Mr. GOBEIL:

The last sentence reads as

follows:

Again, Mr. Lapointe has performed excellent work in South Huron, and, the hon. Mr. King must feel pleased with him.

The result of the vote in three or four polls in the district where the former Minister of Justice spoke showed an increase of 15 in the Conservative vote.

Mr. CASGRAIN:

How many did the hon. member get in the district where he spoke? Only seven votes.

Mr. GOBEIL:

In the 1930 elections the

Conservatives polled 144 votes in that district, while in 1932 they polled 159. I do not think the hon. member for Quebec East should be so proud of the results he obtained in South Huron.

I am glad that this by-election was mentioned tonight because there is another matter to which I wish to refer. I took down some of the statements made by the former Minister of Justice while in this constituency. He was claiming that the policy of the Liberal party was a policy of love-how dearly he loved them all there! I shall first give his remarks in French and then in English. They were:

Les femmes de ma province votent "liberal" parce qu'elles aiment quelqu'un et votent "conservateur" parce qu'elles detestent quelqu'un.

The English translation is as follows:

The French women in my province vote Liberal because they love somebody and vote Conservative because they hate somebody.

I consider that an insult to the women of Quebec, and I know they will resent it. When the women of Quebec cast their vote they use their good judgment. They vote Conservative because they believe that party is the best. Those who vote Liberal do not do so because of the merits of the question at issue or because they are convinced; they do so because they hate or love somebody, says the hon. gentleman.

Mr. FAFARD:

Because they love a principle.

Mr. POULIOT:

Because they hate Toryism.

Mr. GOBEIL:

I am not surprised at this

statement having been made by the hon.

member for Quebec East, because every time he has spoken in this house he has used the same language as he did the other day, when-

Mr. MERCIER (St, Henri):

Oh, oh.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order. I would regret

to have to name any hon. member present, but if I am forced to do so, 1 will.

Mr. GOBEIL:

-he declared that the Prime Minister said it was unpatriotic to discuss these agreements. There again, there was the word to the province of Quebec; there again, there was the word from that hon. gentleman in the county of South Huron to go to the province of Quebec in an endeavour to raise racial prejudice and also religious prejudice if possible. I am pleased that the hon. member gave me the opportunity to make that declaration from my seat in the house, and I declare now that these are the exact words which the hon. member for Quebec East uttered in South Huron during the campaign.

Mr. HERMAS DESLAURIERS (St. Mary's) (Translation):

Mr. Speaker, I wish

to heartily congratulate the speaker who has just preceded me in this debate on the pains he took to prove his contentions as to our future prosperity; I especially congratulate him on the great faith he reposes in his party. However, I must confess that he has not succeeded in convincing me, notwithstanding all his endeavours.

After listening to the speeches delivered in the house on the subject matter of this debate, especially those of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), we can safely state that speech was given to man to disguise his thoughts, so true is it that this measure, called Imperial pacts, presented under the veil of the Tory policy of high protection, is but a bold revival of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain's imperialism. The Prime Minister warned us that what we have to consider today, is but the thin edge of the first part of his program for the future; namely a trade pact for the present; the other part will follow later; it will probably be a military alliance. That was the new Zollverein cherished by Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, a doctrine described with so much spirit by the English poet Kipling.

I wish to draw the attention of the house to an editorial published October 18, 1932, in the Toronto Globe, a well known Imperialist newspaper. This article strengthens my argu-

United Kingdom

ment and well illustrates, particularly, the far-reaching effect of the measure that we are asked to approve-a thing which I will never do. The editorial is as follows:

An Undefended Empire

Mr. Hector Bywater, naval correspondent of the London Daily Telegraph, has made the disclosure that "informal conversations at Ottawa during the recent Imperial conference revealed to British ministers unexpected readiness on the part of Canada, Australia and New Zealand to recognize their obligations in the cause of empire sea defence." All that was said in the casual and formal conversations of the five-week conference will never be known, but it is not without reason that a subject of such general empire importance, and particularly to the southern dominions, was introduced at some of the stages.

1 he nature of this conference, however, precluded action on the subject of defence.

Doubtless these informal conversations were not between ushers or messengers at the last conference. I think the hon. Prime Minister might perhaps be able to inform us who are the members of his cabinet who held these informal conversations, for, after all, we are gre'.tly interested in the matter. The right hon. Prime Minister stated, at the Tory meeting held in Winnipeg, and at which he w-as chosen as leader of the Conservative party, that he intended to follow, without restriction, the policy of Sir John A. Macdonald, should his party assume power. I think no one will gainsay this statement.

