ruled out. What have we left? We have left a certain section of the official Conservative opposition in Great Britain. But what do they want the preference for in England? What do they want protection for? Their idea of securing a preference was to work out a scheme which would

allow them to sell their goods in other markets.

My right hon. friend has said to them, "Remember our preference is based on the Canada first policy." "Canada first," means that anything that can be produced and manufactured in Canada is not to come in. The only preference which could arise would be one which might result from the erection of still higher tariff walls. That is what my right hon. friend has called empire preference. Empire preference as outlined by my right hon. friend is this "Canada first" idea wrapped in tinfoil with a union jack pasted on the outside, lhat is all that it means. It excludes in the first place all possibility of commodities coming to this country from Great Britain if they can be produced or manufactured here. No matter what government is in office in Great Britain, so long as this offer of my right hon. friend stands in its present form no negotiations can be successfully carried on with the mother country.

Now, what about the word "humbug"? I do not know why my right hon. friend should have been so sensitive about the use of the word, unless he was caught on the raw, because after all it is a very mild expression. Some of the terms used by the right hon. gentleman himself when he was leader of the opposition with respect to the preference by the then administration were much stronger. As a matter of fact in the last regular session of parliament my right hon. friend criticized very strongly the government of which I happened to be the head. Did he use the word "humbug"? No, that was too mild an expression for him; he used the word deception."

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY MOVED BY MR. MAX. D. CORMIER AND SECONDED BY MR. VICTOR C. PORTEOUS
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Prime Minister; Minister of Finance and Receiver General; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

Yes, that is right.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY MOVED BY MR. MAX. D. CORMIER AND SECONDED BY MR. VICTOR C. PORTEOUS
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Yes, an offensive term, and he incorporated it in a resolution introduced in this house. Yet when a member of the administration in Great Britain used the word "humbug" with respect to my right hon. friend's proposals he immediately sent a broadside to the British press directed against the British government as a whole, two columns of the London Times directed not against an individual minister but against the whole British government. He told the government of Great Britain that he had

waited a day or two to see if they would not dismiss the minister who had dared to criticize his proposals. In his view the government of Canada could not have further successful relations with the British government if that attitude was to be maintained. We came very near having complete severance of relations between the governments of Canada and Great Britain as a result of his action. If anyone is of the opinion that I am exaggerating let him read the words of my right hon. friend for himself.

I was interested to learn the real significance of the word "humbug." My right hon. friend is fond of quoting the Oxford dictionary. I consulted that book to learn what it said about "humbug", not knowing whether or not the word be there. But sure enough it was there, and here is the definition given of it.

Fraud, sham, deception, nonsense.

Deception-the very word that he had used himself, as leader of the opposition and for his party in this parliament, in describing the preference part of the proposal of Mr Dunning-a proposal that did not merit that particular characterization, whereas this proposal more than merited it.

Other dictionaries might be quoted-Murray, for example. The New English dictionary gives the following as one definition:

A thing which is not really what it pretends to be; an imposture, a deception, fraud, sham.

Now, this dictionary even cites as an example of the use of the word in its application to legislation the following from words of Lord Randolph Churchill in 1884:

The whole legislation of the government has been a gigantic humbug.

Surely if Lord Randolph Churchill could describe the whole legislation of the inipenal government of that day as "humbug,' it ought to be within the bounds of parliamentary etiquette to describe proposals intended to be translated into legislation as "humbug"; and that was the extent of the offences committed with respect to which the right hon. gentleman opposite raised such a furore in Great Britain. .

It is interesting-although I do not say this applies in any particular to our own parliament

that the same authority a little further on in citing wherein the words may be applicable to individuals as well as to proposals or offers has the following (1807 in Sheridaniana 211):

"I think, father," said he, "that many men who arc called great patriots in the House of Commons, are great humbugs."

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

The Imperial dictionary-and that ought to be a good authority in connection with all that takes place at an Imperial conference- discloses the near relationship of the term "humbug" and "deception". It defines humbug in one place as:

Spirit of deception, or imposition.

It is particularly helpful in disclosing the real meaning of the term by giving its derivation. It is as follows:

Humbug-no doubt from 'hum' and 'bug/ 'hum' having probably its sense of to deceive', and 'bug' its old meaning of 'bugbear'; hence it equals false alarm. The association of 'hum' with 'bug' was perhaps partly suggested by the fact that 'bug' meant also a beetle or other insect, partly from the words 'hum' and 'buzz' having been employed in conjunction to typify sound without sense.

