October 28, 1932

CON

Isaac Duncan MacDougall

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MACDOUGALL:

The Dunning budget.

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

William Daum Euler

Liberal

Mr. EULER:

No; my hon. friend will have to look that up. Pie will find that he is wrong. It was raised to 25 per cent by this government, and, strange to say, was raised another 2i per cent by this agreement. The only result that flows from that is that it prejudices and injures the manufacturer of shoes in Canada, who is obliged to buy some of his kid leather from the United States. In any case he has to pay a higher tariff and that just

United Kingdom

makes the cost of his shoes higher to the Canadian consumer, without doing anybody any good, in order to protect two industries who agreed that if they were given 25 per cent- and there were a good many objections from the shoe manufacturers-they would supply the Canadian shoe manufacturer at the right price and in the right quantity and quality. They wished to try it out, making that promise to supply the shoe manufacturer on those terms. At the end of the year they were not doing so. They got another six months and still they are not doing it. And that, for the benefit of two concerns, one in Montreal and one in West Toronto. For their benefit we have that handicap placed on the shoe manufacturers. I commend that to the consideration of the government.

With regard to coal, we are placing another ten cents on this commodity. Last year I objected to the placing of a tariff of forty cents a ton on anthracite coal, on this score, that it was simply adding to the burden, which is now heavy enough, of the man who has to heat his house with anthracite coal. I speak particularly of Ontario. Instead of doing this it would be much wiser for the government to investigate what is called the toll gate in the city of Montreal, whereby one or two or three gentlemen exact tribute on every ton of Welsh coal imported into this country.

With regard to the reductions on textiles, they are negligible. An hon. gentleman on the other side asked me the other day whether I would support a reduction in the duty on textiles. I think I woul(j. When duties go as high as 50, 60 , 70, 80, yes, and 100 per cent, they are entirely too high, higher than necessary. I might speak of the British preference -and it is astonishing how sometimes a manufacturer will be quite in favour of the lowering of a tariff when it affects his raw material, and rightly so. I am speaking now with regard to textiles. I was debating with a manufacturer one day the propriety of the British preference, especially with respect to textiles. "Yes," he said, "I want that preference; it is the only protection I have against the rapacity of the Canadian textile manufacturer." So he was in favour of the preference. I was going to make a reference to the tariff board, that it might be used as a means of the reduction of tariffs, upon representations from the British manufacturers, but I have no time for that.

I want to say a word with reference to the dumping clause and exchange, because it has become nothing less than a nightmare to importers in Canada. See what they have to go through. First they pay ad valorem duty on the basis of the pound as it was 53719-42

formerly-I am speaking of British importations. They pay the ad valorem duty on the old basis of $4.86j, even if they actually pay a dollar less than that for the goods. Then they pay a specific duty, then an excise duty of 3 per cent, which is not an excise duty at all but an addition to the tariff. And then they are up against a further valuation of the pound on its present basis of $4.40, which is placed there merely for the purpose of exacting the dump, another form of tariff. Then they take the value of the importations during two weeks-that is, the value of the pound-and average that. If it is fixed at $3.80, they take the basis of $4.40 and the dump is the difference between the two, a matter of another 60 cents. After all, the importer is not a criminal; he has a right to live and do business. If he has not that right, put him out of business entirely by an embargo; but if he has that right, and if he is to be allowed to carry on his business at all, then I say he should be allowed to do his business in a reasonable way. But today he does not know, when he orders his goods, what they will cost him. There have been many examples, I know, where men have imported goods and have paid the tariff as exacted at the time and later on-I am not blaming the officials of the Customs department in this matter because this is the policy of the government-they have been asked to pay a further imposition, three months afterwards, when the goods have gone into consumption. Thus they sustain a loss. I am surprised that the British delegates did not make more of that point and did not insist that some sort of justice and fairness should be observed with respect to their imports into this country. I say this not particularly on their behalf but in the interests of the Canadian importer.

