Mr. ELLIOTT:

I happen to have a paper containing a report of my hon. friend's speech, and it was along this line, as he will no doubt recall: that this was not a time for political controversy at all. I say this much to my hon. friend's credit, that I do not think he said anything that was uncomplimentary about anybody during the course of that whole campaign. Along with his fellow ministers and followers in the house he went up there and it was a perfect love feast. But the main thought expressed was: You must vote for these agreements and show that you are in favour of the empire. My hon. friend also spoke of Laurier having started the preference.

Mr. MANION:

I never mentioned Laurier at all.

Mr. ELLIOTT:

He mentioned the time at which the preference was started, and everybody up there knew that it was Laurier who started it. The Minister of Trade and Commerce referred to Laurier. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland) came to the nomination meeting, and while he did not quite say that he was a free trader, he gave the people of South Huron to understand that he certainly was in favour of reducing tariffs at the earliest possible opportunity. My hon. friend from North Huron (Mr. Spotton) also came into the campaign and told the people that he was always considered an independent in politics. You could hardly get one of them, even the ministers, to admit during that election that they were true-to-type Tories. Really I must say that it gave great hope to mo that the members of this government and their followers had at last seen the light and that we might expect a reduction in the tariffs which have almost broken the people's backs in the last two years. Hon. gentlemen laugh, but the people are not laughing. There is no question that high tariffs are the great evil from which the world is suffering to-day. Practically all great authorities say that the great cause of the present depression is the terrible tariffs with which the various people of the world have been afflicted.

May I just recall for the .benefit of my hon. friends one or two statements that have been made. I do not think that this one has been quoted in the house. It is from the Toronto Globe of July 7, 1932. The article is headed,

"Unjust! Exorbitant! Importers declare of Bennett tariffs-System goes hand in hand with starvation, is claim." It goes on to say:

Toronto importers banded together yesterday to protest against what they termed "iniquitous, exorbitant, unjust and outrageous" tariffs imposed by the Bennett government. More than seventy-five of them met at the King Edward hotel yesterday to organize the newly created Canadian Importers' Association of Toronto.

It goes on to say what everybody throughout the country knows, that the great cause of the present depression is the tariffs from which the world is suffering. That was not a Liberal organization. This association of Toronto importers has never been actively identified with the Liberal cause. They are the finest group of Conservative supporters_ that you could find anywhere in the world. Their statement is quite in line with what Mr. Stanley Baldwin said at the opening of the conference.

May I also give another quotation which I think will appeal to my hon. friends on the other side of the house? A dinner was given by the Canadian High Commissioner the night before the British delegates sailed for the conference. His Rcyal Highness the Prince of Wales had been asked to deliver a message to the delegates on the eve of sailing for Canada, but he was ill and unable to attend, and the following message was delivered by Prince George. I think this will appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite perhaps more than anything else that I could quote:

The speech which the Prince of Wales had prepared was a serious and direct summary of the prospects of the Ottawa conference.

"No group of countries can isolate themselves from the rest of the world," Prince George read. "Canada and Australia cannot dispense with the world market for their wheat. Australia, South Africa and New Zealand cannot dispense with the world market for their wool. The United Kingdom needs the world market for her manufactures.

"Maybe, taking the long view, the Empire will, by drawing closer together, become in time less dependent on the rest of the world, but such a change must come gradually and by the natural process of evolution, guided, and not forced, by government action.

"In the meantime it is of the utmost importance in our own interests that, so far fram taking any steps that might discourage foreign countries, we should make every effort at Ottawa to put heart into the world, and concert measures in which other countries may later cooperate.

"The Empire can perhaps give a lead in the right direction, starting an upward movement of wholesale prices; and for taking such steps the Empire is fortunately placed. Its responsibility to the rest of the world is correspondingly great.

"The political differences of the world the Empire cannot cure; but on the economic side cannot some message of hope go out to world trade dying in the grip of almost universal

414 COMMONS

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements

restrictions? While we recognize the difficulties, we must not allow misgivings to overwhelm us; failure is unthinkable."