There, I think, Mr. Speaker, we have a definition which exactly fits the situation, "sound without sense."

I am inclined to think that Mr. Thomas came to use that phrase through association with the present High Commissioner for Canada in London. I noticed when Mr. Howard Ferguson was campaigning with my right hon. friend that this was the term he used in describing the preference proposals of the government of the day. He said that, the proposals were "humbug" and "hypocrisy."

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY MOVED BY MR. MAX. D. CORMIER AND SECONDED BY MR. VICTOR C. PORTEOUS
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

Hear, hear.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY MOVED BY MR. MAX. D. CORMIER AND SECONDED BY MR. VICTOR C. PORTEOUS
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

My right hon. friend says, "hear, hear."

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY MOVED BY MR. MAX. D. CORMIER AND SECONDED BY MR. VICTOR C. PORTEOUS
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Prime Minister; Minister of Finance and Receiver General; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

No, I did not say anything.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY MOVED BY MR. MAX. D. CORMIER AND SECONDED BY MR. VICTOR C. PORTEOUS
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I beg my right hon. friend's pardon; someone immediately behind him expressed approval of that expression. Apparently what really took place was that Mr. Thomas and Mr. Ferguson had been associating together, and Mr. Thomas doubtless employed a phrase that he thought would be well understood in this part of the world.

I come now, Mr. Speaker, to a phase of this situation which I deem as serious as anj single matter of imperial concern can possibly be, and that is the action on the part of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister in attempting to interfere in the domestic politics of Great Britain. As I said, from the time he left here, and indeed before his departure, I considered that he had made one mistake after another, simply getting in deeper and deeper all the time as he went on in his bargaining processes of selling Cana-

dian wheat. The most serious thing of all- because if it is once countenanced it is going to have a very far-reaching effect on the future of the British Empire-was the attempt of this part of the empire to interfere with the affairs of another part. As I said a little while ago, at these Imperial conferences it is absolutely necessary on the part of any government that there should be full regard for the domestic policies of all governments. Every government must respect the domestic policies of another government. What right has any part of the empire to criticize the domestic policies of another part? Much less has it any right to seek to coerce another part of the empire into changing its domestic policies by trying to influence public opinion, as my right hon. friend sought to do in the address which he made at that conference and which was published far and wide. Not only did he then confront the British government with a proposal necessitating a change in their fiscal policy and speak of the possible dismemberment of the empire if it were not accepted, but he also gave a radio address to the people of the British nation-and there are some of us here at home who heard him across the sea-in which in a sense he appealed over the head of the government to the British nation. In there referring to what he had set forth at the conference he said:

I did not mean it as a threat. How could any thought of a threat have come into his mind unless it was lurking there or known to be in the minds of some of the British people? He went on to say that the chance might pass forever if his particular offer was not accepted and the principle that he had laid down was not subscribed to.

\\ e all know the political battles that have been waged in England between the Conservative party and the Liberal party and between the Conservative party and the Labour party on certain fiscal questions, and I say no one from this Dominion has any right to go to Great Britain and attempt by words spoken there to influence British public opinion in reference to matters of domestic policy. If our prime ministers are to have that right, then the prime ministers of other parts of the empire must have a similar right. What would my right hon. friend say if Mr. Ramsay MacDonald came over here to-morrow and spoke here as my right hon. friend spoke in Britain and were to tell him he must change the policy of protection; and then were to address the Canadian nation over the radio and say that unless this change were made immediately he would not be res-

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

ponsible for the dismemberment of the empire that might come later ? My right hon. friend knows that his words are going to be made use. of by a political party in Great Britain in the next campaign. Can anything worse be conceived in relation to the interests of the empire as a whole than that the name of this country should be dragged into the political controversies of England in an effort to influence the British electorate one way or the other? And if a change in British fiscal policy ever did come about by Canada's name being injected into Great Britain's domestic affairs, and if later times became bad due to other causes, or of the fiscal change itself, what would likely become of the relations of the different parts of the empire one to the other once an effort was made to change a bargain that had grown out of conditions forced in that way?

