»< _ -1. _1.1¢ gflqflfiqm‘ I‘ J" xfw-voxgj qq-gg“ -r——- - - I=r >u3'v—\m°d‘

PAGE EIGHT

‘THE CHLRLOTTETOWN GUARDIAN

Bennett‘ Turns Spotiéht

0n The Dunning Budget

yJVith Devastating Result

- ‘Quotes Page After Page From Hansard Showing Inconsistency Of Government Attitude And Moves Vote Of Non-Confidence

For Failure To

Implement Em-

ployment Pledges.

II. World Uompctltltin

fin‘ rams the other qucflon, 111111 l p111. it lo iny friends from 1111» 110st 111 particular; the extent 1o 111111-11 this market ls retained 1111- Canadians by any method that 11111 be (lcvised within reason be- s 11 primary factor in the pros- ll8l‘il_\’ of Canada. That ls one of the reasons I am so much inter- 1111-1- 111 the immigration policies 1W1 111i; tountry- It follows that if - ("1ll' exaort trnde, as we

1d" to lose it in partr- I

1-0-11‘ seriously - under1

world i-tcnomic conditions, 1-1111 increase the num- 111-14111- uhrse 1vants we can ourselves", we certainly are d 11-1111 1111 impossible 1'. 1t is for that reason that I sugumt to my friends who 11w .~..1 c‘ norous with respect to

~ -l' 111'

a 1,.';1iy'

..-_. 1.1111 :11-e the tolls paid “o 111st 1o the east. that we 11- 1<1 think in terms of the 1 of (Iniiada. I can see 101i by which we can maln- -11c integrity of Canada if we r :11 i-eniizc that. export ti'ade act! 11nd will be challeng- - :11 the next few years than '11s men helm-c, because .1'1 11111-0 t1» inert. an ever-in- rompctitioti of wages and sriinclnrds b.’ living which do not pl'("»'llll and I trust never will pre-

-1 in this country. That is the ll which I put to the house ' 1111111111111. 11ml it is one that I r turd as of tremendous lfll- l)1’ll‘l1lZlr‘€.

Titcre are other matters that, _t"'-ii1c 11p during the Iirogrgsg the (Lee $11111 on the reselli-

111111.», 111111 l shall not labour the

point 1111111111: But I should like

to i111;1i\ s 11111111 my fellow mem- bets. as i111‘ .11; it is possible for

me to do so. the fact that we are I

wllflItllt-“d with an actuality and

not. 11'.t.l1 .1 1-112101131-3; posjfjcrh

E0111" 111' 11's r10 not. .'tl\vrt_vs 11p-

|)l" - of t11~~ fiscal policies or the

‘Ill’! sot-up of‘ other churn

t‘ . out I know flint. in part5 Qt

inr- king's douiinions they realize

Hie truth of the statement I have

g -! itiztric. VThcy arc putting forth Iti'l-l'—.ll(‘l‘t‘llSlllt_' efforts to ensure to their people every posglble §P~'"11'1t.v from the standpoint of

lftllillll‘ b1‘ utihzlng all the machin- rrw r11‘ government to provide for l '- ‘ t‘: 1o tiic extent. of their 11b.1.1\. that. may be nationalism; it 11111_v 1111 1111-1111111; you are pleas- "(l if) v-lll it. but. if we take it. that H0vcri111: - arc responsible for thc we; 111111 hGPDlIIL-ss cf the pewtple I 1 1.11: it. 1s clear that un- IPP" VWKr-ritiiicir- (an supply the llcrtplo 111th 11111-1: them can be no liappiitcsi, 111111 11o uhimatc pros- pci-irv. 'l'l1e reason the lion. mem- bcr 111:- Daz-engiort. (Mr. MacNlcol) 1121s rivre‘: m much upon the ques- 111111. of u-ork; tho reason he has 11s m inc-so factories and look-

fl"(‘.€l'l12tlllllli§ extent t0 11 wot-k 11111),‘ have been added , by rcnson of the policies

been followed, taken

U. K. Agreement

ftis leads mc to the discussion 9f the next. matter I desire to ptcnton. the trade agreement rc- ccntiy nt-gtitiitted between Great 131:1 .1111 11nd Canada. Well, Mr. Stir-ulcer. if I were given to the use oi violent. lansrtiage I think it Wfitlltl he juslifieci as I look at hon. Wl-"Plll-"ll "lllltlsil". I wonder if tluy haze forgotten their record wi-h rcspcct to the trade agree- Iucnt with Great Britain. I am not izmng to 11o more than merely rccitt thc frtcts. An agreement ivizs entered iulo between Great Bri- t:1ii1 and C._1nnci11,___1v_l1jel1, v ggrecq lnent 1111s presented t0 this huwse for 1-1111111-11111-11. and 11f. pages '72 nnrl 73 of the jmirnuls of this 1101151‘ for 1932-311 it. will be noted that Mr. Cootc, seconded by Mr. Mitchell, moved in amendment Hint thc following words be added to thc proposed resolution:

"and subject also to establish- rncnt of parity of the Cana- dian dollar with the British 110111111."