That is the message that was delivered to the delegates from Great Britain on the eve of their departure for the conference.

There is another thing which I think is very interesting and perhaps will be enlightening to my hon. friends. Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Luxembourg last June signed a protocol agreeing to act in concert with a view to general improvement in trade, and here is what they agreed upon :

They agree that "the erection of new tariff barriers and various other restricted measures have contributed in great measure to aggravate the present crisis." They consider, "that it is necessary to put an end to this policy of isolation before the economy of the different countries has been transformed in a manner quite contrary to all the fundamental principles of a sane, rational division of labour between different nations."

In view, Mr. Speaker, of the disaster to Canada resulting from these high tariffs, in view of the change in sentiment throughout the world in favour of lower tariffs, and in view of the statements made by members of this government during the South Huron election, I had hoped that we were going to have something as a result of the conference that would give hope and courage to the people of this country, that we were not going to be longer burdened with these very heavy tariffs and the difficulties that come in their wake. May I say how difficult it is to estimate accurately the results of these tariffs? In many, many cases I find that where the goods have been made free from Great (Britain, as in the case of cream separators and barbed wire and many articles that appear on the list, none of these things come from Great Britain, and the effect of these changes is only to take the duty off goods that do not come in from Great Britain and to raise the general and intermediate tariff on the goods coming from other countries. I do not think it is possible for any member or supporter of the government to hold out any hope whatever that the tariffs imposed as a result of the conference are not going to be a heavier burden on the Canadian people than the tariffs which were in existence before the conference.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member has spoken for forty minutes.

Mr. SAMUEL GOBEIL (Compton):

Coming from a constituency largely rural, the citizens of which are very deeply interested in the acceptance of the agreements passed at the imperial conference, I feel it my duty to take part in this discussion.

My first word will be a word of congratulation to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and to the government for the very substantial preferences that they have obtained for the farmers of Canada. If the citizens of this country were to draw their conclusions as to the results of the conference from the speeches we have listened to from the other side of the house, they would be led to feel that the situation is almost hopeless. Of course we expected, and our expectations have been confirmed, that hon. members opposite would not all agree. We have just had a good example of that tonight. While the hon. member who has just taken his seat was speaking I thought it would be very interesting to compare that speech with that of the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore) who preceded him. It would furnish a good illustration of the unity of thinking or the extent of the disagreement among hon. members on the other side.

I would like to quote a sentence of a speech by an hon. member opposite, as an example of the trend to which I refer. The reason I quote these few words is that when the speech was delivered the attendance in the house was small, and I rather think this will come as a surprise to many members. Last Friday night the hon. member for Provencher, speaking here, uttered these words, which will be found at page 248 of Hansard:

This government, not satisfied with putting a tariff wall around Canada and ruining our own country are trying to ruin the whole British empire by encircling it completely with a tariff wall. As a member of this house representing an agricultural constituency, and having the interests of the whole of Canada at heart, I am not going to swallow these trade agreements holus-bolus just to please my right hon. friend the Prime Minister; the whole thing is a joke. . . . You know it is a joke and you cannot get away from it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we had in this city for over a month representatives of all the different commonwealths of the British empire, who were supposed to be and no doubt were some of the best brains of the empire. The situation of the whole world was certainly critical enough to impress these delegates with a sense of their responsibility. They came here and deliberated in an attempt to find a solution for the problems of the British Empire, and at the same time lessen trade barriers throughout the world. I do not wish, Mr. Speaker, to minimize the ability or intelligence of the hon. member, but I think I can say without offending him that he is not a genius; I do not know that he

United Kingdom

invented gunpowder or four-hole buttons. But he says that a conference of the best brains of the British Empire extending over five weeks is a joke.

Mr. BEAUBIEN:

It is, every clause in the agreement is a joke.

