Mr. BENNETT:

I certainly endeavoured to leave that impression. At a gathering of a small number of people it was left with them by Mr. Massey. But as the hon. gentleman says, a document similar in terms did, I believe, appear in the Canadian Forum. You see that is the way it is done-never attack directly; do it obliquely.

I wish now to direct my attention for a few moments only to the matter that the right hon. gentleman referred to this afternoon- the Imperial conference to be held in this city this year. It is said by him to be regarded as the adjournment of the former conference. I believe it is not so regarded; at least I am so informed. It may be that the conference of 1930 was a failure. The right hon. gentleman said it has been described by someone as a tragedy.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

By the Prime Minister of Australia.

Mr. BENNETT:

Yes, Mr. Scullin.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

And the exPrime Minister, Mr. Bruce.

Mr. BENNETT:

Mr. Bruce was dealing with another phase altogether.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

No.

Mr. BENNETT:

Just let me proceed.

He doesn't like it.

Mr. BENNETT:

Do not be so anxious to interrupt without being able to offer any contribution of assistance. I am always willing to be interrupted by those who have any suggestions to make that call for an answer, but the suggestions that come from the hon. gentleman who has been making them sotto voce are not calculated either to enhance the debate or to render any contribution to our knowledge. Whether or not the conference was a- failure is a matter of opinion. So far as my position in it is concerned, it seems to afford great satisfaction to a number of gentlemen opposite to endeavour to have it said that I am responsible for what they conceive to be the failure of the conference.

Hear, hear.

Mr. BENNETT:

Well, if they are interested in reading Hansard they will find that as long ago as 1928 I had said that if we had power my first effort would be to endeavour to call an economic conference of the British empire in this city. I went to London with a very definite idea in my mind. I gave expression to it, and I believed it would be received exactly as it was received. But I said there was a principle that had to be settled first. Those who will do me the honour of reading what I said will find clearly stated the principle that must first be settled. The electors of Great Britain settled it. As soon as they had settled it I invited the representatives of every part of the British Empire to come to this city to a conference, and the date has been fixed for the 21st day of July. They are coming, so they say. Therefore the purpose which I had in mind in 1928, which I never failed to keep before me, the one ambition that I entertained if we did come to power I hoped to see realized. In that regard may I say that I have under my hand the memorandum left by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1902, when he ceased to agree with his colleagues and took a definite stand with respect to Imperial preference. It is true it was not followed by action, it is true it was not followed by any considered effort to achieve it, but when I read it it will be realized that we at least have now seen accomplished that which he said should be accomplished but failed to accomplish, as did his successors in office. Let us look at it. Because of the misstatements that have 'been made from time to time, year after year, I am going to take the trouble to read this into Hansard. It has to do with the conference of 1902 beginning at page 36. The Canadian ministers handed in the following

The Budget-Mr. Bennett

memorandum to explain their attitude on this question, that of preference. Listen to these words:

Memorandum by Canadian Ministers

This subject has frequently engaged the attention of the conference. At an early stage Mr. Chamberlain suggested that the question could most conveniently be considered by the representatives of each colony. . . .

They were then called colonies, not dominions.

. . . placing themselves in communication

with the president of the Board of Trade, Mr. Gerald Balfour, and the officials of that department. Accordingly the Canadian ministers had several protracted interviews with these gentlemen, and discussed the whole subject very fully. Opportunity was also taken to present the Canadian view to Mr. Chamberlain. Now that the conference is drawing to a close, it is desirable that the course of the discussion, and the conclusions reached by the Canadian ministers, should be outlined and placed on record.

From the beginning of the proceedings the Canadian ministers have claimed that in consideration of the substantial preference given by Canada for some years to the products of the mother country, Canadian food products should be exempted in the United Kingdom, from the duties recently imposed. Representations to this effect previously, made through the High Commissioner for Canada were supplemented by the ministers, both in writing and in the personal interviews with the imperial ministers.

Mr. Chamberlain, on behalf of the Imperial government, was unable to agree to the proposals of the Canadian ministers. He represented that the Imperial government, while highly appreciating the good feeling manifested by Canada in the granting of preferential treatment, did not think the material results to the trade of the United Kingdom were as great as the Canadian ministers claimed. He further said that the change desired by Canada would be an important departure from the established fiscal policy of the kingdom, and that if the proposals could be entertained at all. as to which he was not prepared to commit himself, it would be necessary for Canada to offer some material tariff concessions beyond those which she had already voluntarily given.