Although, at one period about 1854, Sir John Macdonald proved himself more Canadian than Imperialist, which is greatly to his credit and glory, later coming in contact with those who held imperialistic views, influential and subtle men, having to often visit England, the Colonial Office, as Prime Minister of Canada, his views and patriotic ideas evolved and changed to such an extent that in 1884, at a conference held at the Colonial Office, he was an entirely new man, he had become a strong Imperialist, not only from the viewpoint of trade, for he agreed to an offensive and defensive alliance with England as regards all possible war. Therefore, if the words of the right hon. Prime Minister have any meaning they point out the path in which he will lead us to the very end, should he be given the opportunity and should Providence not place, as it did in the path of Sir John Macdonald, obstacles to prevent him from realizing his dream. Is that the purport of the measure which he asks us to approve today? Does it constitute a continuation of Sir John A. Macdonald's policy and scheme of Imperial defence to which the Toronto Globe editorial Tefers? We can suppose so and are entitled to know the facts because

the Canadian people are greatly interested. At all events, if such is the case, I entirely disagree with the views of the Prime Minister, and it is our duty to refuse our sanction to these pacts because this legislation is contrary to the autonomy which we jealously' guard, a blow directed against the privileges >0 laboriously and dearly conquered, and it would be criminal to encroach the least on them.

These pacts are not tariff agreements such as we are in the habit of seeing in our annual budgets, as for instance, in the Dunning budget of 1930. They form a complete contract, a trade alliance where the provisions are stipulated and conditions definitely stated -which is an entirely different thing. For a period of five years none of the contracting parties can cancel these pacts without the consent of the other. If, for one reason or another, the agreement is not to the advantage of one of the contracting parties, said party can only give notice, six months before the expiration of the five years, that it intends to cancel the contract. I state that it is an absurd and singular stipulation.

According to article 21, the contracting parties agree to adopt the measures necessary to prohibit the importation of goods coming from foreign countries, if such importation prejudices the present pact. As it is acknowledged that the British Commonwealth cannot entirely absorb our production, what chance have we to sell the surplus of our products in countries which are not included in the British Empire, if they welcome our goods with the same feelings as we would have had for theirs? Nothing should make us forget that all trade must rest on the law of supply and demand, it is the supreme principle, in matters of trade.

But, all the provisions of this imperial pact operate against the freedom of our trade. We cannot agree to this pact without taking the risk of turning Canada into a warehouse for the benefit of Great Britain, which will be free to take what best suits her and when she pleases. We shall be unable to plead ignorance having been warned more than once by the leading English statesmen that England could not possibly sacrifice her foreign markets -quite rightly, because she leaves herself open to disaster. In fact, keeping in mind that our population is not over 10.000,000, and that our trade with the mother country shows a balance of trade unfavourable to her, it is only rational to believe that she will not sacrifice for us all the foreign markets which are her mainstay.

420 COMMONS

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements

The vague, obscure and unintelligible wording of a number of these imperial agreements, edited by Mr. Neville Chamberlain, the reserves and privileges attached to each article of the treaty lead us to believe that England has no desire to commit herself in these agreements. Here and elsewhere, the world price will be the barometer by which she will be guided. In one case she is privileged to contract with foreign countries so as to obtain tariff favours, if her barometer points that way; elsewhere, the government of the United Kingdom reserves its liberty to adopt certain measures before placing the pact in her statutes; in another article, we find that privileges are granted to British producers to be heard before the tariff commission, with conclusions previously drawn and settled-[DOT] one can easily imagine. So that it is rational to conclude that this trade agreement can be greatly to the advantage of England, but I cannot understand what benefit we are to derive from it. Theoretically, this scheme of isolating other nations can be imagined, but, in practice, the thing is not feasible. Germany, in the past, failed in her scheme of Pan-Germanism. The United States have endeavoured, within the last year, under a Tory regime to create a Pan-American Union: today, we are aware in what situation that country finds herself; to-morrow, we can say with all certainty that, if a trial is made, Pan-Saxonism, will have the same fate.

