October 24, 1932

CON

Pierre Édouard Blondin (Speaker of the Senate)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member may not be interrupted without his consent, unless it is a question of privilege. Let us see what it is.

IMr. R, Weir.]

Topic:   IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Permalink
CON

Robert Weir (Minister of Agriculture)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WEIR (Melfort):

The question of

privilege is this: I have been quoted as saying that I advocated restriction of wheat acreage, which I did not.

Topic:   IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Permalink
LIB

George Washington McPhee

Liberal

Mr. McPHEE:

Inferentially my hon. friend said that. Now let us analyse properly these agreements. To do so it is necessary for us to go back to 1930. Before 1930 we had eight years of prosperity in this country. Wheat sold in Canada then at $1.10 a bushel, butter at 30 cents a pound, eggs at 25 cents a dozen. My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture and the right hon. leader of the government (Mr. Bennett), taking advantage of the condition of unemployment, went up and down this country saying that the panacea for the troubles we were suffering from was higher tariffs, and the people of Canada took them at their word and put them in office. What do we find to-day after two and a half years of Tory high tariff methods? Wheat not $1.10 but 30 cents; butter not 30 cents a pound, but 10 cents; eggs not 25 cents a dozen, but 7 cents; butter 10 cents a pound; axle grease 20 cents.

Then we had the imperial conference fiasco of 1930, summed up as humbug. Then we have the imperial conference of 1932, the foundation of these agreements.

What is the agreement, in effect as respect to wheat? That the United Kingdom will impose a duty of six cents a bushel on wheat coming from foreign countries, in order to give Canada a preference in its market. The article in the agreement which deals with that is as follows-for the purpose of my argument I wish to put it on record:

Article 4. It is agreed that the duty on either wheat in grain, copper, zinc or lead as provided in this agreement may be removed if at any time empire producers of wheat in grain, copper, zinc and lead respectively are unable or unwilling to offer these commodities on first sale in the United Kingdom at prices not exceeding the world prices and in quantities sufficient to supply the requirements of the United Kingdom consumers.

The other night the hon. member for Long Lake (Mr. Cowan) made this statement: Where is Canada going to sell her wheat if not in the United Kingdom? I am not surprised at loose statements coming from that quarter, but I am surprised that the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Willis) should take up the statement as he did. He offered a hypothetical parallel-300,000 bushels of wheat leaving Canada, 300,000 leaving Russia, both destined for Liverpool, and when they land there the Russian would pay six cents a bushel, or $18,000, to get his cargo into Liverpool. The only thing wrong with that statement is that it is all wrong. Does my hon. friend

United Kingdom.

think the people of Russia are fools? They will know beforehand that there is this six cent duty against Russian wheat going into Great Britain. What are they going to do about it? Will they stop growing wheat? Not at all; they will simply unload that wheat in Holland and in other importing countries of Europe. The result will be that they will sink the world level of prices of wheat still lower so that the Canadian seller of wheat will receive a lower price than ever for his product.

In answer to the question as to where Canadian wheat will go, if not to Great Britain, let me ask this further question: Where has it been going? I have here the figures for the last three or four years, giving the exports of Canadian wheat. These figures are given for the years from 1927 to the present time. In 1927 Canada exported 255,000,000 bushels of wheat-I am giving simply the round figures. Of that quantity, 120,000,000 bushels went to the United Kingdom and 133,000,000 to foreign countries. In 1928 we exported 305,000,000 bushels, of which we sent 135,000,000 bushels to the United Kingdom and 229,000,000 bushels to foreign countries. In 1929 we exported 210,000,000 bushels, of which 84,000,000 bushels went to the United Kingdom and 126,000,000 to foreign countries. In

1930 we exported 207,000,000 bushels, and of this quantity we sent 77,000,000 bushels to Great Britain and 129,000,000 bushels to foreign countries. We come now to the year

1931 under the present government, and we find that in that year we exported 194,000,000 bushels, of which 63,000,000 bushels went to the United Kingdom and 131,000,000 bushels to foreign countries. In the fiscal year 1932 we exported 191,000,000 bushels, and of this quantity we sent 65,000,000 bushels to the United Kingdom and 126,000,000 bushels to foreign countries.

Is there any doubt about those figures? If there is, I will ask my hon. friend to consult the reports of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the year 1932 and at page 15 he will find the figures for 1931 given. He will find that these figures I have quoted are accurate.

Wool piece goods.. Wool overcoating. . High grade suitings Hosiery, wool.. .. Blankets, wool.. .. Axminster carpets..

Now what is going to happen in the other countries which we have caused to be penalized as a result of the tariff being put up by the United Kingdom against foreign exporters? The result is, Mr. Speaker, that we shall have a trade war, because other countries are not going to lie down and be quietly penalized. No; they will retaliate against us. Let me ask hon. gentlemen opposite a question with respect to lumber. Will they say that as a result of this agreement the United States government will not put up their tariff still higher against us? And what about my hon. friends from Prince Edward Island who sanction an increase in the duty on apples from the United States? What will they say if the United States retaliate and double the present exorbitant duty on potatoes going into that country? My hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) represents a fishing province. Will he say that as a result of this agreement the government of the United States will not put up still higher their duties against Nova Scotian fish going into the American markets?

Topic:   IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Permalink
LIB

William Duff

Liberal

Mr. DUFF:

Swordfish from Louisburg.

Topic:   IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Permalink
LIB

George Washington McPhee

Liberal

Mr. McPHEE:

I will address thyself more particularly to the question as it relates to western Canada. Notwithstanding the fact that the Canadian producer, under this so-called magnanimous agreement, is allowed to sell his wheat only at the lowest possible price at which the world will permit him to sell it, he is bled to death on every item of the tariff schedule. As one man said, he has to pay through the nose for everything he buys in consequence of having to buy his goods in a highly protected market. Let me put on Hansard a statement showing the increased cost of living to the farmer, the consumer of western Canada, as a result directly of this agreement we are now considering. I will give in each instance the Liberal tariff as it stood in 1930, the Conservative tariff under the present government before the conference, and the conference tariff:

Liberal tariff Bennett tariff

1930 Dunning before Conferencebudget Conference tariff24|% 62% 59%24|% 105% 91%241% 66% 63%224% 88% 77%201% 100% 72%224% 100% 78%

Everything that the farmer has to buy has agreement and a worse government, and the been increased as a result of this iniquitous only recompense he gets is the permission to

506 COMMONS

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements

sell his goods at the lowest possible price at which the world will permit him to sell. Butter is 10 cents a pound and axle grease 20 cents a poimd.

Topic:   IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

Hot air free.

Topic:   IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Permalink
LIB

George Washington McPhee

Liberal

Mr. McPHEE:

I will answer the hon. gentleman later; let me finish the list I am giving. Prior to the conference, cream separators came in free of duty; to-day they are subject to a duty of 25 per cent. The Minister of Agriculture will go back to Saskatchewan among the dairymen of that province and will say to them, "It is true, Mr. Farmer, that I could not get any higher price for your dairy products than the world market price; but keep on milking your cows and I will recompense you by adding 25 per cent to the cost of the machine by -which you separate the cream from the milk". Take barbed wire: there you have an increase in the price of 10 per cent as a result of the duty. Barbed wire has come into this country free of duty during the last twenty-five years, but the Minister of Agriculture, in his zeal for the farmers, will advise them to use more barbed wire. Hon. gentlemen from eastern Canada know nothing about barbed wire in comparison with the farmers of the west, owing to the small farms in the east and the number of railings that are available. But out in our great western country we are obliged to use a large amount of barbed wire. The Minister of Agriculture will go to the grain grower and say to him, "True, I could not get a higher price for your wheat than the world price, but I will recompense you by charging you 10 per cent higher on the quantity of barbed wire you use to fence your wheat fields".