In other words they wanted t0 tic the dolliir to the pound. Among those who rose in their places and supported that amendment were thc present. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King): the hon. mem- her who is now Minister of Na- tional Defence (Mr. Mackenzl) nnd every other member of t e Liberal party then in the house. ‘Flinn came the second reading of the bill embodying the agreements. and again mcmbcrs of the Liberal patty voted against it. ‘The di- vision will be found at page 92 of the jounmls of the house for $032413. Among those who voted lgnlllnt second reading ofthe bill I find thc present Minister of Jus- tice (Mr. Lapointel, the hon. mem- ber for New Westminster (Mr.

Reid), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), the hon.

the lioii. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), the ho11. member for Skeena (Mi Hanson). and the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell). 111 fact it. itught be ivell to read their names, in order that they might become immortal:

Beaubien, Blair, Bothwell, Bou- ciutrd, Boulanger, Bourassa, Bra- dette. Brasset, Brown, Butcher, Casgrain, Caylcy, Ohevrier, Coote. Denis, Deslaurlers, Desi-ochers, Donncliy, Dubuc, Duff, Dumalne, Elliott, Fafard, Fcrland. Fournier, Garland (Bow River), Cloulet, Han- son iskeennt, Heenan, Howard, Homlen, Irvine, Jacobs, Jean, La- croix, Lapointe, Mitclnnis, Mac- kenzie (Vancouver Centre), Mac- Lean, Taylor, Macphail (Miss), Mc- Phee, Marc-ll, lvlotherwell, Munn. Neil, Pcrras. Poullot, Ralston, Ray- mond. Reid, Roberge, Seguin, Tot- zke, Vallauce, Weir (Macdonald), Woodsivoi-th.

"The Immortal Crew"

Then on the third reading a vote was once more recorded, which apIlCllfS at pages 116 and 11'! of tho journals for that year. Hon. members opposite became a little confused with the different. agree- ments. There was the agreement with the Free State. Then there was a little difficulty about the

_Rhodcslan agreement; part of the

Liberal party voted for that. Then came the agreement with South Africa and thcrc were some little difficulties about that as well. Then at page ll9 I find thc vote on the United Kingdom agreement, which was 84 to 42. It is just us well that the names of the im- mortal crew who maimed the ship of state at. that moment in op- position to the govcmment should

be preserved for history. They were as follows: _ Bertrand, Biaid, Bothwcll, Bou-

langer, Bourassa, Brown, Butcher, Caserain, Cayley. Denis, Deslauri- ers. Dcsrochcrs. Duff. Ifiliott, Euler, Factor. FPHHDG, Fist-t, gir Eugene. Fournier, Golding, Hall. Howard, Howden. Hurtubisc. King, Mac- kenzie, hliicplisiil. (Miss), McIntosh, Mckcnzic (Assiniboiu). Munn, Neill, Perras. Ralston, Reid, Rheaume, St-Pere. Sanderson, Seguin, Stew- art (Edmonton West). 'I'hauvet.te, Verville, Wooclsworth, Young.

The Deadly Parallel

'I'l1ose were the immortal forty- two. They voted against the Unit- ed King-dom agreement, an agree- ment which now in terms they ask this house to adopt. In order that there may be no question on that point. I propose to put the deadly parallel upon Hansard; I propose to compare the paragraphs- from the agreement of 1932 and the paragraphs front the agreement o! today, to show that they are thc santc; the some in principle and almost indentical in words. But. in order to endeavour to save their faces they make some change in the relation of the words one to the other, though the have not changed and cannot change. I doubt whether, in the long history oi’ our institutions, within the short period of less than five years we have ever seen the spectacle of a government asking the acquiescence and approval of members of the house to a docu- ment that was in terms similar in every pi-ittciplt- to a document they voted against just a. few years before.

Mr. Mackenzie King: If there hotl been a different agreement in 1932 there would have been a. dif- ferent parallel now.

Mr. Bennett: Ah, yes; if thc fox had not been a fox it might have been a eat. It is hardly in keep- ing with general principles to suy that i_f ypu had not donethat and something clsc had been done we would not ltttvc what. we have to- ridv. What a tribute lo pay tn those who negotiated thc agree- ment for 1932!

Mr. Mackenzie King: We would have had something a great deal better.

Mr. Bennett: Well. we will sec whether or not it is better; It is identical.