Mr. GOBEIL:

Well, Mr. Speaker, I agree to a certain extent with the hon. member. There is a joke, and moreover there is a joker; but the joke and the joker do not live at the address the hon. member gave.

Mr. BEAUBIEN:

There is a joker in every clause, and I will prove it when I speak.

Mr. GOBEIL:

I know very well that many hon. members opposite are not prepared to endorse that declaration.

I should like now to quote another hon. member, who is more moderate, and who is perhaps more representative of the general opinion of the opposition. The hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) is reported at page 235 of Hansard as saying this:

Consider what the tariff has done to western Canada. Owing to the imposition of excessive tariffs that keep the spread between primary and secondary industries so great, foreign markets where we formerly sold our produce are now closed to us, so that we can sell neither our wheat nor our cattle; we cannot sell our mineral products nor anything else.

I think this represents pretty well the general tone of speeches made by hon. members opposite. I wish to point out that hon. members have said, generally speaking, that our markets were closed. They have said that the tariff changes effected by the Conservatives were responsible for the decrease of trade. But to my knowledge at any rate- and I have followed the deliberations of this house pretty clasely-not one of them yet has pointed to one specific commodity or product for the decrease in which the tariff is responsible. It is all right in a general discussion, Mr. Speaker, and I am prepared to admit that it is quite popular with the masses, to go round the country saying that tariffs are responsible for the difficulties in which business generally finds itself, but as I have said, not one specific case has been brought forward of a commodity the price of which has been raised by the tariff.

Let us consider how the tariff has helped business. It has helped in connection with canned fruit. In 1930 we sold 4,254,466 pounds of canned fruit, while in 1931-32 we sold 7,263,489 pounds. Surely trade in that commodity has not been hampered by the tariff. What about wheat? In 1929-30 we sold in round figures 177,000.000 Ibushels, while in 1931-32 we sold 191,000,000 bushels. We have

lost nothing there because of the tariff. Until hon. members opposite can show one commodity for which other nations are receiving a higher price than we are getting I do not think they can say that the tariff policy of this government is responsible for our decreased trade. What about barley? In 1929-30 we sold about 14,000,000 bushels, while in 19311932 we sold over 24,000,000 bushels. In 19291930 we sold only 186,000 bushels of buckwheat, while in 1931-32 we sold over 741,000 bushels. In 1929-30 we sold 6,406,000 bushels of oats, while in 1931-32 we sold 13,841,000 bushels. The same thing happened in connection with rye; in 1929-30 we sold 1,526,000 bushels, while in 1931-32 we sold 4,359,000 bushels. I could mention other conmodities, such as butter. As we all know, in 1929-30 we were importing butter, but even so we sold 13,000 hundredweight that year, while in 1931-32 we exported 109,000 hundredweight. Let me tell my hon. friends that they are very much mistaken if they think the citizens of Canada are going to swallow the statement that the tariff policies of this government have been responsible for the decrease in our trade.

Quite often hon. members opposite mention butter; they think we on this, side can say nothing on that subject. I should like to place a few figures on Hansard so that they may be referred to by those interested, showing a comparison of the prices paid for butter in 1930 in Canada and other countries with the prices paid to-day.

United

Canada States England June, 1930. . . 27.13 32.93 28.02July, 1930. . . 27.59 35.24 28.95August, 1930 . . 28.67 38.92 28.53

You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that there is a spread of nearly 10 cents between Canadian and United States prices, and a spread of from two to three cents between Canadian and English prices. What was the situation a few months later?

United

Canada States England

December, 1930. 28.63

January, 1931. . 30.80

February, 1931.. 31.61

March, 1931. . 31.13

32.18 23.43

28.50 24.11

28.50 25.74

28.88 25.32

It will be noticed that from January, 1931, the Canadian price was about 3 cents higher than the United States price and from 6 to 7 cents higher than the English price. Then what was the situation this year, when prices

were so low?