Of the 223 items mentioned in the schedule, in connection with this agreement, the tariff has been increased on 139. Not only has this government gone mad in connection with high tariffs but their officials seem to be sitting up nights in order to conceive some new scheme to make still harder the lot of the poor Canadian importers.

I should like to give the house a few details in connection with the shipping of a email gift by a gentleman in the United States to his friend in my city. The gentleman in the United States, an American citizen, purchased a small piece of furniture to send to his friend as a gift, for which he paid $12.50 in American currency. This was eight or ten months ago and at that time, under the policies of this government, the Canadian dollar was worth only seventy-seven and a half cents in the United States. When this article reached our customs house, what happened?

I have the customs entry before me to prove my statement. Notwithstanding the fact that our money was at a discount of twenty-two and one-half per cent on the American market, the difference in value between the two currencies was added to the price of the article, making the import value $15.30. This gift, not a purchase, was taxed forty-five per cent duty plus four per cent sales tax and the recipient was forced to pay $7.76 in order to obtain a gift purchased in the United States for $12.50. Is it any wonder that every importer and business man of consequence in this country is harsh in his condemnation of the tactics of this government?

I have before me a statement with reference to the tariffs as they affect this country made in Gailgary a week or so ago by a gentleman from Great Britain.

Topic:   IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

Not in the Calgary Eye Opener?

Topic:   IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Permalink
LIB

George Washington McPhee

Liberal

Mr. McPHEE:

No. This gentleman, Mr. H. Morris, is the manager of J. and N. Phillips and Company, exporters of Manchester. Upon his arrival he made the following very apt statement:

During the last three years we have exported less of our goods to Canada than for many years before, and this is due to a great extent to conditions in the dominion and to your ridiculous tariff policies. If your wheat belts are down the whole of Canada is down, and all the two-penny-half-penny manufacturers of eastern Canada cannot alter the situation. These tariffs are responsible for the high cost of living in the dominion and you people out in the west have to pay through the nose for all you get as the result.

Let me give one other illustration. This report of an interview with Sir Arthur Balfour appeared in the Winnipeg Evening Tribune, a Conservative paper. Sir Arthur Balfour is one of the leading British industrialists and economists; he is the head of one of the largest firms of steel manufacturers in the world, has served on numerous government commissions and economic delegations and has been decorated for his services by a number of European countries, so that there can be no doubt as to his qualifications. He says:

I think that tariffs have gone too far. They have their use and place, but when they are applied to inefficient as well as efficient industries, they go too far. We have been ignoring altogether the effects of our actions on our neighbours.

The following despatch from Germany quotes the former president of the Reichsbank as follows:

Hamburg, Germany, Oct. 20.-Hans Luther, former president of the Reichsbank, said to-day in an address to the overseas club that foreign

United Kingdom

countries must take the initiative toward reestablishment of free trade to enable Germany and other debtor nations to pay their creditors. Such measures as lifting restrictions on foreign currency, and consolidating short term credits will fail, he said, so long as customs barriers remain.

In closing this phase of my argument may I place on Hansard a statement by one of the world's greatest economists, Sir George Paish, as follows:

The basic industries of every country to-day are those whose products enjoy an international market. With prosperous basic industries, nations are prosperous. With their basic industries in depression, nations are in difficulties.

And again:

Restore the basic industries to prosperity and every nation will regain its prosperity.

He continues:

If the nations will now remove the mental, political, and artificial obstacles which they have erected so vigorously in recent years to the exchange of the world's products, the grave danger confronting them will steadily disappear, and they will enter upon a new period of greater trade expansion than they have ever experienced. In this way and this way alone can tile world's present unemployment and financial problems be solved.

And in conclusion:

How is it possible for anyone in any country to have any confidence in the future when every country is engaged in greater or lesser degree in shutting out the products of other countries, and by so doing shutting in its own products? And this too at a time when nations are in debt as never before and need ever-widening markets in which to sell their products in order to honour their obligations.

The poem by James Russell Lowell entitled "The Present Crisis," although written fifty years ago, is applicable to the present time. I should like to quote one verse for the benefit of the right hon. leader of the government. It reads:

For mankind are one in spirit, and an instinct bears along,

Round the earth's electric circle, the swift flash of right or wrong;

Whether conscious or unconscious, yet humanity's vast frame

Through its ocean-sundered fibres feels the gush of joy or shame;-

In the gain or loss of one race all the rest have equal claim.

I come now to another phase of my argument. I should like to refer to a statement made a few days ago in the parliament of Great Britain by Mr. Neville Chamberlain, the Imperial jingoist. He said:

The ties of the empire have been wearing dangerously thin. Canada had become to a great extent dependent upon United States finance and in the absence of any preferential agreement with the United Kingdom she

might have found it extremely difficult to refuse a new offer of reciprocity from her great neighbour to the south, which would definitely link their fortunes together to such an extent as would cause a divergence between Canada and Great Britain.

Where did Mr. Neville Chamberlain get the inspiration which caused him to utter that libel against the Canadian people? Was it from his contact with the jingoists of Canada around the imperial conference table? Let Neville Chamberlain come out to Canada ; let him meet the widows, the sisters and mothers of the 60,000 glorious dead of our country, and then say that the ties of empire are slipping. He took good care to wait until he crossed the Atlantic before making such a statement. Let him come back to Canada and visit the military hospitals at Ste. Anne and other places in Canada where men are suffering, broken in body and mind because of their efforts in defence of the empire, and make the statement that the bonds of empire are slipping. Let him come to this parliament of Canada where 245 members, the elected representatives of the Canadian people, without one dissenting voice, vote $50,000,000 a year as a partial contribution to the disability suffered by thousands of Canadians in the great war and would make it four times as much if that would bring those people back to health and strength, and then let him answer the question as to whether the bonds of empire are slipping in this country.

When the conflagration broke out in 1914, thousands of loyal Canadian citizens, in common with other loyal sons from other parts of the empire, flocked to the seat of war to assist the mother country in that struggle. By their meeting on the blood-stained fields of Europe, by the hardships which they endured, by the common obstacles which they had to surmount, by the common death which many of them died, they have given the answer to Neville Chamberlain that all the Chamberlains between here and the nether regions cannot alter the fact that Canada is loyal to Great Britain and the British crown.

Then we have the other insinuations in this parliament that because we oppose these agreements we are not loyal to the motherland. The other day the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) stated that my hon. friends opposite had secured from Great Britain preferences that we never could obtain. What is the attitude of the Conservative party in this country towards British preferences? Let me go back to 1897, to the first time in the history of Canada that a real preference was granted by the Canadian parliament

508 COMMONS

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements

to Great Britain. That was a 25 per cent preference. What was the official attitude of the Tory party of that day? Let me put on Hansard the words Sir Charles Tupper, then leader of the Conservative party, uttered in this house on April 26, 1897, as reported at page 1291, of Hansard of that year. This is what he said after discussing the preference:

Now what is the result? The result is that this tariff goes into operation, and the hon. gentleman knows that the industries of this country are already paralyzed in consequence. While hon. members gloat, vindictively gloat, over the destruction of Canadian industries, I was reading the wail, the sorrowful wail, of those industries in the Montreal Gazette where one manufacturer after another declared that their industries were ruined, that their mills must close, and that they saw staring them in the face a return to the deplorable state of things that existed when the hon. gentleman who last addressed the house -was in charge of the fiscal policy of this country. I say that a deeper wrong was never inflicted upon Canada.