There are many people to-day who are questioning very much in their minds whether there can be any future conferences between different parts of the empire unless there is a pretty clear understanding that this kind of thing is never going to be repeated. I doubt if it will be found that any government will go into conference with another government, unless above all the right of every country to have its own fiscal policy is upheld by all. Why, Mr. Speaker, one of the sections of this very conference in England was working on certain resolutions growing out of the conference of 1926; and what was it that the conference of 1926 laid down? It laid down a definition of the present position of the different dominions and Great Britain. How was that position described? It is set out very clearly in the Balfour report, which has been endorsed by this very government while it was negotiating in Great Britain. What does that report say? With repect to Great Britain and the dominions it says:

Their position and mutual relation may be' readily defined. They are autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

In other words, you have there a distinct statement that each part of the empire has the right to make its own fiscal policy, that it must be so recognized and that there shall be no coercion in any particular way with regard to it. Indeed, it seems part of the irony of fate that it should have been one of Sir John A. Macdonald's ministers who took this very position as long ago as before confederation. My right hon. friend

likes to speak of his policy as the national policy of Sir John A. Macdonald, but one of Sir John Macdonald's ministers made very clear to the Briitsh government just prior to confederation that Canada would not stand for any dictation on the part of Great Britain with respect to her tariff. That was as long ago as 1859. Let me read from the communications sent by Sir Alexander Galt to the Duke of Newcastle, who at that time was Colonial Secretary. Here is what Sir Alexander Galt, Sir John A. Macdonald's minister of Finance of that day, said:

Respect to the Imperial government must always dictate the desire to satisfy them that the policy of this country is neither hastily nor wisely formed; and that due regard is hail to the interests of the mother country as well as of the province. But the government of Canada, acting for its legislature and people, cannot, through those feelings of deference which they owe to the Imperial authorities, in any manner waive or diminish the right of the people of Canada to decide for themselves both as to the mode and extent to which taxation shall be imposed. Self-government would be utterly annihilated if the view of the Imperial government were to be preferred to those of the people of Canada. It is, therefore, the duty of [DOT] the present government distinctly to affirm the right of the Canadian legislature to adjust the taxation of the people in the way they deem best, even if it should unfortunately happen to meet the disapproval of the Imperial ministry.

I never thought the day would come in this parliament, Mr. Speaker, when it would fall to the lot of any member of this House of Commons to protest against a Canadian ministry in its attempt to coerce a British ministry, but since that day has come there appears to be an element of poetic justice in the circumstance that I have the privilege of being the first to make that protest. I do make it very strongly indeed, that any ministry from Canada should seek, by means of coercion, to influence the government of Great Britain with respect to any matter of policy which is entirely within its own rights. If we cherish autonomy in our own country; if we respect it; if we wish to maintain it, it will be only by our adopting an attitude towards others which we will expect to have adopted towards ourselves. What would my right hon. friend say were Mr. Ramsay MacDonald or Mr Lloyd George or Mr. Churchill or any other British public man to come to Canada and denounce the policy of protection, saying it was essential that we should have free trade in order to save the empire? He would be the first to tell him never to come back to this country again, and we would have the press from one end of this country to the

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY MOVED BY MR. MAX. D. CORMIER AND SECONDED BY MR. VICTOR C. PORTEOUS
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

No, no.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY MOVED BY MR. MAX. D. CORMIER AND SECONDED BY MR. VICTOR C. PORTEOUS
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Yes, it is unfortunate, but Canada's prestige in Britain never was so low as it is at the present time.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY MOVED BY MR. MAX. D. CORMIER AND SECONDED BY MR. VICTOR C. PORTEOUS
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Prime Minister; Minister of Finance and Receiver General; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

It is higher than it has

been during the past ten years.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY MOVED BY MR. MAX. D. CORMIER AND SECONDED BY MR. VICTOR C. PORTEOUS
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

We have failed to extend in Britain the market for our wheat. Not only have we failed to obtain security for the sale of our wheat in the British market, but in every way our competitors have gained.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

This afternoon I spoke of the Argentine. What is taking place in the Argentine at this very moment? All through the campaign of last year we stressed the possibility of Britain turning to the Argentine for more of her wheat unless it were found possible to bring about closer relations with Canada. Only this morning His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales is reported in the press as emphasizing the necessity of trade and exchange and pointing out what it means to Britain to have the good will of the Argentine, not by bargaining, but by good will and voluntary cooperation in the matter of trade. Why do we not hear similar sentiments uttered in Canada to-day?