Certain objections have been made from this side. I have spoken of bargaining; I have spoken of dumping, and I have spoken of the exchange. I have said that in many instances tariffs are too high, and I believe that. I might also speak of the five year tie-up which we are encountering in connection with this treaty. It may be all very well to say that you must have some sort of continuity and stability about an agreement of this kind, but I will put this to the members of this house-perhaps they may feel antagonistic to this proposal. I have no particular love for our American friends so far as business is concerned, but I would not cut off my nose to spite my face. It may be that after the next election-and it looks that way-the United States government may change its attitude, and you may find Presi-

058 COMMONS

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements

dent Roosevelt, if he is elected, making certain proposals, possibly as to allowing our lumber to go into that country, or our fish or something else.

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

Hugh Alexander Stewart (Minister of Public Works)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STEWART (Leeds) :

He says not,

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

William Daum Euler

Liberal

Mr. EULER:

He has not said no. I do

not like to contradict my hon. friend so bluntly, but perhaps I might read from The New York Times a statement which he has made:

Governor Roosevelt believes that tariff is a foreign policy. He proposes to call at once an international conference to discuss export and import duties. "The entire question is now reduced to such absurdity," he says, "that all nations are ready for a new deal. They all know, even while they keep on adding new spikes to the wall, that there can be no world recovery without a flow of world trade."

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

Hugh Alexander Stewart (Minister of Public Works)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STEWART (Leeds):

Did my hon.

friend notice a recent announcement in which he assured the farmers of the United States that there would be no reduction in their protection?

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

William Daum Euler

Liberal

Mr. EULER:

I know perfectly well the

statement to which my hon. friend refers, but I am not speaking only of farm products. I mentioned fish and lumber. I did not even mention farm products, but for the hon. gentleman's benefit I may add that Governor Roosevelt makes this statement:

The main remedy, however, is simply the extension of the benefits of the tariff to the growers of the great export crops-wheat, cotton, etc.-"temporarily," he aualifies.

" Temporarily " would indicate that the time may not be very long. Now, five years is rather long. The Solicitor General the other day said that he would begin with the family and enlarge to the rest of the world. Well, the world will have to wait five years, and nations move pretty rapidly in these times. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker-

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member's time is

up.

Some lion. MEMBERS: Go on.

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

William Daum Euler

Liberal

Mr. EULER:

My time is up.

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

Paul-Arthur Séguin

Liberal

Mr. P. A. SEGUIN (L'Assompticn-Mont-calm) (Translation):

Mr. Speaker, owing to

the importance of the question under consideration, I have closely examined the trade agreements of the last Imperial economic conference.

In studying these agreements, I have endeavoured to set aside all party spirit and prejudice so as to judge of their merits strictly from a viewpoint of the results which may be expected from them, in the interests of the whole country, but more particularly in the

interests of the county of l'Assomption-Mont-calm, which I have the honour of representing in the house.

In perusing, I said, the agreements entered into by the Imperial government and the dominions, but especially between, Canada and the mother country, it is evident, and I am not so imbued with party spirit as not to admit it, that there is reason to believe that a number of them may be beneficial to Canada; however, I regret to state that, as a whole, the results will be of little benefit and will in no way relieve the financial unrest prevailing at present, it will be quite the contrary.

As a proof of good faith, I have no hesitation in stating, in the house, that I would willingly have approved certain items, however, the interests of the country, but especially those of my county, force me to reject the greater part of these agreements concluded between Canada and the other nations of the British Commonwealth.

I regret that parliamentary rules, and by the way, I wish to draw the attention of the house to the haste displayed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), in opposing the amendment moved by my hon. friend from Shelbume-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), I regret, I stated, that parliamentary rules prescribed this amendment being appended to the resolution under consideration; the Speaker having declared it out of order, there is no other alternative than to vote against the main motion.

I have earnestly endeavoured to follow this debate, I should have liked to see the speakers on the government side bring out absolutely convincing arguments to establish their contentions; they have not so far done so.

The hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre), whose natural gifts are well known, in his very eloquent speech, on Wednesday and Thursday last, instead of endeavouring to establish the advantages which he contends will result from the new trade agreements, preferred to be witty and even display his natural aptitude for the stage, with bugle sounding, he first informed us, on Wednesday, that his party was so convinced of the merits of its case that it was ready to appeal, immediately, to the people and that an election would afford an opportunity to Canadians to approve or disapprove the attitude of the government. However, the following day, when the house met, he thought it best to state that his remarks the previous evening, in this respect, were inconsiderate and that they should not be interpreted exactly as they were made. And, in that same speech, on Thursday, notwithstanding our good will, it is impossible to discover any plea in favour of the agreements

United Kingdom

of the Imperial conference; he preferred to devote most of his allotted time, to bring to life again, as he thought best, one whom he no more fears, now that he silently rests in his coffin, so as to prove to us that Laurier would disapprove, were he allowed to give his views from beyond the grave, the present policy of his party and its leaders. It is most probable, however, that after reading over his speech, had he spoken in the house, the following day, he would have requested us not to consider the previous day's speech too seriously as it was only intended to produce a momentary effect on his partisans. [DOT]

The lion. Solicitor General throughout his speech, only found as a background to his arguments, article 23 of the pact between the various nations of the commonwealth which, according to his interpretation, would be a safeguard in case unforeseen complications rose as regards these trade agreements This article reads as follows:

In the event of circumstances arising which, in the judgment of His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom or of His Majesty's government in Canada, as the ease may be, necessitate a variation in the terms of the agreement, the proposal to vary these terms shall form the subject of consultation between the two governments.

I regret, sir, to differ from the lion. Solicitor General on this point. In my opinion, this article 23 is rather an acknowledgment that Canada has forsaken her freedom of action as regards these trade agreements, and this new stipulation places her purely and simply on the level of slaves, since, during five years, she cannot act without consulting the United Kingdom, and this is what the Solicitor General calls a safety valve.

The hon. Postmaster General also thought it proper to take part in this debate. After assuring himself that he did not need to be reminded by the opposition in order to discover that a crisis prevailed in this country, he stated that his government, for the last two years, was conscientiously facing the new situation. The following is what he stated, according to Wednesday's Hansard, October 19, 1932:

For two years, the crisis has raged with such fury throughout the world that no economist, no statesman could forsee the consequences. The causes of this depression are numerous and, often, a remedy which is efficient, when applied in a healthy centre, is of no use during an epidemic or its action weakened in an infected centre.

The views of my hon. friend the Postmaster General are quite different from those he held during the election of 1930. He then contended that a crisis existed in Canada and that the Liberal administration was respons-53719-42J

ible for such a situation; he therefore requested the people to place the right hon. Mr. Bennett and his party in power, and that this would prove a panacea to all our ills. Now, after being in power for two years, the hon. Postmaster General informs us that his government endeavoured to fulfil as much as possible its pledges, but that, the causes of the crisis being so numerous, the remedy that his leader applied had no effect or its action was weakened by the infected centre.

My hon. friend goes a step further, without ever showing what benefit we might derive from these trade agreements, he asks us to wait two more years in order to find out the results of these agreements; in Hansard, October 19, 1932, he states:

However, sir, when our opponents, in their amendment-on which they are undecided how to vote-request us to refer the matter to the people before giving approval to the trade agreements, etc. . . . The Liberal party find it advantageous to request an appeal to the people at present instead of waiting two years hence, namely the time when the Canadian people will better be able to judge the results of these trade agreements.

How times have changed, sir! Who has forgotten the eloquent display of my hon. friend who, taking his cue from his leader, stated in 1930: put us in power and in three months, unemployment will have ceased. There will be a better market for butter, and no further mention of a crisis.

My hon. friend, in his speech, expressed the hope he felt that the trade agreements entered into by his leader, would produce profitable results on various items of farm products.

I shall especially refer to one of these items which greatly interests a number of my constituents, namely tobacco.

The hon. Postmaster General stated, in his speech, that the United Kingdom had imported over 230,000,000 pounds of tobacco, in 1930, and that Canada had shipped nearly 4,000,000 pounds.

But I wonder, sir, on what my hon. friend bases his statement that the new trade agreements with the commonwealth will be advantageous to tobacco growers in this country. May I state, sir, that I can but greatly regret the attitude taken by the right hon. Prime Minister who, previous to the Imperial conference, refused to listen to the representations which the farmers might have made, and especially the tobacco growers.