That is the official statement of the Conservative party with regard to the British preference.

Mr. LaVERGNE : Hear, hear.

Mr. MoPHEE: Let me tell my hon. friend the Deputy Speaker, who should at least keep quiet while the debate is going on-

Mr. LaVERGNE: Surely I can applaud the hon. gentleman!

Topic:   IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Permalink
LIB

George Washington McPhee

Liberal

Mr. McPHEE:

-that the record of the Liberal party in this country with regard to the British preference from 1897 down through the succeeding years when the preferences were still further extended, culminating in the Dunning budget of 1930, gives the lie to those who say that because we criticize these agreements, agreements conceived in political sin and shapen in economic iniquity, we are disloyal to the motherland and to the empire.

An hon. gentleman to my right, the hon. member for Antigonish-Cuysborough (Mr. Duff) reminds me of something that I had almost forgotten. The Liberal party in this country, let me tell my hon. friends opposite, was true and loyal to the British crown when the Tories of Canada were burning our parliament buildings. The Liberal party in this country was true and loyal to British institutions when the Tories of Canada were pelting with rotten eggs the representative of the sovereign of England. The Liberal party in this country was true to Great Britain when the Tories of Canada were signing the only annexation pact ever signed in this country. Let us hear no more of this nonsense about Canadian loyalty.

Let me refer in this connection to an editorial that appeared in the Toronto Globe on October 18 under the heading, An Undefended Empire. It reads:

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."

I should like to ask the government what this means. It has not been denied; it has not been contradicted; therefore we must assume it to be true. Is it a fact that those who have foisted upon the people of Canada this iniquitous agreement are going still further to place us in the position of building up a military caste to enforce the tariff policy which they have brought forth in connection with this agreement? What is the answer? I shall ask the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) or any other member of the government to give the answer when he rises to reply.

The other day the Solicitor General, I presume in an unguarded moment, stated that they were ready to appeal to the country, to let the people decide.

Topic:   IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

No, he did not.

Topic:   IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Permalink
LIB

George Washington McPhee

Liberal

Mr. McPHEE:

Well, let me change it around. It may seem easier for my hon. friends opposite to understand it the way I put it- let the people decide. Let me tell my hon. friends opposite that whenever they are ready to appeal to the country, just as surely as day succeeds night, whenever the next appeal to the country comes, whether it comes soon or late-and pray God it may be soon for the good of Canada-around the Tory party the black robe will be wrapped, its funeral requiem will be sung and the intelligence of the people of Canada will carry it to the grave of its political incapacity, unwept, unhonoured and unsung.

Topic:   IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Permalink
CON

Charles Herbert Dickie

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. C. H. DICKIE (Nanaimo):

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the political address of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat (Mr. McPhee) I feel that an apology is almost due to this house for my attempting to speak on this question at all. The arguments that have been advanced by the ministers on this side of the house seem to me to have been so conclusive as to make it almost a waste of time for me to speak, but as this debate has become a free for all I rise lest those who have sent me here might consider if I remained inarticulate that I acquiesced in some of the views that have been expressed from the opposite side of the house.

United Kingdom

This debate, Mr. Speaker, has gone far afield, from the trenches in Flanders to Mahatma Gandhi, and1 even to high heaven. The ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has told us that he interceded with high heaven on behalf of the Imperial conference which recently sat here. He prayed that it would be successful. In view of the remarks he made later on in his address I am perhaps safe in assuming that he felt as a nurse once thought her patient felt when he was very ill. He had been a very careless man, and when he was coming out of the anaesthetic *after an operation he noticed that the blinds of his window were down. He asked the nurse, "Why have you the room dark?" She replied, "There is a fire across the street, and knowing you as well as I do, I thought perhaps if you saw the fire when you recovered consciousness you would come to the conclusion that the operation was unsuccessful". I would like to know the exact wording of the intercession with which the ex-Minister of Justice appealed to high heaven. What is the use, Mr. Speaker, of his talking such nonsense in this house when we all know that it was the wish [DOT]of hon. gentlemen opposite that that conference would be a failure. We all know how they derided our leader when he came back from the conference in London in 1930 which led to the conference recently held here. The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) all through his speech exhibited his spleen, and you could see the disappointment in his face over the fact that the conference had been a success. This country is going through very serious times and the government is trying to do something that will benefit Canada and the mother country and the other dominions of the empire. We can talk politics as much as we like, but every man within the sound of my voice to-night must realize the seriousness of the situation which confronts Canada at the present time. We in the past have sown the wind and now we are reaping the whirlwind. It will require the very best brain power we have in this country to extricate Canada from the position in which she finds herself due to the present state of world affairs.

I thought when the right hon. leader of the opposition was delivering his speech what a wonderful opportunity he had lost. If he had risen and simply said, "Mr. Speaker, though this treaty contains some features with which I am not in accord I realize that it is a well-intentioned and earnest attempt to try to do something for Canada and the British Empire, and therefore I and my party will stand shoulder to shoulder with the government and

give it a fair trial and see if it does not accomplish something for Canada",-if he had done that, he would have been acclaimed throughout Canada. But he missed his opportunity. If he had risen to the occasion as did his honoured leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in 1914, Canada would have thought more of him than it does at the present time.

The right hon. leader of the opposition prates about world markets. Where are the world markets that we have not attempted to enter? Take the United States. We all know what happened under the Fordney-McCumber tariff. The cattle men of the southwest and of the western United States protested against Canadian cattle and Canadian live stock entering the Chicago market, and the Fordney-McCumber tariff was enacted against the importation of Canadian cattle into the United States. That ruined scores of cattle men throughout the western prairies and in Ontario as well. That tariff made it absolutely impossible for Canadians to export their cattle and other live stock to the Chicago market. The United States did that, not in any spirit of retaliation at all; they were simply following one of their principles, the principle of holding their own market for their own producers. But it is well known what ruin that brought to the cattle industry on the Canadian prairies. Later on, after the dairy branch of the cattle industry had succeeded in regaining a little of the ground that had been lost, the late Liberal government made a treaty with Australia and New Zealand, and again our dairymen got a setback and our herds began to decrease. We are now looking for some way to bring back prosperity to our people who are engaged in that branch of agriculture.

The right hon. leader of the opposition talks about world markets and breaking into them. How would you break into the market of our good neighbours across the line? They are following the line of tariff policy which suits them, and we have no reason to criticize them. But look what happened to Canada as a result of the Hawley-Smoot tariff. We had been shipping $30,000,000 worth of lumber to the United States annually and that country had also been our best market for our copper, zinc and lead. Almost overnight the United States imposed a duty of $3 a thousand on our lumber, at the behest of the lumbermen of Oregon and Washington, and that meant an embargo on Canadian lumber shipments to the United States. They also imposed a duty of four cents a pound on copper, and further duties on zinc and lead which pre-

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements

eluded the shipment of any of these metalliferous products to the United States. They did that, not from any desire to retaliate against us for something that we had done, but because the lumbermen and the miners of the United States had said that they must have the United States market for American producers. So we are now out of the United States market except for our wheat which we send over there under a tariff of 42 cents a bushel, and our wheat is used to raise the grade of their flour, which is then shipped and sold in the markets of the world in competition with Canadian flour and when exported a 99 per cent rebate of the duty is allowed. I may say that the privilege is very much abused.