Hon. gentlemen opposite have been talking about Russia. We will hear a good deal about Russia before the next few years are over, and I would ask them this question: do the}' think they have improved the chances of the sale of Canadian wheat in the markets of the world by the summary way in which they have dealt with Russia? Have they had put before them any single request from the government of Russia which has called forth the particular action to which reference is made in the speech from the throne? Have they had any communication of any character from the government which has necessitated the putting through in the manner it was that particular order in council? I do not intend to discuss the order at the moment, but I do wish to deal generally with the manner in which things are being done by this present administration.

Reference has been made to the possibility of conferences being called to rationalize as it is termed, the wheat supply of the world. Some day the different governments of the world may sit down together to see if they cannot come to some agreement among themselves which will enable each one to send its supply of wheat in a particular direction. As I understand anything I have read of overtures that have been made, Russia has indicated the possibility of something of the kind; that at some time she would be prepared to confer with other governments to reach if possible agreement in the matter of the distribution of the world's supply of wheat. If such a conference ever took place, would not Canada feel certain of getting her appropriate share of the British market? Should she not feel entitled to expect that she could rely on Britain to see that she got a first chance in the British market? But what is the position to-day? Suppose Russia has already taken offence at what my hon. friend has done? Suppose the Russian government says: We

have not been competing with Canada in any

appreciable way, we have not entered her markets, but we have been ostracized because we were prepared to send to her both money and commodities in exchange for the opportunity of buying from her certain commodities. Suppose Russia says that as a result of all this she will enter the markets of the world to compete with Canada and will carry on competition in a way never dreamed of before. Suppose she says: We will show Canada whether or not she can ostracize us from the markets of the world. Where are our farmers in western Canada going to be as the result of action of that kind?

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY MOVED BY MR. MAX. D. CORMIER AND SECONDED BY MR. VICTOR C. PORTEOUS
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Shame.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY MOVED BY MR. MAX. D. CORMIER AND SECONDED BY MR. VICTOR C. PORTEOUS
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

My hon. friends opposite called a special session to put up tariffs under the guise of alleviating the necessitous condition of the poor; they put on the cloak of charity in introducing that legislation for their special interests. In the name of patriotism they talked about "Canada first." For what purpose? To give more protection and thus to help their special interests. Now in the name of religion they pursue the same protectionist ends and say that because of certain religious doctrines adopted by Russia this country is to cut itself off from trade with another part of the empire.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY MOVED BY MR. MAX. D. CORMIER AND SECONDED BY MR. VICTOR C. PORTEOUS
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Prime Minister; Minister of Finance and Receiver General; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

Another part of the empire?

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY MOVED BY MR. MAX. D. CORMIER AND SECONDED BY MR. VICTOR C. PORTEOUS
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

With another

part of the world and affecting other parts of the empire. The attitude adopted by my hon. friend affects very much the relations of the empire with Russia. I am not commenting at the moment upon what he may have had in view; what I am speaking of is the manner in which he did what he did, and also the consequence of it in the light of world conditions. There again is where we have suffered as a result of this conference. Our competitors have got the better of us and are getting the better of us more than ever.

When Britain finds, as she will find, that it is more difficult to trade with Canada because of what has been d-one in increasing tariffs for bargaining purposes, she will look elsewhere for her trade and we will be unable to hold even the market that we have there to-day. The war taught us that markets once lost are very difficult to regain, and it matters not whether the war be one of arms or an economic war, if the tactics adopted are of the kind which seek to exclude certain nations from trade with each other the result is bound to be the same so far as the loss of markets is concerned.

54 COMMONS

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

This question is all important when one considers the fact that another economic conference is to be held this fall. I have spoken on this matter at length because of the fact that that conference is to be held. I want to see that conference succeed.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY MOVED BY MR. MAX. D. CORMIER AND SECONDED BY MR. VICTOR C. PORTEOUS
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY MOVED BY MR. MAX. D. CORMIER AND SECONDED BY MR. VICTOR C. PORTEOUS
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Hon. gentlemen opposite may jeer; that may be their attitude, but it is not mine. I want to see that conference succeed, and that is why I am placing the facts upon Hansard so that they may be a matter of permanent record. I want to oblige this government to take notice of the nature of its proposals and their effect. We do not want a second failure; we want to avoid further quarrels and ruptures. I want to help to create public opinion in this country and I intend if need be to go from one end of the country to the other in order to do so. I intend to try to see that hon. gentlemen opposite, for the sake of protecting a few of their special friends and special interests, and in order to create more monopolies in this country, shall not make more difficult the lot of the farmer and of the workingman of Canada.

