May I point out, Mr. Speaker, .that with respect to hundreds of articles going into the United Kingdom we have obtained a preference of from 10 to 33| per cent. The Prime Minister, in his statement the other day, enumerated many of them. I have the list here and it includes such articles as paperboard, cereal foods, wooden-ware, wrapping paper, rubber goods, hardware, boots and shoes, toilet preparations, soaps, electrical appliances for houses, typewriters, 53719-22 J
chemicals of many different kinds, nickel manufactures, copper manufactures, and a long list of other manufactures.
But, the advantages I find accrue largely, not to the manufacturers, but to the producers of natural products. We have obtained advantages for the timber producer, for timber and lumber of various sorts, amounting to 10 per cent. Mr. Chamberlain, in the statement he has made with respect to Russian treatment, emphasizes the importance of these concessions to us. There is an advantage to producers in the fishing industry. With regard to mineral products, we have obtained an advantage of 4 cents per pound on copper, a very important advantage in view of the fact that the United States has quite recently put up a barrier of 4 cents a pound on our copper entering that market. So that we shall have an opportunity of getting from the United Kingdom the market we lost in that connection. On asbestos, lead, zinc and other minerals we have obtained 10 per cent. We have also secured an advantage in connection with bacon and hams, and I may observe in passing that it is surprising that my hon friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Young), coming as he does from an agricultural constituency, should have minimized and laughed at the advantage that accrues to us in regard to these products.
It is a matter for surprise that hon. gentlemen should take that attitude. I do not pretend to be an authority on agriculture, but certainly I would draw the conclusion that in view of past importations of the United Kingdom of bacon and hams, amounting in 1931 to $180,000,000, there should undoubtedly be an excellent market in that, direction for the Canadian producer. In 1926 we sold to the United Kingdom $28,000,000 worth of baoon and hams, and last year $2,000,000. Surely it is obvious that the quota which they have allowed us of 2,500,000 cwt. into their market, if the product is sent in decent quality, is a considerable advantage to the producers in this country. And in regard to cattle, the restrictions have been removed. In 1931 the United Kingdom imported $60,000,000 worth, and we sent them $2,000,000 worth; as to dairy products, of concentrated milk they imported $20,000,000, and we have been given a preference in that regard. Their imports of butter amounted to $225,000,000; of cheese, $15,000,000, besides eggs, honey, and so forth. Their tobacco imports amounted to 236,000,000 pounds in 1930, of which quantity only 3,000,000 pounds came from Canada.
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
There is a great opportunity in that direction for the tobacco producer of Canada, and I am informed that Canadian, tobacco is standing up very well at the present time as against tobaoeos imported from other countries. In regard to fruits-apples, pears, plums, fresh, canned or dried-we have obtained an advantage, as also in regard to tomatoes, ketchup, hops, wheat and wheat flour. Last year the imports of wheat and wheat flour into Britain amounted to $250,000,000, and we have secured a preference in the British market for a proportion of our wheat crop.
Certainly these are very considerable advantages to the people of this country; they are advantages which we shall have to take into consideration in the future, because, along with those advantages, responsibilities are entailed. In other words, the people of this country, in order to take advantage of the concessions which we have received from the United Kingdom and other parts of the British Empire, will have to see to it that a steady supply of Canadian products of excellent quality is kept up, adequate attention being paid to proper packing, appearance and so forth. Surely these are great advantages for the Dominion of Canada.
The agreements which have been made with other parts of the empire also are favourable to Canada. I repeat, they are favourable to both sides; this has been a victory for the whole empire.
We will have greater markets for Canadian products than ever before, and yet the leader of the opposition condemns these agreements. Every class of producer will obtain favours
through these agreements. The grain farmer, the dairy farmer, the fruit farmer and the live stock farmer will obtain preferences in the British market. The fisherman will obtain preferences for his products as well as the miner for his copper, lead and zinc. Preference is being given to the lumberman on his lumber and timber, and to the manufacturer on many items of manufactured products. All classes are favoured by these agreements, and yet the right hon. gentleman and his party are taking the attitude of opposing them. According to what I read in the press, Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Thomas, Sir Philip Cunliffe-Tdster and the other British representatives are all satisfied with the agreements. Everybody is satisfied but the right hon. leader of the opposition and his party. I suppose they are living up to the old idea that the duty of the opposition is to oppose.
The right hon. leader of the opposition stated that if put back into power he would make a fifty per cent cut in the tariff on goods coming in from the United Kingdom. I have no doubt he would give almost anything to get back into power, but why did he not do these things during the nine years he was in power?
Since 1898 we have been giving preferences to the United Kingdom, but until very recently we received none in return. I repeat, free markets in competition with the whole world are of no advantage to the people of Canada. The leader of the opposition wishes to continue that system whereby we gave preferences without having any in return. Our attitude is that there should be mutual preferences, and at the conference of 1930 my right hon. leader (Mr. Bennett) frankly said so. That is all he said, and I can see no just complaint as to his attitude at that time. The results obtained at the 1932 conference were based upon the mutuality of favours, reciprocity of tariffs, and the realization that sentiment must be helped by trade if the British commonwealth of nations is to hold together.