The vociferous member who has just taken his seat (Mr. McPhee) did not tell us how much wheat we shipped into the United States under that tariff of 42 cents a bushel. We did ship a large quantity there, and he includes that as among shipments to foreign countries when it was actually shipped to the United States to raise the grade of their flour to beat us in the markets of the world. What can we ship to France today with its embargo tariff on wheat? It is impossible for us to ship our wheat there. The wheat question is a very, very serious one, and I wish someone in this chamber knew the answer to it. No wheat farmer in Canada can succeed with wheat. at 28 cents a bushel. You can give them their old fetish, free trade, or tariff for revenue, or take the tariff off entirely, and they cannot succeed with wheat at 28 cents a bushel. Therefore something must be done. What can be done? We do not know. The Imperial conference which sat at Ottawa I believe did the best that could possibly be done. It at least assured us of a market in Great Britain, although not assuring us of any stated price for our wheat. It would have been impossible for it to do that. When the terms of these agreements which have been entered into between the different dominions of the British Empire, which comprise one-fourth of the world's population, are given a chance to succeed, as I believe they will, an impetus will be given to world trade generally, and as times become better the price of wheat will improve, and there will then be some chance for our western farmers. At the present time their plight is appalling. We are going to succeed. We will pull through, but- we will require the services of the best brains in this country and in the empire.

We know how near to disaster Great Britain was when she went off the gold standard; we

know, further, that throughout the world times are bad. We know that one of the greatest reasons for present economic distress is the burden of debt under which the world is struggling. I do not know how the world will pay its debts. We in Canada have held our heads high; we have met every obligation, and 'by so doing are honoured throughout the world. Had England adopted the policy of that ungodly country known as Russia and repudiated all her debts, there would be prosperity in the British Empire.

We are playing the game; we are playing it fair and laying our cards on the table. When we enter into treaties with British dominions or with the mother country, what is not said is just as important as what is said. We will play the game with each other; that is the foundation upon which we shall build a superstructure which will enure to the advantage and benefit of the whole British empire.

We have heard many statements made on behalf oif that old man of the sea, free trade. What woidd have happened to this country if during the depression we had had a policy of free trade?

Topic:   IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Permalink
LIB

Edward James Young

Liberal

Mr. YOUNG:

Better times.

Topic:   IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Permalink
CON

Charles Herbert Dickie

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DICKIE:

Every manufacturer in Canada would have gone out of business; our country would have been flooded with products dumped from Czechoslovakia and other countries. Before I left the west I noticed1 some pottery from the country I have mentioned, and I wondered how freight could be paid and the price remain so small. The articles to which I am referring sold at little or nothing. We cannot compete with people in that country, nor can we compete with the people of Germany or France, because we have a higher standard of living anid better wage scales than obtain in those countries. We are trying to maintain our higher standard, and I 'believe we shall be able to do so.

We talk about blazing our way into the markets of the world. The only way we can do so is to show that the British Empire is self-contained and deal within the empire, just as the American states deal within themselves. By so doing eventually we will get 'back on solid ground. Free trade is a lost canse throughout the world. If theoretically it is correct- and I am not making that admission'-certainly it is not practicable and could not be economically sound in a little country of only 9,000.000 people lying adjacent to another country with a population of over 120,000,000 operating under a protective tariff. We know what has happened in the past. The American

United Kingdom

people would not take any of our manufactured goods. Finally they shut out our lumber, copiper, zinc and lead. Do we suppose for one minute that we could enter their markets with our manufactured products? Not at all. Overnight duties wouild be put on which would stop our goods at the border. How, then, are we to trade advantageously with our neighbours? They are doing what they have a perfect right to do. We found, however, that we had to look somewhere else for our markets. At an earlier time we had an extensive trade with the United States. In the year 1925 we imported nearly $900,000,000 worth of goods from that country, and suffered an adverse balance of trade to the extent of $350,000,000. That is enough to ruin any 9,000,000 people -on the face of the earth. They bought our pulp, paper, timber, lumber and commodities of that nature, and in return we bought manufactured products. Our workmen went to the United States, and worked in American factories to manufacture the articles bought by Canadians.

Finally the worm turned. When this government assumed office it saw the fallacy of such practices. The wonder is that we were not bankrupt long before. We saw our difficulty earlier than England did. She was suffering from an inundation of products from Germany and other countries to whose markets she could not get access with, her manufactured articles. To remedy the difficulty we put on duties which prevented goods coming from the United States as readily as they had come in the past. The Americans gave us credit for our actions; they realized how foolish we had been when, throughout the long years, we had been buying their manufactured goods. The best of our bone and sinew was migrating to the United States to work in factories so that goods might be manufactured and sent back to Canada. Our money and our people were going to that country. However, matters could go only so far. and they went a little farther than they should have gone. With their immense industrial improvements and their labour saving devices they find themselves with an idle population of 11,000,000 with whom they know not what to do. I do not know how they will ever find work for that great number. Those people went to the United States when she was at the peak of production, and supplying the world. Finally the world has adopted the policy originally taken by our neighbours to the south, and is not buying. Therefore it is impossible to say how that 11,000,000 people can be put to work. Certainly work must be found or chaos will inevitably be the

result. That country will be the stamping ground for soap box orators, communists and agitators trying to stir up in the minds of the people opposition to the government.

This government has attempted to remedy the condition, and I believe a very earnest effort was made during the Imperial economic conference to effect improvements. I believe therefore it is with very bad grace that my hon. friends opposite do not acknowledge the earnestness of the effort put forth at the conference. I believe they should have thrown their lot in with us and said, "Let us give this a trial; we will stand with you. We will not abjure our party principles, but will stand behind you and see if the conference will bring some of the benefits you are claiming."

There are articles in the agreement in connection with which there will be criticisms, and properly so. It was impossible for Canada to get all she would have liked, and it was likewise impossible for England to get everything she wanted. It was a case of bargaining and granting concessions, making arrangements which would help the world and the British Empire. Many of the criticisms offered are not well taken. We listened to two well reasoned and moderate speeches, one by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore) and the other by the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm). It was apparent while listening to these men that their hearts were not in their work. I am convinced they believe the treaty will be of benefit to Canada, and they as much as said so. I believe the hon. member for North Bruce, one of the outstanding men in the house, was giving up for party something which would be for the benefit of mankind. One could see his heart was not with the opposition, and the hearts of many hon. members opposite are not against us.. Liberals and Conservatives have a common cause; for God's sake let us forget the political claptrap such as characterized the remarks of the hon. member who preceded me. Let us talk common sense, get together and see if we cannot lift this country out of the depression so that the people who are walking the streets may have something to do-. We would do much if we put our heads together and forget party politics for a while. If the right hon. leader of the opposition will forget them for a while I assure hon. members he will be more popular. To the man on the street the term "politician" is anathema. We should 'be ashamed to be mere politicians, under present conditions. People are getting tired of stump speeches, they want results, they want energetic men. There are honest, able men on both sides of this house. In the comer to my right

512 COMMONS

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements

are men who are absolutely sincere, but who are trying to forge weapons, such as inflation of currency, with which I do not believe anything useful can be achieved. However, they believe in what they preach. The majority of those opposite me believe in the proposals advanced by the Liberal party, but they are not good enough for the people of Canada at the present time.