United

Canada States England

March, 1932. . 26.31

April, 1932. . . 20.06

May, 1932. . . 16.81

August, 1932 . . 19.21

22.61 18.94 20.04 19.38 18.83 17.81 20.31 17.81

416 COMMONS

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements

It will be seen, Mr. Speaker, that the action taken by this government on behalf of Canadian farmers has resulted in our farmers getting more for their butter than are the farmers of any other country in the world. I invite hon. members opposite to deny that statement; I invite them to bring forward figures to show that this is not an exact picture of the situation with regard to butter. Prices are low; they are lower than they were in 1930, but the price of butter in Canada to-day is higher than in either the United States or England.

This is not all that has 'been done for the country by this government. The other evening the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) drew a very dark picture of conditions in his city. If he had told all the facts he would have informed the house that even in Sherbrooke there are industries that have benefited by the tariff policy of this government. There are industries that are running full time, with a full complement of men, and other industries that are running extra time working in the evenings, and this is due without any doubt whatever to the changes in the tariff brought about by this government. 4

Let me give you a concrete illustration taken fi om my own constituency. I know more about this particular concern because it is in my own riding. We have in the village of Scotstown, Quebec, a veneer mill, an English concern. In the spring of 1931 these people found themselves with over a million feet of logs uncut, owing to the fact that the Americans were dumping on the Canadian market American veneer at prices with which it was absolutely impossible for Canadians to compete. They were dumping at practically cost of production regardless of the price of the timber. The Canadian manufacturers came here and had an interview with the Prime Minister and a change was made in the tariff at the next session. What has been the result of those changes? From December to February the entire quantity of that million feet of logs was cut, sold and disposed of, and the company that winter had a heavier cut than they had ever stocked their mill with before.

I can assure the house that had it not been for the action taken by the government, conditions in Scotstown and the surrounding district would have been quite critical. It was a wonderful help to the labouring population [DOT]of that village as well as to the farmers in the [DOT]surrounding townships. Does it follow that everybody in that village and in the surrounding district is well off and that conditions are no longer critical there? Not at all. [Mr. Gobeil.l

There is still depression and we still have our troubles; but the fact is that had it not been for those changes in the tariff the situation would have been ten times worse.

I wish to place on Hansard a letter I received from the manager of that mill, addressed to myself and dated February 5, 1932:

It will probably interest you to know that today we closed down our veneer-cutting mill for repairs. January was an exceptionally busy month, and, as you know, the operating of our veneer mill during January and into February is unprecedented in the history of the company. We shall reopen the mill just as soon as we can, for things seem to be coining our way now. Some of the trade whom we have never been able to touch have at last discovered that they can get veneers in Canada better than the imported article. One manufacturer from Ontario was so much of a doubting Thomas that he came to Scotstown to see if he could risk using our products. We took him to the mill, and flinging up his hands, he said: "I didn't know we had anything like this in Canada." Needless to say, he left an order for a carload without any hesitation, and promised another carload order within a month. The condition of affairs is, naturally, very encouraging, but we shudder to think what the conditions might be, were it not for the intervention of Mr. Bennett. The duty on imports plus the exchange has been keeping u.s busy for the past feiv months. We have taken no advantage of the exchange to raise prices, which are extremely low, but we have felt that if we could keep busy, and get the manufacturers to see the merits of the Canadian article, the price would reasonably adjust itself in the natural course of events. We are finding a new spirit among the buyers,-they are fast becoming imbued with a new or reawakened patriotism.

Guelph Patent Cask Company, Limited.