To a large extent these agreements are based upon the good faith of all those who participated in the conference, because without good faith they could not be carried -out. I believe in the good faith, not only of Great Britain, but of the other dominions. I believe in the good faith of whichever government may happen to be in power in Canada in the carrying cut of agreements once made.
When speaking in Royal the leader of the opposition referred to the preferences which he said were going to be wiped out on November 15 because of the attitude taken by the
Prime Minister at the 1930 conference, an attitude which he prophesied would be continued at the 1932 conference. The fact is that even before these agreements have come into force this country is being 'benefited by the tariffs placed upon various goods by the British government. My hon. friend and desk-mate, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) has handed me some figures showing the increase in exports. In September, 1931, we exported to the United Kingdom $15,187,000 worth of goods, while in September, 1932, our exports were valued at $19,492,000. Even in a time of world depression our trade with the United Kingdom is improving. It is true that this is a diversion of trade, but, I repeat, we are for any diversion of trade if the diversion is to our own country. Due to the treaties with Australia and New Zealand which were negotiated largely by the Minister of Trade and Commerce on behalf of Canada, our trade with these countries shows a substantial increase. Our exports to Australia in September, 1931, were valued at $427,800, while in September, 1932, they had risen to $646,600. The figures for New Zealand are $299,000 and $410,000 respectively. I submit that these figures demonstrate that the treaties and agreements negotiated by this government are of benefit to the trade of this dominion.
I shall close my remarks by quoting from a speech of Viscount Hailsham delivered to the Canadian Bar Association at Calgary on August 31.
hon. friends should laugh when the name of Lord Hailsham is mentioned. That gentleman is one of the most distinguished jurists and parliamentarians that England has produced. I quote as follows:
I hope and believe that, although it may be said that Ottawa is only a beginning, although it may be said that we have only laid the foundations, yet the empire builders of the future will be able to fashion on the foundations which we have laid a British commonwealth of nations, greater than any the world has yet seen. I believe that they will be able to use the principles which have guided us to achieve a prosperity and a happiness for all our peoples which has never been dreamed of in the history of the world up to now. It will take time. It may take longer than many of us will live to see, but I at least shall be satisfied if I can believe that prosperity when it looks back to Ottawa will be able to say of those who took part in these gatherings that whatever their shortcomings, whatever their
mistakes, whatever their lack of vision, or loss of opportunity, they built, they laid the foundations on sound lines, and that in what we did we budded better than we knew.
That is the verdict of a great Britisher, and I think it is the fairminded verdict of most of the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, I always listen with amusement when the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) floats along on the floodtide of his own verbosity, invective and sarcasm. He has a propensity for cussing everybody and everything. I recall his national broadcast during the campaign of 1930. He spoke in my home town of St. Thomas and I think the fact that my majority was increased by 800 per cent was due in a large measure to the wonderful assistance he rendered me upon that occasion.
Along with other sarcastic remarks he accused my hon. leader of misrepresentation. I think he can speak feelingly upon that subject because if any government held office by misrepresentation and deception it is the government of which he is a member. His capacity for invective always reminds me of Huckleberry Finn's father. It was reported that on every occasion possible he used to cuss everybody in his own household. He would then go on to cuss the town council, then the state representatives, the state governor, and would finally get into the larger field and cuss the members of the federal house, the members of the Senate, and, last but not least, the president himself. Then, in case he had overlooked anyone, he would start with the president and come right back to his own household. The Minister of Railways and Canals has shown his usual zeal tonight. He spoke of that great former leader of the Liberal party, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He should speak reverently of that great gentleman because he was a follower of his in 1911, but later on, when offered a portfolio in a Tory government, he turned his nose in that direction, and one would think that he was thinking of the tinkling of a minister's salary. That might be called economic determinism. He showed tonight that he had a distorted view of matters pertaining to world trade.
Personally, I intend to vote against this measure and I will state my reasons why. Economists of the world are begging statesmen to remove trade restrictions which they claim stand in the way of the restoration of
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
world prosperity. I believe they are right. That is the general consensus of opinion held by statesmen and economists-not by politicians. In the light of that fact, we are in this parliament asked to do what? to make this empire of ours enter into an economic entity which will set the world up against us, and provoke another trade war between the British Empire and the rest of the world and possibly bring about a worse condition than we have at the present time. Do not let hon. gentlemen opposite be disillusioned for a moment into believing that they have pulled the wool over the eyes of the Canadian people again. The people have, it is true, been propagandized; they have been hypnotized, but they are not subscribing to the policies as they are being enunciated by our hon. friends opposite. As a matter of fact, when I am speaking about getting one's eyes opened, the thought just strikes me that the Prime Minister has a great capacity for opening people's eyes. He opened the eyes of the Canadian people with his many promises in 1930. He opened the eyes of the British statesmen at the Imperial conference in 1930. He opened the eyes of his followers by his own autocracy. Indeed, he might be known from now on as the "Calgary Eye Opener."