My time is about up, and I will conclude by saying only this: I consider that the recent Imperial conference in Ottawa, was one of the greatest events in empire history in recent years. Eminent people met from all parts of the empire, with the firm desire to do something, willing to make concessions, to give in order to get, with the purpose of binding the empire into a harmonious whole. I consider that conference and its results a wonderful tribute to the great leader of the Conservative party in Canada, who gathered these people together whose deliberations were so harmonious and whose conclusions were unanimous. I believe we are now turning the corner. We do not yet see the clouds breaking and the sun shining on the economic horizon, but the brighter time is coming, and we should get together and do our very best putting politics aside, in a united effort to lift Canada out of the morass in which she is struggling. Think of a country of nine or ten million people having such a burden of debt to pay to the United States as we have, about $2,000,000 a week, I think, including the municipal, provincial and national debts; going there to pay interest on money we borrowed when we should have been laying some up for a rainy day. We sowed the wind and we are reaping the whirlwind. I listened to the very excellent speech of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) this afternoon; we are all delighted to listen to his honest, sincere expressions, and I wished he might be right, but I can hardly see how his theory of having our dollar bear a fixed ratio to the pound is going to lift Canada out of the depression or give us a better price for our wheat. That $2,000,000 a week interest has to be paid in the United States in gold. With such a scheme as he proposed, I am afraid our Canadian dollar would very quickly drop to the equivalent of the reduction on the British pound, somewhere about seventy cents, and we would be paying a premium of thirty cents on the dollar to our American creditors. I am afraid such a proposal is fantastic. We must bend our shoulders under the load, economize as best we can, and eventually we will reach the plateau of prosperity.

Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster) (Mr. Speaker, I should like at the outset to

[Mr. Dickie.i

make an observation in regard to a remark of the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Man-ion) the other afternoon. I was rather surprised when he flung the accusation across the floor of the house that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) would be praying to be in the position of the government. It is not long since the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) said to the leader of the opposition and to the Liberal members generally that we were going around the country thanking heaven that we are not in power. Perhaps some members of the government now wish to heaven that we were there instead of themselves.

It is only natural and to be expected that when the Prime Minister laid these agreements before the house he would put them in the best possible light. Personally I congratulate the Prime Minister on the way he presented them and on his speech generally. But I have a fault to find with the interpretation and impressions that have gone forth regarding that speech and the agreements as a whole. The idea seems to be suggested that this is the greatest gesture of free trade that has ever been offered the old country in Canada's history. I cannot agree with that, because I remember the Dunning budget, which offered greater freedom of trade than the agreement now before the house.

I shall not go into the items in too much detail, but I will mention six: wool piece goods, wool overcoatings, wool hosiery, wool blankets, cotton printed goods and white cotton flannelette. Those are all articles used generally and in large quantities by the people of Canada, and it is rather remarkable that the greatest reduction of all, on which the government perhaps should be complimented, is a reduction of 24 per cent on tiles for the roofs of houses.

One of the first acts of the Conservative party when it came into power was to abrogate the Dunning budget. If the trade agreements now before us were to constitute a great gesture before the world for freer trade, then I believe they could have gone much further downward than they have done, be-couse there are many articles on which the duties are now two, three and even four times higher than under the Dunning budget.

Referring to the Prime Minister's statement that outside countries must contribute if they want to trade with the empire, I fear that statement might very well provoke retaliation and perhaps combines on the part of other countries. Rumours of this we have heard already, some countries threatening not to use Canadian or British ships.

United. Kingdom

The Liberals have been asked to accept these agreements in the proper spirit. I would like to remind lion, members of the manner in which these agreements were presented to the house. First we were told that the policy of high protection was the policy enunciated by the Conservative party prior to the election of 1930. Then we were informed in no uncertain terms that at the conference of 1930 the high protection policies of the Conservative party were advanced by the present government. The right hon. Prime Minister further stated: "We have succeeded where the Liberals have failed"; and again, "we"-with the emphasis on the "we"-"have done well." Such language, Mr. Speaker, I claim is partisan and not conducive to national spirit.

There have been many references on the part of hon. members to loyalty to the empire. I think that kind of talk should be eliminated. I do not believe any hon. member should accuse any one person or party of having more loyalty or less, than another because each of us here is a Canadian, and we are proud of it. That talk of loyalty to the empire is very much to be deprecated. Would any hon. member dare to accuse the Labour or Liberal leaders in the old country of being disloyal to Great Britain or the empire because they have seen fit to oppose and criticize these agreements? The Labour party there have plainly stated that they will not support this agreement, and if returned to power, they assert, they will abrogate the treaty entirely. Will any hon. gentleman accuse such men as Sir Herbert Samuel, Arthur Henderson, Philip Snowden and others of equally high standing of disloyalty to the motherland or to the empire, merely because they have made such statements? Of course not. Then why accuse hon. members in this house of such a base thought? Why accuse them of disloyalty either to Canada or to the empire merely because they stand up here and dare to criticize the agreements that have been signed? And just remember that it was the same Philip Snowden who, when resigning, is credited with saying that the agreements were being rushed through before the full story at Ottawa was known.

I should like at this time to join my protest with that of the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) when he said that nothing bad been done at the conference in regard to unemployment. It was an economic conference, but economics was the one thing that was not discussed. Unemployment, the gravest problem facing not only Canada but the entire world today, received no attention. There was, however, one delegate who had in mind something different from trade agree-53719-33

ments. Trade agreements had only recently been signed with New Zealand and a little earlier with Australia. I refer to the Hon. Mr. Bruce, who made some very pertinent remarks at the opening of the conference. He said:

Our accomplishment, however, is not limited by what we can achieve in the realm of intraempire trade. I believe that in monetary policy we can take action which will be a contribution towards the restoration of prices, confidence and stability.

Today the world is not suffering from any lack of commodities. The production of wealth has, with the aid of science, attained to a point never previously reached and is sufficient to provide a standard of living higher than has previously existed. Yet we have millions of people unemployed, and the general standard of living is declining. This position is a challenge to our civilization. To fail to find a solution is an indictment of statesmanship in the empire and throughout the world. AH peoples are looking for a lead on this problem. Let us here at Ottawa attempt to give it. There is no reason why we cannot within our own group of nations, associated as we assuredly would be with other nations whose monetary policy is closely linked to ours, take the first steps to restore world trade. Such a development would gain the adherence of many other countries and with the strength thus gathered the way would be paved for the solution of what is perhaps the greatest problem that has ever baffled mankind.

Here was one delegate who evidently expected that more matters than trade agreements were to be discussed. As I have already said, trade agreements had only recently been signed with New Zealand and Australia. Having in mind all this and also the fact that practically every person who has given a rudimentary study to the subject of economics will and indeed does admit that tariff barriers have stifled the trade of the world, with the result that standards of living for millions of the people of the world have disappeared, let us ask ourselves seriously this question: Has Ottawa shown the world a way, or is this just another high tariff policy of the Conservative party, fastened upon the Canadian people for five years and also binding the hands of future parliaments for that length of time so far as world trade is concerned? That is the question as it appears to me. Has the conference given a lead in the matters Mr. Bruce spoke of, or is this merely another trade agreement binding future parliaments for five years in regard to trade not only with the colonies and the motherland but, as well, with the countries of the world at large?