I would say that sounds like bargaining.

The Canadian ministers, therefore, submitted a memorandum on the subject of the advantages already received by Great Britain from the Canadian preferential tariff, with a view to showing that these were of much value, and entitled to weight in the consideration of the whole subject.

While urging that the benefits of the preference were such as to entitle Canada to the desired exemption from the duties on food products in the United Kingdom, the Canadian ministers stated that within certain limitations they were prepared to consider the request of Mr. Chamberlain for further concessions in return for the desired preference in the markets of the United Kingdom.

Is that bargaining or is it not?

While it was not deemed necessary to enter into questions as to the wisdom or unwisdom of the policy adopted by all governments in Canada, of raising the revenues chiefly from customs duties, the Canadian ministers pointed out that under that policy large industries had grown up which had to be considered in connection with proposed tariff changes.

I wonder what more than that was said by this government.

Large reductions of duties had been made in recent years, especially on British imports. It was feared that in some lines of importance further reductions might create a disturbance of trade which would not be conducive to the welfare of the country. But the Canadian ministers pointed out that the Canadian tariff was by no means prohibitive, that large quantities of goods were imported, and that a great proportion of these came from foreign countries. In any lines in which it appeared that the goods would be manufactured in Great Britain it might be possible to so readjust some duties as to give an additional advantage to the British manufacturer, and thus turn over to him a volume of trade which at present is held by the manufacturers of foreign countries.

Is that bargaining or is it not?

The Canadian ministers stated that if they could be assured that the Imperial government would accept the principle of preferential trade generally, and particularly grant to the food products of Canada in the United Kingdom exemption from duties now levied, or hereafter imposed, they, the Canadian ministers, would be prepared to go further into the subject and endeavour to give to the British manufacturer some increased advantage over his foreign competitors in the markets of Canada.

Is that bargaining or is it not?

Meanwhile the Canadian ministers determined to present to the conference a resolution affirming the principle of preferential trade, and the desirability of its adoption by the colonies generally, and also expressing the opinion of the prime ministers of the colonies that His Majesty's government should reciprocate by granting preferential terms to the products of the colonies in the markets of the mother country. The Canadian ministers desired to have it understood that they took this course with the strong hope and expectation that the principle of preferential trade would be more widely accepted by the colonies, and that the mother country would at an early day apply the same principle by exempting the products of the colonies from customs duties.

Listen to these words, Mr. Speaker, which constitute the mild threat about which we have heard. Perhaps in this age it was expressed more vigorously, but we gave utterance to exactly the same thoughts here contained.

If, after using every effort to bring about such a readjustment of the fiscal policy of the empire, the Canadian government should find

The Budget-Mr. Bennett

that the principle of preferential trade is not acceptable to the colonies generally, or the mother country, then Canada should be free to take such action as might be deemed necessary in the presence of such conditions.

London, August 11, 1902.

I wonder what hon. gentlemen opposite will say now.

Mr. RALSTON:

Will my hon. friend permit me a question?

Sit down.

Mr. RALSTON:

Will my right hon. friend permit me just to remind him that at that time the fiscal policy of Great Britain was the imposition of duties, and all that was being suggested by the Canadian representatives was the hope and the expectation that Great Britain would reduce its tariff as against Canada. My right hon. friend-

Mr. BENNETT:

I have read it.

Mr. RALSTON:

But that is what it says.

Order.

Mr. BENNETT:

I think the hon. gentleman might take his seat. I do not desire to enter into a discussion with him.

Mr. RALSTON:

My right hon. friend

offered in exchange-

Mr. BENNETT:

The hon. gentleman has said that the fiscal policy of Great Britain at that time imposed a duty upon corn, and that Canada desired to secure free entry for her wheat into the markets of the United Kingdom. But I have read the memorandum, and it speaks for itself. It is a bargaining memorandum, and it speaks for itself. It is a bargaining memorandum and it threatened England, saying that unless she did give a preferential tariff Canada would take such steps as might be regarded as necessary.