Mr. Mackenzie King: I say we would have had something better.

Mr. Bennett: Well, Mr. Speaker, I regard that as a great compil- ment. Thc right hon. Prime Min- lster says that if we had been able to do better he would have been able to do better. That is a very nice way to put it. Well, there is this distinction between us: the right hon. gentleman says he did his best and the Minister of Finance snys he did his best, and I assume that each in his 1a.!- lottccl sphere did his best. I will assume that: it must be s0. Bill- the gencrnl principles that govern- ed them in their approach to the problem are somewhat different from those which governed us. We were charged with being bar-

gaincrs and hagglcrs, and now the

member for Macdonald (Mr. Weir)-

princlples .

Prime Minister says, "If you had only done a little better before, I would have clone better." If I had been able to bargain better before, he would have been able to do better now. But I will tell You what the trouble is: he had written a. record across the pages of Hansard, for the country to read. llc told the people of Great Britain he was opposed to the bargain nude by the late govcm- ment, because they were too hard

Jipon dear old England. He told them he was prepared to give them far more latitude than we

had given them-greater oppor- tunltlcs, greater freedom of op- portunity than we gave them. Now he says, "Oh. if you had only done better, I would have been able to do better." That is amusing; but it does not. end there. Let us look at it for a minutes. I will lay the clauses of both agreements section by section upon Hansard so that we may look at them.

The British Prefcirencc

In 1919 the Liberal party had a convention, and one of their de- claratlons was that the British preference be increased to fifty per cent. of the general tariff. 'I‘hat was the declaration of the Liberal party made to the people of Eug- land. That was the declaration they made to the world. “Give us power and office and we will give you a fifty per cent. preference over the general tariff for entry of your goods in Canada." And it did not end there. During the de- bates in the house, on October l7, 1932, as reported at page 264 the present Prime Minister said:

"May I g0 a step further and say in connection with that, so that there can be no mis- take as to where we stand in the matter of British trade, and the British preference, that we would undertake to give to the trade of the Unit- ed Kingdom. where goods arc imported through Canadian ports, a British preference av- eraging flfty per cent. of our general tariff. If there is anything in this particular agreement that is comparable to that of advantage to our- selves and to British peoples in trade. I hope we will find it out before this discussion is over."

That is the deelaration- not away back in the days of 1919, but. one that was made when we were discussing the agreements them- selves. That was made in 1932. Is it any wonder the British peo- ple realized that they had the promise of the Liberal party. and that. they would have a fifty per cent. reduction over the general tariff as a. preference upon their goods? That was the promise given to them at. that time. Far be it from me to suggest that the Prime Minister would not en- deavour to keep his word in that behalf. I know how anxi us he would be that it should e so, how anxious he would be that. they should have at least a fifty per cent. reduction.

Alcohol and Eyewash

Now I turn to the agreement tabled the other day. I can hear him say, in a moment of great mental perturbation, "I must. keep this promise and see that they have a reduction of fifty per cei1t., so that the farmers iii the west may feel that. the promise I solemnly made in 1919, repeated in thehouse in 1932 and again in 1933, has been kept and honour- ed.” And so I look at thc docu- ment. I turn to item 160 and I find these words:

"Alcoholic perfumes and per- fumed spirits, bay rum, cologne and lavender waters, lotions, hair, tooth and skin washes, and other toilet preparations containing spirits of any kind (a) when in bottles or flasks containing not more than four ounces each. '30 per cent."

And the old rate was 60 per cent. There is a fift-y per cent. reduc- tion. There has been no trouble about eyewash. “Alcoholic pcr- fumes and perfumed spirits, bay rum. and cologne" —so the fann- cr can say the Prime Minister has kept his word and reduced the rate by fifty per cent.

"Word for Word”

Now for a moment. let us con- sider the agreement. Article I sates:

"The government of the Unit- ‘cd Kingdom undertakes that goods grown. produced or manufactured in Canada and consigned from any part. of the British Empire which are now free of duty, shall con- tinue to enjoy entry free of customs duty into the Utiitcd

Kingdom. subject, however, to

the, reservations set forth in

schedule 1 appended hereto."

'I‘i1e old agreement. Article ‘l.

"His Majesty's government ln the United Kingdom under- take that orders shall bc made in accordance with thc pro-

visions of section 4 of the Im-

port. Duties Act, 1932, which

will cnsurc the continuance af-

ter 15th November, 1932, of entry irec o f d u t y- into t. h e United Kingdom

of goods consigned from any part. of the British Empire and grown, produced nr manufac- tured in Canada which by vir- tuc of that act are,now free of duty subject, however, to the reservations set forth in schedule A appended hereto." Schedule I. new agreement: "As regards eggs, poultry,