I wish to dwell for a moment on the effect of tariffs generally. Tariffs in the early days were introduced I believe as a source of revenue. Later on, tariffs were divided some-

514 COMMONS

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements

what, partly as a source of revenue and partly to afford reasonable protection to some industries. But now we have a direct change from all that. We have a diversion of trade, as indicated iby hon. members to the left of Mr. Speaker, coupled with the provision that all other outside countries shall pay tribute if they wish to trade within the empire. Some years ago competition was considered the life of trade, and competition in those days was very necessary to trade. In my opinion it was necessary for two reasons-to keep up the quality of goods and also to keep down the price of goods to the consumer. But competition has been entirely eliminated today; tariff barriers have changed this very considerably. There is no competition in business today, at least in most modern businesses. What with trusts, combines, cartels and large companies, competition, as I say, has been entirely eliminated. And this in my opinion has been one of the contributory causes of putting wealth into the hands of the few. One could cite many instances of combinations that have eliminated all competition in the commodities used by the masses of mankind, such as aluminum, glass, soap, threads, cotton, gasoline, cement, flour and, I was almost going to say, coal. I think I will mention coal because, from the price charged here, it is evident, to me at any rate, that a combine does exist. Large concerns get around tariffs nowadays very easily; they place factories or large units in each country and ship from each of these places, thus avoiding tariff barriers or restrictions. I am not as much concerned as the Prime Minister with the fate of these industries, because their very last thought or idea is the welfare of labour or of mankind. Their very first thought, their first and only thought, is wealth-wealth for themselves.

May I say, sir, that many reports reach us in British Columbia about the solicitude of the Prime Minister with regard to trade with Russia. I have here an article which I think describes the situation fairly well. It is written by Mr. H. Napier Moore. Speaking about part of the proceedings, he says:

The ultimatum, of course, was from Mr. Bennett and required Britain to denounce her trade treaty with Russia. Mr. Moore says; "There was a scene. There was another the next day when Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Runciman and Mr. Chamberlain urged the Canadian prime minister to think of their political position at home. . . . Mr. Bennett intimated that if they were in an embarrassing position with Russia they had got themselves into it and that it was up to them to get out of it; that he had to think of his own position, too, and particularly what he deemed to be the interests of Canada."

FMr. Reid.]

I have heard hon. members deprecate dealings with Russia. I have here an article with regard to what is transpiring at the moment in the old country:

A coincidence which can not but embarrass Conservative members of the National government was a speech last night by Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland, Labour minister in the last Conservative government, who, on returning from a visit to Russia, declares in effect his conviction that the policy now adopted is wrong, and says that much as he dislikes some aspects of the Soviet regime, he is in "favour of increasing trade with Russia as much as possible." He proceeded to express the conviction that permanence of the Soviet regime was assured and advocated not only increased trading with Russia, but assistance with the capital she urgently needed.

This is an old country authority, Conservative at that, speaking about increasing trade with Russia. He continues:

It has become immediately apparent that the government's action in denouncing the Russian agreement takes precedence over all else in public importance. Domestically there are bound to be repercussions for many thousands of workers in the industrial midlands and the north depend at present for their livelihood on Russian orders. The Labour Herald declares that nearly 50,000 would be thrown out of work in Lancashire alone if these orders ceased.

Mr. Thomas made it clear in the terms of the communication sent to Russia that Great Britain desired more trade with that country. I think that fact should be impressed upon hon. members to your right, Mr. Speaker, and especially upon the Prime Minister, who the reports say almost wept at the thought of trading with this socialist country, as he described Russia. I am not carried away with such lamentations. I find it very hard to understand how he could plead with tire British delegates not to trade with Russia while at the same time negotiations were being carried on by the aluminum interests of this country for the exchange of their products for Russian oil. The statistics show that the imports of crude petroleum, not in its natural state, amounted to 4,323,515 gallons valued at over 8195,000, of which over 2,500,000 gallons valued at $110,000 came from Russia. I wonder what the Prime Minister means by saying to Great Britain: "For heaven's sake cut off your trade with Russia," and then permitting the aluminum interests in Canada to enter into such trading negotiations. If it were coal it might not be so bad, because at the present time the consumer in Canada is being charged more for British than for American anthracite. This seems to be a deliberate hold up and steal and should be looked into. Such conditions should not be

United Kingdom

permitted to continue during times of stress. British anthracite is being 'landed at cost of around $8 per ton, while it costs $12 to land a ton of American anthracite, yet the consumer is being charged $18 per ton for British anthracite while he pays only $14 or $15 per ton for American. When I hear these lamentations about trade with Russia my candid opinion is that I wish there was more of it -and remember, we have lots of wheat.

Mention has been made of cartels, combinations and trusts, but this is the same aluminum company wrhich appeared before the tariff board set up under tfhe Liberal regime and asked that a tariff be imposed upon aluminum goods coming into Canada from their own company in the States. Why was that done? So that they could further exploit the people of this country. That is what has happened and will happen again under the protection given to our industrialists. More will be exacted from the people; more profits will be made, and the working man will be the last to be considered.

There are one or two matters upon whjph I should like to touch regarding the agreements but, as I say, it would have been better had the items been considered first so that we could have had explanations of many of them. The first matter to which I shall refer is the cattle embargo. I am glad that this embargo has been lifted, but this thought goes through my mind: What would have happened if there had not been trouble between the Irish Free State and Great Britain? The delegates from the Irish Free State were here to tell the people of Canada that that market was there. In passing, may I say it seems strange that we get the worst of it in our agreement with the Irish Free State. We permit the goods from that country to enter Canada under the British preferential rate while our goods are to be subject to the lowest tariff. At the present time the lowest tariff on agricultural products is prohibitive. The lowest tariff on barley is seven shillings per hundredweight, and on oats, five shillings -two of our principal commodities.

I paid a great deal of attention this afternoon to the speech of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir), and I noticed that he took up considerable time criticising, or lambasting, as I should say, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell). The minister never delivers a speech, either inside or outside of the house, without making these two gentlemen the objects of his tirades. He stated that there were just three uses for wheat-to supply human needs, for seeding purposes, and for the feeding of 53719-33*

live stock. What then is the cause of the present low price of wheat? Last year the dumping of wheat by Russia was given as the cause of the low price, but no one has mentioned the dumping of wheat by Germany, which is purchasing considerable wheat from Canada and dumping her own wheat into Great Britain because her own producers or farmers receive a bonus on their exports of wheat. The minister has mentioned three uses for wheat, but I am giving another-it can be bought up by one country in order that it may export its own wheat and so receive a bonus.

Nothing was done at the conference with regard to price levels. This matter of great importance should have been dealt with. If at all possible there should be one unit of value. Mr. Moore says:

The British delegates felt that Canada was responsible for wrecking the London conference of 1930 and that this dominion had acted unfairly in raising the duties against Britain before going to the bargaining table that year and offering, as a great favour, to take them off again,-or a part of them. Also, they knew that

This is very important as bearing on this matter.

-Canada alone among the countries of the world made regulations to ensure that Britain should obtain no trading advantage from the decline of the value of her currency. And they found at the conference that Canada was disposed to give little and demand much.

Above all others, the question of a unit of value should have been discussed. If there is going to be an equality of trade there should be a unit of value acceptable alike to all countries in the empire.

There are many of the agricultural items about which I am in doubt, but I should like to refer particularly to honey and prepared milk products. I notice that nothing has been said in the Canadian agreement about the entry of honey or prepared milk, if we except condensed milk. In the Australian and New Zealand agreements honey, prepared milk and condensed sweetened milk are mentioned, but in the United Kingdom-Canada agreement, while we have sweetened condensed milk no mention is made either of honey or of other prepared milks. This is significant, and when the time comes the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) may give us an explanation. I have in mind the three large combines which control the sweetened condensed milk trade of this country. I am just wondering whether something has not been put over our farmers' associations who have milk powder and evaporated milk to dispose of; because to me it is significant that those two articles are left out. If, as the Prime

516 COMMONS

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements

Minister has stated, we are to receive the same benefits, it is strange they are not mentioned at all.