Having had the great privilege of being chosen as one of the four or five thousand farmers who met at the Coliseum, in July last, together with my good friends, the hon. members for North Huron, North Grey, North

660 COMMONS

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements

Wellington and Norfolk-Elgin, and as a delegate sent to invite the right hon. Prime Minister to meet this imposing gathering, I am certainly in a position to inform hon. gentlemen, bow the Prime Minister acted on this occasion; and I challenge the hon. members on the government side who accompanied me to deny the fact.

After listening to the spokesman of the delegation, Mr. Lindsay, official delegate of the United-Farmers, the Prime Minister simply stated that it was quite impossible for him to accept the invitation. He was then assured that little of his time would be taken up, that it would be only a matter of welcoming this very large gathering and receive a memorandum prepared with a view to the Imperial economic conference. He persisted in saying that he had not a minute to spare and as it was represented to him that these good people would gladly wait until it would be most convenient to him, he emphatically stated that his time was entirely taken up until midnight.

He was then requested to have the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) or another member of his cabinet, represent him.

To this, he emphatically replied that he was busy and that his ministers were also too busy to go and meet that large gathering of farmers; therefore, it was a definite refusal on his part to listen to the claims of this group of people, certainly the most important in this country.

The tobacco growers of the county of 1'Assomption-Montcalm, having also thought fit to present their suggestions in order to improve their situation and obtain the greatest advantages possible for the sale of their products, more fortunate, however than their brother farmers, who had to put up with a scornful refusal on the part of the Prime Minister, and thanks to the well known courtesy of the hon. Minister of Agriculture, were welcomed by the latter in the most charming way possible, and I must take this opportunity to thank him again for his kind welcome and the good intentions he manifested.

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

Maurice Dupré (Solicitor General of Canada)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DUPRE (Translation):

Hear, hear!

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

Paul-Arthur Séguin

Liberal

Mr. SEGUIN (Translation):

However, by orders of his leader, he was obliged to state to the few hundred tobacco growers of l'Assomption-Montcalm, that he was sorry to see that they had gone to the expense of coming to Ottawa, under the circumstances, because the government had all its memorandums prepared, and that all agricultural

questions, including tobacco, had been seriously considered and would be presented at the conference in the best possible light to favour the producers of this country. But, sir, what happened? In examining the trade agreements, no change can be found which might lead us to hope that our tobacco exports to the United Kingdom would increase, unless it proved to be in the ordinary course of business transactions and without any effort on the part of the government or without any tariff change to accelerate this movement.

I noted, while listening to the statement of the Prime Minister, that after informing us of the considerable amount of tobacco imported by the United Kingdom and the relatively small amount exported by Canada to that country he concluded that the markets of the United Kingdom would be very advantageous for our tobacco exports. If I refer to the part of his speech dealing with this subject, I find in Hansard, Wednesday, October 12, 1932, the following:

I shall next deal with tobacco again beginning with Canadian production and export figures: United Kingdom imports, 1930,

236,934,505 pounds unmanufactured; Canada's exports to United Kingdom, 1930, 3,976,017 pounds unmanufactured.

And after quoting some other figures, the right hon. Prime Minister so as to emphasize the advantages which would accrue to Canada from the exportation of tobacco, quotes article 7 of the agreements which is as follows:

His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom will invite parliament to pass legislation which will secure for a period of ten years from the date hereof to tobacco, consigned from any part of the British Empire and grown, produced or manufactured in Canada, the existing margin of preference over foreign tobacco, so long, however, as the duty on foreign unmanufactured tobacco does not fall below 2/OJd. per pound, in which event the margin of preference shall be equal to the full duty.

Somewhat amazed at the statement of the right hon. Prime Minister and not trusting my ears, I deemed it best to put the following question to the government on October 24, 1932:

1. What were the existing duties on Canadian tobacco entering the English market previous to the agreements entered into at the last Imperial conference?

2. What are the duties in force as a consequence of the agreements of the last Imperial conference?

3. For what period will the duties fixed by the Imperial conference be in force?

To this the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) replied by first producing the tariff schedule existing on Canadian

United, Kingdom

tobacco previous to the Imperial conference, that is, which had been in existence for a number of years.