For a number of years, the United States governed by a Tory regime, called Republican, endeavoured to isolate themselves by raising a high tariff wall against the entire world; today that power which comprises a population of 120,000,000 people, possessing almost all the gold in the world, since the war, finds herself in a more precarious situation than all other countries. Distress is met everywhere amongst its population, she finds no sympathy from any quarter and, to-morrow her people, disgusted, will snatch the power from this uncompromising party, to confide it to democrats-and it will be in the best interests of that country'.

At no time, did the United States and Canada, enjoy more prosperity than when the great treaty of reciprocity between our country and the United States was in effect between 1854 and 1866, then the United States citizens came to our shores and purchased- at good prices Canadian products: hay, eggs, butter, cream, vegetables and poultry; nothing could resist the American Eagle, and everybody was happy.

When, after ten years of existence, this treaty was abrogated, owing to the ill-feelings

*reated by the war of the north against the

TMr. Deslnuriers.]

south, the situation in Canada became so alarming that at a moment, England being unable to help, a movement started and petitions asking annexation to the United States were covered with signatures. We can thank Providence, that we had at that period, as Governor General of Canada, the great statesman, the illustrious Lord Elgin, who succeeded in having the United States agree to a treaty of reciprocity, by the mediation of his brother-in-law, Lord Grey, which resulted in bringing peace and prosperity to Canada.

Such as they are, these pacts are inacceptable to us, since they force us to enact measures which will certainly strongly offend our neighbours, with whom we have every interest to live in peace. It is not desirable to take the risk that some day Great Britain will cancel the agreements and leave us, after having guaranteed with everyone, in a situation similar to the one which existed in 1866. If this happened, would we find another Elgin? It is more than doubtful. What would happen then? Would it not be assuredly annexation, precisely asked by those who, today, advocate the enactment of these agreements? It is entirely nonsensical on our part to seek to break away from our neighbours, the United States from whom we are only separated by an imaginary line, whose habits are the same as ours, and endeavour to alter the natural course of our trade, when the Tories are on the eve of being overthrown and when the new President who will assume power will be in a position to offer us proposals of reciprocity which, like in the past, will bring back prosperity to Canada. Before ratifying these pacts, it is essential that we should take into consideration the circumstances under which we are negotiating. All the European powers have recognized the Russian form of government, our principal competitor. England necessarily, cannot set aside this large market with its 145,000,000 people. Notwithstanding the pacts which we are discussing, at present, she will certainly find the means of trading with that country, if we are to judge from what we read in the press. The same applies to the other European nations. Canada has placed an embargo on Russian products and has not recognized the Soviet government. Had this embargo not existed, Canada could obtain, at retail prices, during this crisis, gasoline at 12 cents per gallon, instead of paying 25 to 30 cents. It could purchase first quality anthracite coal at $6 per ton, retail price, instead of paying $16 to $17. These advantages which we deny ourselves because of the government's attitude, others will reap the benefit; the European nations will purchase these products which we need; they will be resold to us at

United Kingdom

a good profit. We cannot help being cheated when the occasion arises. Canada will use as she is now doing, Russian coal under a pseudonym paying S16 instead of $6; it will purchase Russian gasoline under a sham name at 30 cents per gallon, and who will be able to detect these products and prevent this trade? Absolutely no one.

Moreover, have we not tried out these business methods when, after the war of 1914, we decided to ban German goods? They nevertheless continued to enter our country; boxes of boots and shoes found their way here not under the label "made in Germany" but under that of "made in England". And it was only long after that the deception was discovered and that we were able to control somewhat this method of doing business:

These agreements mean the isolation of the British Commonwealth from the other nations of the world, an essentially false principle. We are requested to be hostile towards our neighbours; we are required to provoke all nations with which we are on friendly terms, so as to enforce this new policy of isolation. The government wishes us to approve its attitude, notably towards the United States which has taken upon itself the mission of protecting us against all European attacks, creditors to whom we address ourselves almost exclusively to finance us and which we invite to invest with us so as to develop our natural resources, because we lack capital; a country which possesses already 70 per cent of Canada's capital and which, for the last century has been living in peace with us, having only the stars in the heavens and their good will to protect our frontier-our best customer. I think that this warlike and aggressive attitude can have no other result than creating a coolness and friction which will turn quicker than one expects to a dangerous enmity. Let us suppose, for a moment, that the United States refuse us further loans or renewal of our loans, that they withdraw the capital invested in Canadian industries and close the latter's doors, that they abandon Canada entirely to its own resources, can we not assert, sir, that in a very short time the situation in Canada would become very precarious. It is true that the Tory regime of the United States has been, within the last years, very unfriendly to the interests of Canada. This does not surprise us, because Tory regimes have always been the promoters of high tariff protection and the originators of food baskets which, I might say, they distributed to the people they govern, when the former are reduced to the state of begging, as it is the case, today. How long will our neighbours put up with