I now come to an item in the tariff which affects British Columbia, and that is eggs. While it is very acceptable to have a preference on eggs entering the old country, I am not convinced of the great advantage offered the poultrymen of British Columbia, due to the high freight rates on the feed which they use, thus increasing the costs of production. To show that these ideas are not only my own, may I quote an article in which the Deputy Minister of Agriculture of British Columbia speaks along the same lines. This was at a large meeting of poultrymen held in New Westminster, where among other matters affecting the poultry industry the quantity of eggs going from China was mentioned. It will surprise many to know that 40,000 tons of prepared eggs went from China last year to the British market. Mr. Munro, speaking of the arrangement that we have entered into now, says:

"You cannot profitably supply the export market," said Mr. Munro, "unless your problem of feed supply is worked out. There is no doubt that present excessive domestic rates on feed grain to this coast are a barrier to the development of the poultry industry."

Mr. Ruttledge, of Chilliwack, for twenty-three years a prominent and successful poultry rancher, questioned whether the industry could flourish as it should without an adjustment of freight rates on feed grains. He said:

"Undoubtedly we are being taxed to bonus the wheat grower," said Mr. Ruttledge. "I feel that in excessive charges for feeds which I use I pay a bonus of $500 a year to the wheat farmers. The difference between the export rate on grain from the prairies and the rate which we pay for feed grain is, any way one looks at it, a bonus to the wheat grower. We pay it to the railway, and the railway pays it to the wheat grower.

"In the face of the present unemployment problem, the freight rate situation with respect to grain to Vancouver is worthy of investigation. If grain goes abroad and is handled mechanically from the cars to the elevators and the ships and few men are engaged on the process, the freight rate is low. But if we buy the grain for feed, employ a great number of men to hande it, distribute it and feed it to thousands of flocks of poultry throughout the coast area, we are taxed excessively for the privilege."

Nothing is said in the schedule about the entry of prepared eggs or frozen eggs, yet China alone shipped last year some 40,000 tons of that product.

With regard to fish, it is true that some consideration has been given to fish products, but let me mention one incident that occurred this year by way of showing how some

canneries get around the difficulty. Some 28,000 sockeye salmon were brought from across the line and canned in canneries by Chinese help, and these will probably go out to the old country marked "Canadian" under any preference enjoyed by Canadian manufacturers. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we are close to the boundary line there, and the boundary line is close to the mouth of the Fraser river. Those fish were caught in United States waters by United States citizens and brought into this country. They were canned, as I say, by Chinese help. They will go out as Canadian fish. That is one way in which those people will get around any preference given to Canadians.

Regarding agriculture, the result of the conference seems to have resolved itself _ into this: We have provided something; it is up

to you farmers now to go and help yourselves. It reminds one of the old saying that God helps those who help themselves. But to the industries the agreement says: We will help you to help yourself to

the Canadian public by the protective tariff. There is an article that I should like to read to the house. It will show how Mr. Morris outlines the result in regard to at least one item in the tariff. He says:

"I say that your retail prices for textile goods of all kinds in Canada are outrageously high.

"Virtually everything in textile costs the Canadian consumer buying from your retail stores double what they cost in English stores.

"This is due solely to the ridiculously high duty on textiles, especially on British-made textiles.

"All your Canadian prices are based on the imported price plus duty. The duty being high, it follows that the price must be outrageously high." .

Mr. Morris took one line as a case in point. It is a cotton cloth which his firm has sold across Canada for years and which for several technical reasons "cannot be made in Canada." It is sold by the firm in forty-two countries of the world.

In Germany, he said, the same exact cloth pays a duty of three cents a yard. In Canada the duty is twelve cents a yard. How the Canadian duty is made up he explains in detail.

First, there is the dumping duty on exchange, which works out at fourteen per cent. Manchester pays in gold for its raw cotton and chemicals, so that the sterling price is proportionately higher than if the finished article were also sold on the gold basis.

The Canadian customs charges the difference between the quoted price of the pound, in Canadian dollars, and the fixed rate for duty purposes of $4.40, and this works out at about fourteen per cent on present quotations.

Then there is the Canadian tariff rate, ostensibly 20 per cent ad valorem, which is really 25 per cent, because it is assessed on a pound on its old value of $4.86.

United Kingdom

Again, on Thursday there was an additional specific duty of two cents a pound which on Wednesday, prior to Mr. Bennett's "reduction," was three cents a pound.

"That reduction means exactly one-seventh of a cent a yard on a cloth that sells in Canada at thirty-nine cents retail. Just twice the price in London, and the price in Australia when we sell in quantity is only 50 per cent more than in London.

"That is because Australia charges only 54 per cent total duty on British textiles, while they charge American and other countries 21J per cent.

"That means that Australia gives a preference to the British article of 80 per cent of the actual duty paid.

"Row I ask a simple question. How can you expect us in Lancashire and Yorkshire, where we have as many employed in the textile trade as in the whole of Canada-how can you expect us to buy Canadian products when you will not take our goods in return?"

Mr. Morris thinks it unfortunate for Canada that the cost of so many commodities is so exceptionally high as compared with other countries, and that this is bound to have an effect on the cost of production of wheat and other natural products which must be exported to world markets in competition.

"If Canadian cotton manufacturers require all the protection I have outlined, they must be in an exceptionally bad way. The protection amounts altogether to virtually 60 per cent. It is actually the highest in the world. Why, in some cases we can deliver our goods duty-paid in the United States at lower prices than in Canada, in spite of United States tariffs that have made that country notorious," Mr. Morris said.

Australia, as a result of the Ottawa agreement, has reduced the tariff on many lines of British goods. On manufactured woollens the reduction was 50 per cent of total duty.

India has increased the preference on cotton goods from 61 to 25 per cent of the value of the goods, with the result that the duty is now' 25 per cent on British cottons and 50 per cent on all others.

"In plain English I say that you in British Columbia and your neighbours in the wheat belt are paying through the nose to bolster up the textile industry of eastern Canada.

"Mr. Bennett may think Canada can go forward on a bolstered textile industry, but my opinion is that she will go backward if the wheat grower is to be handicapped. My observation in twenty years of visiting Canada is that when wheat crops are good, all Canada is good, and when wheat is bad all Canada suffers.

"Denmark might be a lesson for Mr. Bennett and for Canada. Denmark sells butter, bacon and eggs to England, and because she has furnished just what is wanted-

And that is important.

"-she got the English market.

"In spite of slump conditions, Denmark in the first six months of 1932 bought 12J per cent more British goods than ever before. In return for the British buying, she is pushing the sale of British goods.

"Even the Danish banks are advising their own importers to huy more British goods whenever possible. That is how Denmark works to retain her English market."

I am afraid my time is up, but it will be evident, Mr. Speaker, from my remarks that I cannot support the resolution before the house.

Topic:   IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Permalink
LIB

Harry Butcher

Liberal

Mr. HARRY BUTCHER (Last Mountain):

Mr. Speaker, during the past two years, as you have been constantly reminded today, we have been passing through a very serious time, a period of great depression, and during that time many of us have been alternating between hope and fear-the hope that conditions were about to improve, and the fear that the worst was yet to come. We have snatched with avidity at straws that seemed to indicate a turn in the tide, only to be disappointed and find that the signs had failed. A slight upturn in the stock market, a few cents increase in the price of wheat, have at times inspired us with the belief that the depression was about to end.

