CANADA HISTORY

Bennett's Conversion

As the Great Depression set in, Mackenzie King, the leader of the Liberal Party and Prime Minister of Canada, was optimistic about his political standing. King believed that the Liberal Party was in a strong position ahead of the next federal election. He had recently hosted British Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald, a visit that he assumed would reflect positively on his leadership. Despite the 1929 stock market crash, King remained convinced that the economy was fundamentally sound, viewing the downturn as a temporary market correction rather than a sign of deeper systemic issues.

In January 1930, as the effects of the Depression worsened, a delegation of local political leaders from across the country convened in Winnipeg to address the rapidly escalating unemployment crisis. By this time, unemployment had surged in the western provinces, and the effects of the economic downturn were becoming more evident. The delegation traveled to Ottawa to meet with King, hoping for federal action to alleviate the growing social and economic distress. However, King dismissed their concerns, insisting that unemployment relief was the responsibility of provincial and municipal governments, not the federal government. King’s refusal to intervene was rooted in his belief that the economic issues were local and temporary, and not something that required federal oversight.

When the Canadian Parliament reconvened on February 20, 1930, there was a growing sense of unease among many members about the rapidly deteriorating economic conditions. Despite this, the issue of unemployment relief did not reach the floor until March 31st, well into the parliamentary session. During these debates, King and his Liberal Party took a difficult position, arguing that the economic crisis was not as severe as it seemed. Quebec and Ontario had not yet been affected as deeply as the western provinces, and King, whose political base was centered in these regions, genuinely believed that the crisis was regional and seasonal.

The Conservatives, led by R.B. Bennett, had a starkly different view. They recognized that the country’s economic situation was worsening and demanded immediate action. As political tensions mounted, King made a pivotal error during a speech on April 3, 1930, in which he minimized the need for drastic federal intervention. His primary concern was political; he did not want to weaken his party’s standing ahead of the impending election by admitting that the economy was in dire straits. King was also hesitant to provide federal funds to Conservative provincial governments, fearing that they would take credit for any relief efforts and undermine his campaign.

The political atmosphere intensified, with the Conservative opposition continuing to press for federal action. Under pressure, King made a rare political miscalculation that would haunt him throughout the election campaign. In response to the demands for federal unemployment relief, King declared in the House of Commons: "So far as giving money from this federal treasury to provide provincial governments is concerned... I would not give a single cent to any Tory government!" This infamous "five-cent piece" comment—King’s statement that he would not give five cents to a Conservative-led province for unemployment relief—became a major political blunder.

The five-cent comment quickly spread across the country, and by April 8th, King realized the gravity of his mistake. The media seized on the statement, amplifying it as evidence of King’s detachment from the struggles of ordinary Canadians. Newspapers in the western provinces, where the economic crisis was most acute, pilloried King for his callousness, while Conservative politicians used the comment to portray King as indifferent to the suffering of unemployed Canadians.

By May 1930, King decided to call a federal election for July 28, 1930, confident that he could still win despite the growing backlash. However, as the campaign began in June, the country’s economic situation had reached a breaking point. Over 200,000 Canadians were unemployed, and a devastating drought had crippled the prairie provinces, particularly Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. Wheat prices had plummeted by over 50%, and desperation was spreading across the country.

Meanwhile, R.B. Bennett capitalized on the national despair, making the economy the central issue of his campaign. He traveled across the country, emphasizing his opposition to King’s policies and promising swift action to address unemployment. Bennett's personal wealth—he was a wealthy lawyer from Calgary—became part of his image, and while he was criticized for his affluence, he used it to his advantage by pledging to help struggling Canadians.

Bennett’s campaign officially launched on June 9th in Winnipeg, where he delivered a speech promising that a Conservative government would restore prosperity, bring back jobs, and revive the Canadian economy. He framed the Liberal government as indifferent to the plight of ordinary Canadians and contrasted King’s passive approach with his own activist platform. Bennett’s plan centered around tariff increases to protect Canadian industries, a policy that had been a staple of Conservative economic philosophy. However, these tariffs, while popular in some quarters, were actually contributing to the global economic downturn by exacerbating trade tensions and restricting international commerce.

For the first time in Canadian history, Bennett’s speech was broadcast on the radio, giving him unprecedented access to the Canadian public. His rhetoric resonated with many, as he promised not to let Canada become dependent on the "dole system" and vowed to end unemployment—a bold, if unrealistic, promise. King, listening to the broadcast, remained dismissive, believing that Bennett’s fiery speeches would not sway the electorate.

However, as King embarked on his own campaign, it became clear that the mood of the country had shifted. His focus on trade policy and taxation seemed disconnected from the immediate suffering of the unemployed. Everywhere he went, King was met with boos and heckling, particularly in the western provinces, where his five-cent comment had become a symbol of government indifference. The depth of resentment against King was evident, but he remained unable to grasp the full scale of the public’s disillusionment.

On July 28, 1930, Canadians went to the polls, and the result was a decisive victory for R.B. Bennett and the Conservative Party. The Conservatives won 137 seats, while the Liberals secured only 91, with the remaining seats going to smaller parties. The election marked a turning point in Canadian politics, but for Bennett, the victory was bittersweet. He had been elected to lead the country at the height of the Great Depression, a crisis far larger than any politician could have anticipated.

The economic collapse deepened during Bennett’s tenure as Prime Minister. Despite his promises, his policies—particularly increased tariffs—failed to bring the desired economic recovery. Bennett’s efforts to introduce public works programs and federal relief measures proved insufficient to stem the rising tide of unemployment and poverty. By 1935, when Bennett called another election, the public had turned against him, and the Liberals, led once again by Mackenzie King, were seen as the only viable alternative. Bennett left office a broken and dispirited man, having failed to pull Canada out of the depression. He would never run for public office again, and in his later years, he moved to England, where he lived in relative obscurity.

Mackenzie King, who had been humbled by his defeat in 1930, returned to power in 1935, and his second tenure as Prime Minister would prove to be one of the most significant in Canadian history. He would go on to lead the country through the dark years of World War II, and his policies would shape modern Canada.

The 1930 election was a critical moment in Canadian history, highlighting the dangers of political complacency in the face of economic crisis. Mackenzie King’s five-cent piece comment became emblematic of the disconnect between political leadership and the realities faced by ordinary Canadians, and it showed the extent to which rhetoric and public perception could sway national politics.