To my second question, he replied that Article 7 of the agreements between the United Kingdom and Canada, signed on August 20, 1932, has made no change, but secures for a period of ten years to Canadian tobacco the margin of preference above indicated for our exports to the United Kingdom.

I have just read Article 7 which refers to an extension of time for a period of ten years of this margin of preference, existing long before. Hence, no change was made to promote our tobacco exports to the United Kingdom, and what is more, according to Article 7, it is agreed that the same rates existing previous to the Imperial conference will now be in force for a period of ten years.

I wonder, sir, what benefit will our good friends the tobacco growers derive from this? And I cannot do otherwise than express my astonishment in hearing last night my hon. friend, the member for South Essex (Mr. Gott) state that he was satisfied and found it possible to congratulate his government, not for having obtained a greater preference on Canadian tobacco, but for having promised to enact the necessary legislation so as to secure for a period of ten years, from the date of the present agreements, to tobacco consigned from any part of the British Empire and grown, produced or manufactured in Canada, the existing margin of preference over foreign tobacco; in other words for having maintained the preference already for a number of years with the results which are known, for another period of ten years. As well state, for having made no change. I can hardly believe that the South Essex tobacco growers will be satisfied with the privileges which are granted to them in the new trade agreements; for my part, I intend to very strongly protest against these business methods of the right hon. Prime Minister and his government, and also for not having heard previously the claims of farmers and tobacco growers, so as to give consideration to their requirements, but especially so as to listen to the important suggestions they wished to make in order to foster the sale of their products.

It seems evident, sir, notwithstanding what the hon. member for South Essex or the hon. Postmaster General may think, that even in two years, the results of the Imperial conference, so far as the tobacco growers are concerned, will hardly be perceptible, and should we put any faith in the stipulations of Article VII of the agreement in connection

with tobacco, we will have to wait ten years to obtain any appreciable results.

I would have liked to refer to some statements that the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) made in his speech of October 20 last, but as I do not wish to delay the house,

I shall simply point out to him that since he was given a mandate, as a member, by filling the people with butter since he, like many others, succeeded in entering this house by resorting to the butter question, he has learned how to make comparisons and today he endeavours to exculpate the government for having so shamefully deceived the people, by not giving them the increased prices promised on butter; he establishes by means of statistics that if butter is cheap in Canada, neither is it very dear in England and the United States. He then quotes the following figures, as regards butter prices:

Canada United States England April, 1932. . . 20.06 20.04 19.38May, 1932. . . . 16.81 18.83 17.81August, 1932. . 19.21 20.31 17.81

He proves by these figures that, in August last, butter in Canada sold at l&Vioo cents per pound. I am amazed that he is not shocked, he who hid his face in 1930 because butter sold ait 30 and 32 cents per pound.

I feel certain that the people in Compton will, at the first opportunity, ask the hon. member to render an account of the fallacious pledges which he did not carry out and that his government admits not being able to fulfil even after two years in power.

I shall not add anything further, but before closing my remarks, to make a clean slate with reference to the new trade agreements, which are the results of the Imperial conference, I must state that from my viewpoint these agreements as a whole are of a nature to create numerous obstacles to our trade. They will certainly deprive us of advantages which might crop up to carry on an extensive business with the United States which is our most natural market.

Furthermore, as a result of these agreements, I consider that. Canada has taken a step backward. After the Liberal party won for us the right of negotiating our own trade treaties with other nations, these new treaties tie us down for at least five years and prevent us from negotiating any trade treaty without the goodwill of England.

Again, sir, although being entirely favourable to the provisions of the last agreements where it is proposed to reduce existing duties, like all those which have a tendency, whatsoever, to increase the sale of our Canadian

062 COMMONS

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements

products, I am absolutely opposed to that part of the agreements which provides for an increase in customs duties already too high on certain products, and I openly state that I am absolutely opposed to the provisions which deprive Canada of her right, so necessary to her prosperity, to negotiate trade agreements for the disposal of her products abroad.

I am very much in favour of the principle of British preference which forms part of the Liberal party's program since 1897. I am convinced that had the provisions of the budget of May 1, 1930, been carried out, Canadian products would have enjoyed on the English market far greater advantage than those expected from the present agreements.