That is what the changes in the tariff meant in my own constituency. The leader of the opposition himself, in his speech the other day, confirmed it; in my estimation he proved beyond any doubt that the situation had improved. I should like to quote from figures he gave to the house. At page 35 of Hansard he referred to industries employing fifteen persons and over, and he gave the number of industries and the number of employees in each case. Of course, his argument was that there were fewer employees in 1932 than in 1930; nevertheless he proved beyond any doubt, as I have just said, that the changes in the tariff have helped the country. I will give the figures as he gave them:

Firms

September 1, 1930

7,334September 1, 1931

7,798September 1, 1932

8,007

At the last session of parliament or the session before that, we Conservatives in this house said that changes in the tariff had brought

United Kingdom

new industries to Canada, but hen. gentlemen across the way, in reply to that, said: "Yes, you have brought so many new industries to the country but there are so many industries that have been closed down." I would remind you, however, that the leader of the opposition gave the actual number of factories in operation on the first of September in each of the three years from 1930 to 1932, inclusive; and while I do not know how many factories were closed down, the fact remains that on the first of September, 1930, there were 7,334 in operation whereas on the first of September, 1932, there were 8,007. The leader of the opposition said, "Yes, that is all right; but on the first of September, 1930, they were employing 1,023,033 persons whereas on the first of September, 1932, they were employing only 789,321." Well, that is quite true; no one disputes it. But what does it mean? It simply means that if on the first of September, 1932, we had had only 7,334 factories instead of 8,007, the manufacturers would very likely have been employing not more than, perhaps, half a million persons in 1932. So that by the changes in the tariff we have brought over 700 new factories to the country, and even if you reduced the number of persons employed by each concern you would still have several thousand more men and women employed than would be working today if we did not have that increased number of companies operating.

Hundreds of times hon. gentlemen opposite have said to the Prime Minister, "You told the people of Canada that you would end unemployment and you have not done so'." That is the great argument; it is the only argument they have; when there is nothing else to be said they say that. Do hon. members opposite believe that the people of Canada are going to swallow that?

They will swallow

you.

Mr. GOBEIL:

I shall have a few words

to say about that later on. No, Mr. Speaker, the citizens of Canada will not swallow that. If hon. members want the citizens of Canada to believe that argument they will have to prove to them that there are other countries where unemployment has been cured.

There is another matter to which I shall refer before I deal with the recent election in South Huron. I think the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) was teasing the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) this afternoon when he challenged hon. members from Quebec to return to their ridings and repeat the declarations made by their leader 53719-27

in this house to the effect that Canada had used the mother country too harshly and that the Prime Minister had succeeded in his endeavour to dictate to the mother country.

Mr. POULIOT:

I will accept that challenge next Sunday at Iberville.

Mr. GOBEIL:

Hon. members from Quebec know that they do not intend to repeat the remarks of their leader, although they may quote some of the remarks of the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret), the mayor of Montreal. Referring to the declarations which had been made by his leader, he said:

Under the provisions of these articles we are being dictated to by an external government and it makes no difference whether this dictation comes from the government of the United Kingdom, of France, or any other country. We are being dictated to.

And then again.

I may be all wrong about this, Mr. Speaker, but I think it is abominable that the government of Canada should be told in a trade agreement by another nation that they shall do certain things of a local character.

That is what hon. members from Quebec will quote to their electors.

Mr. POULIOT:

Yes, next Sunday at

Iberville.

Mr. GOBEIL:

If they want to be consistent they should quote the declaration of their leader as well as those of the hon. member for St. James. If they do so I shall be very much surprised if some of those electors who may listen to them will not tell them to go and fix up their whistle. It will be absolutely out of tune. I think it is a disgrace to see hon. members making such an extreme statement that the Prime Minister of Canada is dictating the policy of England.

I had the good fortune to be in the constituency of South Huron at the same time as the former Minister of Justice, and to be present at a meeting at which he spoke.

Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):

Oh, oh.

Mr. GOBEIL:

I think the hon. member

is anticipating what is coming.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member who

has the floor is perfectly in order, and such interruptions as are occurring are not in order.

Mr. GOBEIL:

An article which appeared

in a recent issue of La Tribune of Sherbrooke gives the former Minister of Justice all the credit for the Liberal victory in South Huron. This article, which is in French, reads as follows:

418 COMMONS

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements

Great credit must be given to the bon. Ernest Lapointe, late Minister of Justice in the King cabinet, for the very excellent work he performed in winning a splendid Liberal victory, in the constituency of South Huron.

Hear, hear.