these vexations? Will they wait five years, or the completicn of the St. Lawrence waterways to inform us? I am unable to say. In 1775, that nation which only had 20,000,000 population and had not the wealth which they possess today declared its independence.

I stated in this house that I had little faith in the League of Nations to ensure world peace, because good will does not exist among the nations which form part of it. Canada is a member of the League, her contribution amounts to $300,000 per year. She is supposed to help in promoting peace. However, today, her government adopts a threatening attitude which will rouse the nations of the world against her. Are we not right when we state that gocd will is lacking among the nations of the league and would it not be the proper time, if we desire peace, to recall our representatives from Geneva and agree with the United States to hold conferences in Washington in order to protect ourselves? I think that this would be more practical.

The right hon. Prime Minister convened parliament earlier than usual, owing to the importance of the agreements which he wishes us to sanction. In a few weeks a world conference will be held in England. Canada will be represented. Does the Prime Minister expect the nations which are not included in the British Commonwealth will be well disposed to grant concessions to Canada and the British empire, knowing fully well that, in the future, they will be forced to pay tribute to British nations in order to trade with them? Logically, this meeting should give them an excellent opportunity of organizing their forces to resist British Tory Imperialism. Even, I would not be astonished, that, from that date, a conflict sprang up-in trade, financial and perhaps military matters-in which Canada will have great vexations, unless this movement of isolation be dropped.

Mr. Speaker, before closing my remarks, I have no hesitation to state that these agreements are essentially founded on a false principle, that the freedom of trade is threatened, that our autonomy is seriously affected, that we have no right to turn our back against our neighbours, the United States so as to play the part of dupe in Europe. Therefore, for the future cf Canada and the empire, in the interest of my country, I shall not sanction by my vote the recommendations of the Imperial economic conference.

Mr. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):

On Monday afternoon the house listened for nearly four hours to the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) as he exposed his views with regard to world trade,

/mperial Conference-Trade

Agreements

the history of Canada's relations thereto, and the treaty. As the cloud of words rose and as hour succeeded hour I waited with what patience I could, realizing that eventually scolding would probably give place to a definite statement of the right hon. gentleman's reasons for opposing this treaty. Freer trade it is mutually agreed is desirable, but in the opinion of the right hon. gentleman this treaty is not at all the way to go about it, if we wish to attain it. The statements which the right hon. gentleman made would appear to me to require such a very great deal of study before they could be accepted as facts by his listeners that I desire to draw attention to one or two of them.

Some years age the right hon. gentleman searched Canada most diligently to find combines and monopolies so that he might proceed against them. In his speech the other day he alluded once more to combines, linking them up in some way with the Tories who were present at the conference at Ottawa. He said that there had been a Tory conspiracy. It is well known that the delegates who were here for the conference were the appointed representatives of certain governments in the empire-the government of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, of Mr, De Valera, of General Hertzog, of Mr. Coates-so I think the right hon. gentleman will have to afford some further proof of the fact that they could honestly be described as Tories before the intelligent public will accept his statement as fact.

There was another statement which came a good deal earlier in his speech to which I also want to draw attention. At page 282 of Hansard the right hon. gentleman is reported as saying:

Die Liberal party has always advocated greater freedom of trade.

With that I do not think there can be any disagreement. He goes on:

When it lias advocated a tariff, it has been a tariff for revenue, protection being only incidental.