Mv hon. friends know, as I said this afternoon, that these proposals as they stand cannot succeed. The government must change its proposals if it wants to get anywhere in the conference this fall. I have spoken at the length I have for the further reason that the speech from the throne, referred to this afternoon, indicates, not that the government is modifying its extraordinary view, but that it intends to go on with its policy of increasing tariffs and giving to itself added powers with reference thereto. If that extraordinary attitude is persisted in conditions in this country wdl go from bad to worse. We have on that account to watch very carefully the policy of the present administration as related to the course of events.

May I state further that already we are beginning to experience in a very critical way the effects of the policies of hon. gentlemen opposite as put through at the last special session. Look at. the figures on trade and see how trade is diminishing. Look at the figures with respect to national revenue and see how the national revenue from customs dues is shrinking. Wait until the budget comes down and see what the additional taxation will be. Already we can see the effect upon the western farmers in loss of purchasing power. The western farmers not being able to sell their grain, and the producers generally not being able to get rid of their surplus products, where are we going to get the purchasing power to

stimulate our industries? It may be true that here and there, where a protecting wall has been thrown around an individual industry, there has been created a temporary boom. That undoubtedly happens, and will happen in certain cases where competition from without is suddenly checked. But what takes place after the point has been reached where there is no one to purchase the products of the industries thus artificially stimulated? When the demand falls off, what will happen to the transportation companies, the banks, the wholesale and retail businesses of the country? What is to be the lot of every householder in the land when we experience more contraction in the trade of the country? These things are of the greatest importance and cannot receive too much in the way of consideration. Why is it that the right hon. gentleman, in view of all these things, holds to the course he does?

I have said and I repeat, that I believe my right hon. friend is sincere in his belief that the creation of an economic unit in Canada, of an economic unit throughout the empire, is a good thing, is an ideal to be aimed at; but he has not examined carefully into all phases of these matters, nor understood them, otherwise he would not have proceeded in the way he has.

The trouble with hon. gentlemen opposite is this: they have started with false assumptions; they have assumed that this idea of an economic unit, because it has unity about it, is a good thing in itself, without examining what in reality is meant and where it is going to lead. They have started out with the idea that an economic unit is a good thing, without carefully examining whether the realization of such a conception is going to lead in the matter of international trade. The mistake that they are making all through is that they are confusing an abstract idea with a concrete proposal. I ask hon. members to consider that. There are certain abstract ideals which all hold in common: "Canada first", yes, in a true sense of the term; "empire first", yes, in a true sense of the term; Canadian unity, yes; imperial unity, yes; all these matters if you like. These abstract ideals are very fine, but let us see what in the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite they are being made to mean. My hon. friends opposite identify them with concrete proposals and these concrete proposals when put into operation will not realize the ideals which are aimed at.

Take the ideal of "Canada first". If by "Canada first" is meant that in national affairs a man should think of his own country first and will naturally do what is in the interest of his own country, everyone is for

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

"Canada first". But if you mean a particular economic policy, which my right hon. friend says is what he means, a particular extreme form of protection which he told the British government is what "Canada first" means, this economic unit idea, a high tariff that will exclude goods from other countries from coming into this country at all, that will put an end to trade; if you call that concrete proposal "Canada first" you will never realize any worthy ideal of "Canada first" you may have. It is like speaking of "home first", as regards a man in his domestic relations. Naturally everyone will think of his own home first, but when you come to translate that aim or ideal into a concrete proposal such as hon. gentlemen opposite have translated "Canada first" into, you get something resembling what would take place were a man to put a great wall around his garden, his grounds, thereby excluding everybody and saying this is "home first." That is a parallel case. Similarly if by imperial unity, is meant that the preservation of unity throughout the different parts of the empire is a good thing no possible exception can be taken but when you come to analyse what hon. gentlemen opposite mean by it, you find the means with which they identify the aim will not gain that particular end. Similarly with regard to preference. We are all in favour of preference as rightly understood; but when you identify it with an empire preference based on tariff walls in the first instance and brought into being only as something over and above these walls, you get something that does injustice to, nay something that may wholly negative the object in view.

