For me, the question is whether what has been done in Ottawa will bring the people of the Commonwealth of Nations of the United Kingdom closer together. Will it give us a growing common strength and purpose, or will these agreements reduce imperial relations to mere economic convenience and transform the empire into a Rotary Imperial Club? The well-being of that country depended on the removal of imperial barriers to the free movement of goods and the non-increase of existing barriers to foreign trade. That was, as I understand it, the goal in the minds of the seven representatives or delegates who went west before they came out under the hypnotic influence of Ottawa. What prompted them to withdraw from such a position? If this had not been Mr. Bennett`s whispering modesty, it must have been the fear in their minds that the conference would fail. A failure of the conference would have been regrettable, but it would have been a failure that could have been changed. On October 18, Mr Chamberlain said: “During the experimentation period, we will be thinking about the possibility of a sustainable system and we will consult with others, and if we see, as I hope, and if we think we will find that this has allowed us to deal with the great difficulty in the case of sheep and lamb. it will then turn out to be a lesson in objects that we can find extremely useful when we look at the more complex problem of products sold on world markets. Should the Swine Commission system apply to all aspects of our international trade? I accept that the question of whether or not the government had a protection mandate in 1169 in the last election may be controversial, but I would argue that the government did not have a mandate to pursue a policy that the late Socialist government never had the courage to implement. Was it not our duty to resign to say where we thought this protection policy actually led when we defend these fundamental points of view and realize that the acute financial crisis is over? I have the impression that we were absolutely obliged to regain our freedom to say what we thought, because after all, a dissent agreement is simply an agreement that does not differ effectively.
But even if the demands were the same, the government`s response was different. They swallowed in 1932 which was rejected in 1930 with a somewhat coarse phrasing. Of course, the demands put delegates in a difficult position. You were your host, Mr. Bennett, in Canada. In addition, they promised to bring so much back from Ottawa, and although their early hopes were quickly dashed, they could not get away with anything. So you have – and I quote the Prime Minister – 1184 the hardest possible struggle for these tariffs to be as advantageous as possible for this country. Opposition to the demands was extended until the last moment, and within a few hours of the morning of the last day, the agreements were signed, and the delegates left and wondered what they had done, hoping for the best. I do not think that is an unfair picture of what happened in Ottawa.
Of all the countries in the world, we are the least capable of pursuing a policy of national self-sufficiency. Only 8%. our population is in the countryside and more than half of our food is imported and must be imported. But every day we get closer to that position. That`s the very serious danger. I`m going to do it differently. Every step in this direction goes in the direction of the policy that noble gentlemen defend on this bench.