Has it not? On most of the occasions when I have intervened in debate in this house since 1924 it has been for the purpose of putting forward the views and aspirations of agricultural producers, principally of those engaged in the production of vegetables and fruit. I have endeavoured to put before the house certain opinions which are strongly held by the fruit growers, and to argue that surely it would be wise to give the fruit grower such assistance as may be necessary to enable him to market his produce within Canada so long as he has produce fit for that market. That industry might perhaps be

described as one of the minor industries of Canada, yet it affects five provinces and a score or two of constituencies. In that long fight, the dogged fight that the fruit growers carried on throughout the regime of the right hon. gentleman, they endeavoured to point out that without the assistance of some special tariff arrangement it would be extremely difficult for them to continue operations. The right hon. gentleman's principles stood in the way. He would not agree to the collection of a special duty which would stop dumping. His principles prevented him taking the action suggested. But the principles of the Liberal party did not prevent a Liberal minister from inserting a dumping clause in the customs tariff, nor did Liberal principles prevent another Liberal minister from amending the Customs Act to provide machinery to enable the dumping clause to be put into effect. Their principles became a nuisance to them only when they were asked to operate that machinery.

Further than that, when a government of protectionist views intervened in office for a fen- months the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) promptly put that Liberal machinery into action and the fruit grower immediately felt the benefit.

Mr. AOUNG (Weyburn):

And we paid for it.

Mr. STIRLING:

Nor can it be shown, despite the oft-repeated views of the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young), that the Canadian consumer suffered one whit thereby. But when the Liberal government returned to office shortly after, its principles again did not stand in the way of its retaining that machinery in action, and for a year and a half, through two shipping seasons, the fruit grower had the assistance of that machinery. Then came the inevitable explosion which must always occur sooner or later in so composite a party as that which my right hon. friend leads, and the orders in council were swept away, dumping from a foreign country was resumed, bang went the trade affiliations which had grown up in those two years, and the fruit growers once more slid into a depression-a depression caused by the Liberal government.

In 1930, however, it was necessary that a preelection budget should be prepared, a budget udiich should contain something for everybody, a budget which might be likened to a chart to be used by Liberal navigators in (he waters of the election, with parts of which they would be able to satisfy the requirements of the farmer, with other parts of which they

United Kingdom

would bo able to convince the industrialist that the Liberal party had every safeguard to navigation which they would need. I should like to draw the attention of the house to the fact that if they wish to examine the 1930 budget as it was presented to the house it will be quite useless for them to look at Hansard, because they will not find it. I had always thought that Hansard was the authentic record of the proceedings of this house, but inquiry which I made revealed the fact that under the late administration this was no longer the case. I had understood that revised Hansard was an accurate record of the proceedings of this house, with grammatical errors corrected and slips of speech removed. But if hon. members turn up the Hansard of that day they will find that on May 1 the ex-Minister of Finance, Mr. Dunning, made his budget speech. Turning to items of the tariff they will find that they are not the items as they were introduced by the then Minister of Finance, but the items as they were amended. It seems to me in this particular case the more stupid, because, quoting three lines from the minister's speech I read:

Seasonal tariffs for instance, are not applicable to a country such as Canada, with its extremes of distance, latitude and climate.

But when you turn over the pages to the items to which I have referred you will find that ten of the items out of fourteen dealing with vegetables and six of the items out of nine dealing with fruit describe what the new tariff is to be, taking in seasonal tariffs. I do not object for one moment to the principle of seasonal tariffs being adopted, but it seems to me ridiculous so to change Hansard that when you wish to look up the official record it is not to be found in the pages of Hansard.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Does my hon. friend seek to imply that Hansard has been deliberately changed by any member of parliament?

Mr. STIRLING:

I am not endeavouring.

Mr. Speaker, to suggest anything which should be described as erroneous. I have already said, if the right hon. gentleman had listened to me, that when I made inquiries from the officials of the house I was informed that during the regime of the right hon. gentleman the method had been altered and this one adopted.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I hope there

will be no misunderstanding. I cannot imagine that in any particular Hansard would be other than a record as taken down by

Hansard reporters. I think the votes and proceedings of the house will always show in exactly what form the budget is introduced.

If during the course of the debate items are amended, it is quite conceivable that only the final action of the house will be reported in Hansard. If what my hon. friend is indicating is that there was a change before the final

Mr. STEVENS:

Is this a point of order?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

If the Minister of Trade and Commerce objects I shall say nothing further. I am trying to ask whether it is suggested that in certain respects the procedure has been erroneous. Surely the Minister of Trade and Commerce is as much interested as anyone in having a correct record in Hansard.

Mr. STIRLING:

I trust I shall be allowed a few minutes extension of time.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will see that the hon. gentleman gets it. My purpose was not to interrupt my hon. friend; I have always had the greatest regard for his desire for accuracy and his wish to avoid anything in the nature of insinuation.