Not only have hon. gentlemen opposite the wrong attitude, but they also make the further mistake, that they will not admit that any other view can possibly be right. They will not see and they will not admit to themselves that there be any other conception, any other way of bringing about imperial unity, of furthering the interests of Canada and of the empire than the particular means which they themselves advocate.

In conclusion may I say this word to my right hon. friend. He will find some day that "Canada first," rightly understood, is something very different from anything that can be embodied in a fiscal policy let alone a fiscal policy which is based on an extreme form of protection. He will find that "empire first," if he wishes to use that particular phrase, is also something very different from anything than can be expressed in terms of a fiscal policy, let alone a policy in the nature of centralized economic imperialism. They differ in kind. Fiscal policies are not

a thing of the spirit. All that relates to "Canada first" and "Empire first" in any true sense is of the spirit; not a thing of matter, whether it be material substances or material force. He will find that the primary position of this Dominion, the primary position of the British Empire is due to something more profound than any fiscal policy let alone a fiscal policy that seeks to isolate the Dominion and to isolate the Empire. What has made the British Empire what it is, what has made Canada what it is, is not any fiscal policy. It is a thing of the spirit; it is the spirit that has sent the missionary and the explorer into distant lands, the coureur de bois into the hidden recesses of the forests, the pioneer and the trader beyond the bounds of settlement; the spirit that has sent British ships across all the oceans of the globe and caused the British flag to find a place in every clime. It is the enlightened spirit that has broken down barriers, not the benighted spirit that has erected them, the spirit of freedom that in the world of commerce and in trade, as in the world of politics, has made for larger liberty, and ever wider contacts with mankind; the spirit not of one nation only, or of one empire only but the spirit of the League of Nations; the spirit not of fear but the spirit of faith.

We on this side believe in those policies which have helped to advance Canada, and which have helped to advance the empire. We on this side believe that by the same spirit being given its opportunity, our country will develop and more in the way of freedom and happiness will result. We believe that in the extremes to which my right hon. friend is going in his policies we are not helping to unite Canada, we are not helping to create harmony, unity or progress in this country. We believe harmony, unity and progress will come about only as the result of policies which will have like concern for the well-being of all. We take the view that the policies that have led to unity, harmony and progress in this country in the past will do so again if they are continued. But we also take the view that no extreme of policy, I care not whether it be the extreme of protection or the extreme of free trade, in a country of diversified interests like Canada will ever unite the country and keep it harmonious and on the path of progress. A policy which will bring about unity, harmony and progress must be one that will have regard for all classes and all conditions, that will help to reconcile differences as they arise.

My hon. friend will find too, that it is the policy of conciliation and not that of coercion that in the end will win the day.

Naturalization Act

The extreme of economic policy, national, imperial and international as propounded by the present Prime Minister, and the coercive methods by which he seeks to advance them are the negation of all that makes for harmony, all that makes for unity, all that makes for progress in our country in the empire and throughout the world. To these methods and policies in the extremes in which they are put forth, we who seek the preservation of the true spirit of our country and of the British Commonwealth of Nations are unalterably opposed. We wish to see our country-first and our empire first; not first in assurance and arrogance, and in the methods of the blaster and the gunman, but first in those characteristics of true greatness which have given to Canada and to the empire the primacy which they to-day enjoy.

I beg to move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton) that the following be added to the address to His Excellency:

We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that this house, while recognizing the serious economic conditions prevailing throughout the world, regrets that the policies of His Majety's government have not only failed to afford a remedy for employment and agricultural distress, as pledged by the Prime Minister and his colleagues, but have served further to prejudice the deplorable position of the agricultural interests, thereby causing additional unemployment and substantially reducing the national revenue.

The house believes that the proposals made to the Imperial economic conference and' the manner in which they were submitted and discussed by the Prime Minister of Canada were responsible for the failure of the conference to accomplish its purpose in London, and that the successful development of Canada's trade relations with Great Britain has been adversely affected thereby.

The house is further of the opinion that, if these proposals and certain other of the policies of the government are persisted in, as would appear to be the intention of the government as outlined in the speech from the throne, the very serious condition which exists at the present time will be intensified rather vhan relieved.

On motion of Mr. Bennett the debate was adjourned.

On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Tuesday, March 17, 1931

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY MOVED BY MR. MAX. D. CORMIER AND SECONDED BY MR. VICTOR C. PORTEOUS
Permalink

March 16, 1931