After having weighed the pro and con, I think it is an urgent duty that I should register my vote against the Prime Minister's proposal to implement the last trade agreements between Canada and the United Kingdom.

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

Joseph Thauvette

Liberal

Mr. J. THAUVETTE (Vaudreuil-Sou-langes) (Translation):

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

Angus MacInnis

Independent Labour

Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver South):

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

Angus MacInnis

Independent Labour

Mr. MacINNIS:

When the house rose

at six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was quoting some extracts with regard to the need for increasing purchasing power. Now I wish

to quote from an editorial which appeared in the Mail and Empire of Toronto under date of September 6, 1931. This editorial was taken in part from the London Morning Post, which the Mail and Empire terms the most Conservative newspaper in the world. The editorial reads:

Real wealth seems unreal to most people. . . . Economics, to put it vulgarly, is in a pretty rotten state. No one dare deny the nature of real wealth; yet no country dare accept it as a gift under the name of reparations. Real wealth in the form of primary products has to be destroyed or wasted in vast quantities. Cheapness is regarded as a tragedy, and yet millions of people are in want or actually starving.

There seems no little need to reconsider creed and philosophy, and the omniscience of financiers and economists is beginning to look more than doubtful.

The point I was making in connection with the treaty under discussion, Mr. Speaker, was that it has done nothing to increase purchasing power. There is very little mention in it of increasing purchasing power as far as that can be done by monetary changes, and there was no mention at all of increasing purchasing power as far as that can be done by increasing wages. I wish to refer to an

668 . - COMMONS

Impeiial Conference-Trade Agreements

editorial which appeared recently in the Vancouver Province, which is a Conservative newspaper if it has any politics at all.

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

Armand Renaud La Vergne (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:

The quoting

of editorials and of authors is against the rules. I am sorry, but we must follow the rules. Members are here to express their own opinions; otherwise any number of authors or editorials could be quoted. I must insist upon the rule being followed. Editorials, and the opinions of authors, should not be quoted in the house.

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

Angus MacInnis

Independent Labour

Mr. MacINNIS:

That is rather a surprise

to me. I am not an old member of this house, but I have listened to hundreds of quotations since I have been here, and have heard many quotations made by speakers who have taken part in the discussion on this treaty. I cannot see why any discrimination should be made at this time.

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

Armand Renaud La Vergne (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:

I do not want to be discourteous to the hon. member, but when I am in the chair I always insist on that rule being followed. The rule is clear; it is set forth in paragraph 306 of Beauchesne.

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

Angus MacInnis

Independent Labour

Mr. MacINNIS:

I wish to conform to the rules of the house, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot see the justice of refusing to allow me to do what has been done in this house by many other hon. members. We should have the same rules without regard to who is occupying the chair.

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

Henry Herbert Stevens (Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STEVENS:

May I address your

honour for a moment in connection with this ruling? I realize that there is a very distinct rule which says that a member shall not quote from a newspaper or editorial which reflects upon a member of the house or upon the conduct of the house, but I submit to your honour that even if that rule could be interpreted to apply to ordinary quotations from editorials, we are continually quoting observations from newspapers. I confess that during this debate I was guilty- if doing so is to be guilty-of precisely the same tiling. So if I may I would suggest to your honour that the ruling be reserved for consideration and that the hon. member be allowed to proceed. It strikes me that it would be inequitable to allow members of the government to indulge in this practice during this debate and then rule out of order another member who attempts to do the same thing. I would appeal to your honour to reserve your ruling for the time being, since the question is not one that will immediately affect the conduct of the house, and allow the hon. member to proceed.

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

Armand Renaud La Vergne (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:

I do not want to be unfair to the hon. member, but the rule is very clear. It does not only cover articles commenting upon the conduct of the house; otherwise Hansard would be full of editorials or the opinions of authors. Members are here to express their own opinions. So far as I am concerned, personally I am quite indifferent; if by general consent the house allows the hon. member to proceed certainly I have no objection, but I must insist that the rule is there and should be complied with. Certainly if the house consents I have no objection to the hon. member proceedings^

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

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Agreed.

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

October 28, 1932