But for some months prior to August last there was throughout the whole of this country, as one hon. member said this afternoon, a ray of hope, and that ray of hope found its source in the forthcoming imperial conference. The conference has passed into the realm of history, and the members of this parliament have now gathered here to consider the agreements there made, to analyze their provisions, to approve or to disapprove, and to pass our judgment upon them. Believing, as many of us do, that one of the chief causes of our present condition is the stagnation or near stagnation of trade which prevails throughout the world, we cannot but think that while much that was good was done at that conference, other things were done that we from this side of the house certainly cannot approve. In so far as reductions were made in the duties imposed on British goods entering Canada, I am sure that every member on this side of the house approves; but in so far as increases were made in intermediate and general tariffs against other countries, I feel that we cannot approve.

We had hoped that when the statesmen of the empire met together they would by some means evolve measures that would result in the wheels of industry again turning at full capacity, bringing a new and hitherto unexperienced prosperity to the primary producers of this country. We had hoped that something would be done to clear the channels of trade which had become so filled with obstacles, artificial impediments to that free flow of trade which is so desirable in this world. Amongst those obstacles I might

518 COMMONS

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements

mention ad valorem duties, specific duties, excise duties, dumping duties, arbitrary valuations for duty purposes, arbitrary valuation of the pound for duty purposes. We had hoped that the conference might see its way to remove some of these obstacles and clear not only the channels of trade within the British Empire but also those that flow between Canada and foreign nations. That the desire and objective of the conference was to accomplish these things we had no doubt whatsoever. In the mind of every delegate who gathered at that conference there must have been a desire for improved world conditions, to increase the trade not only between the component parts of the British Empire but also among all the nations of the world. But that that desire will be fulfilled, that that objective will be realized, I cannot believe. I cannot believe it because the principle that governed the negotiations was to my mind a wrong principle. In so far as it would lead to a reduction of duties, it was a right principle; in so far as it would result in an increase of duties against foreign countries, I believe it was a wrong principle. No doubt our own delegates had a desire to make such arrangements as would secure to ourselves much business that is now done by foreign nations with Great Britain, and at the same time retain the business that we have been doing in the past with those same foreign nations from which under this treaty we expect to take business.

But what reactions may we expect? Will not new alliances ;be formed between those nations that we desire to exclude from interempire trade? Will not new treaties and new conventions be made by those foreign nations, from which we shall be excluded? What about Germany and France, Italy, Russia, Japan and China? Will all these nations, with.their industrious and inventive peoples, so filled with a desire to trade, be willing to bow their heads and say kismet? Will they be willing to fold their hands and say, "It has been decreed by the British Empire that we shall not trade with any of the nations of that empire. We accept the verdict. We must realize that henceforth we shall do less business." I think not. Then what will happen? These nations will say, "If the British Empire is determined to close its doors against us we will find other doors through which we may enter and do the business which our people desire to do." I say that we are inviting reprisals by the additions that are being made in the intermediate and general rates of duty, and we shall see an increase in other countries of this very same spirit of exclusion. We have been saying in Canada: Buy made in Canada goods. Great

Britain has been a little more generous. She has said: Buy British goods from the empire, at home and overseas. Japan has been saying: Do not buy foreign goods. China has been saying: Boyoott foreign goods. India

has been saying: Buy made in India goods

and boycott imports. That is really a spirit that is most undesirable, a spirit that can never be productive of good. But I think the very height of folly was recently exhibited in the city of Toronto. I have a cutting from the Toronto Daily Star which is headed, Clash in Board, and reads as follows:

Controllers Simpson and McBride had a brief but fiery exchange of words in board of control today, following discussion over the equipment for the purification plant at Victoria Park given to W. J. Westaway.

Certain materials have to be purchased outside Canada and Controller McBride strongly objected.

"I'd build a wall around Toronto," he said. "We've got to protect our own industries."

Can you beat that, Mr. Speaker? In Toronto, that big city with its factories anxious to do busines not only with the rest of Canada but with the other nations of the world, we find a man so benighted that he says: "I'd build a wall around Toronto." But are we not a little inclined to do the same thing around the British Emipre? Is it not possible that we have gone to a dangerous extreme? Certainly we want to do more business within the British Empire, but equally certainly we do not want to do less business with foreign nations.

I referred just now to possible reactions. I have before me the report on Foreign Affairs issued by the Empire Parliamentary Association for the months of July and August, and turning to page 427 under the heading of Scandinavia I read:

At the end of June it was announced that the British firm of Messrs. Dorman, Long and Company had secured a f2,000,000 contract to build a steel bridge connecting the islands of Zealand and Falster. Comments of a conflicting character were published in the Danish press when the announcement was made. On the one hand it was hoped that this would improve trading relations between Denmark and Great Britain, and against that it was urged that the arrangements for the building of a bridge should have been deferred at any rate until the results of the Ottawa conference were made known.

I need not point out the inference; it is perfectly clear. Again under the heading Norway we find this:

As in the case of so many other countries, the government and the public in Norway followed with great interest the proceedings of the Ottawa conference. As soon as the results of the conference were made known, it was announced that the Norwegian government

United Kingdom

would be prepared to negotiate for a new agreement with Great Britain at any time. Generally speaking, Norway considers that it stands in a stronger position than most foreign countries, as on the whole its balance

It is not necessary to go as far as Norway or Denmark to find examples of possible reprisals. When making his -announcement with regard to these agreements the Prime Minister made the following statement which appears at page 121 of Hansard:

Under normal conditions Canada exports annually about 1.800,000.000 board feet of lumber valued at $50,000,000 of which

1.445.000. 000 feet valued at $39,000,000 has been going to the United States, and

186.000. 000 feet valued at $6,474,000 to the United Kingdom.

Then come the words to which I draw particular attention: .

The recent United States import tax of $3 per 1,000 board feet has practically closed this market to Canada.

A Canadian press despatch dated October 5 reads as follows:

An increase in duty on Canadian lumber entering United States from $3 to $4 per 1,000 feet board measure becomes effective immediately according to an announcement received today by a Toronto lumber firm from the Treasury department, United States customs, Buffalo, New York.

A few moments ago an hon. member opposite stated this action was not taken by way of retaliation. Possibly not, but certainly it has all the appearances of retaliation. It would seem that the United States authorities had in mind some of the arrangements made at the recent conference.

Then again at page 123 of Hansard the Prime Minister is reported as follows:

Until recently our surplus production of copper was sold almost entirely in the United States, the only market available to copper mines of British Columbia and eastern Quebec.

Then he uses the same words, "The recent United States tariff" and goes on to say:

The recent United States tariff of four cents per pound closed this market.

Is it not probable that this action on the part of the United States was more or less in reply to some of the agreements of the Imperial economic conference?

Topic:   IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Permalink
CON

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

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

The only difficulty is that they were taken first-months before.

Topic:   IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Permalink
LIB

Harry Butcher

Liberal

Mr. BUTCHER:

I accept the statement of the right hon. gentleman. I notice however that the statement I have just read is dated October 5.

Topic:   IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Permalink
CON

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

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

I am speaking about copper. That action was taken months before.

Topic:   IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Permalink
LIB

Harry Butcher

Liberal

Mr. BUTCHER:

This statement in regard to lumber is dated October 5.

Topic:   IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Permalink

October 24, 1932