Mr. MONK.: Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to ask the government if it intends placing before the House, as it did in the case of the farmers' delegation, all the papers and statements presented by the important delegation of fruit growers and vegetable growers which came here the other day. I have had several demands for a report of the proceedings, and I see that the government has placed a similar report of the farmers' delegation before the House.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I see no objection at all, and will move accordingly.



THE DECLARATION OF LONDON.

Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would also like to ask my right hon. friend if he has come to a conclusion with respect to an order of the House, made the other day, regarding the declaration of London. At that time he said he would see whether the communication from the imperial government on that subject was confidential, but I see since then that the declaration of London has been communicated to Australia, and that the Australians have sent a protest to the English government against the adoption of the declaration. I presume we will have the same advantage.



THE LONG SAULT DAM.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: I would like to ask whether it would be possible to have the communications between this government and the British ambassador at Washington, which would naturally form part of the return moved for some time ago, brought down at an early date. I appreciate what my right hon. friend has said, that, as regards the whole return, the preparation must take some time, but I see no reason why a partial return of those communications that are easily accessible should not be brought down at once.


Wilfrid Laurier: About the Long Sault?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: Certainly. I have no objection.



PORK PACKING INDUSTRY.

Mr. BLAIN.: May I ask whether there would be any objection to having the views of the pork packing industry, a delegation from which interviewed the government yesterday, submitted to the House, so that we may have full knowledge of their statements?


Wilfrid Laurier: No objection whatever. Everything will be brought down.



RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Ways and Means.
Mr. FOSTER.: The most important factor in the development ,and progress of any country is its productions in kind and variety. The twin factors which aid in producing are capital and labour, and I propose, for a few moments, to consider what will be the effect of the proposal before us in respect of the productions of Canada and their co-operative factors, capital and labour. As I have already said_, we are disposed to pay too much attention to the figures of trade, which, after

all, are but indexes of something which is basic and fax more important. . In all the foreign trade of Canada there are two productions, as far as geographical distribution is concerned-one of them in Canada and one outside Canada-and the one production is exchanged fox the other. But the interprovincial trade is infinitely more important than foreign trade, as indexed by the foreign trade figures, because in the former all the products .are made in Canada and the elements necessary to production are furnished and operated in Canada itself. The aim and object of this country for the last 40 years has been, as far as possible, to stimulate the number of productions in Canada itself, which usually form the article of exchange between the different parts of the country and to diminish as far as possible- and it is only possible relatively to diminish them-the productions of outside countries required in exchange for the ipro-ductions of Canada. That is to transfer, as far as possible, all the elements of labour and capital and profit which go towards making up foreign productions, to transfer these to some section, province, or pari of Canada where they shall be sent out and shipped for other productions in Canada made	in some other province,
section or part of Canada. To-day, when I read the American papers and scan the American speeches, and look at the American arguments, I do not find that they are saying very much as to the employment of American capital in the establishing of American industries in Canada. In the past and present condition of things we have noticed that as a factor, and a very important one, in the development of this countrv. It is stated, and I think without doubt, that at least $226,000,000 have been transferred in equipment and plant from factories in the United States towards the establishment of branch factories in the Dominion. Senator Beveridge, deploring that fact, substantiates it, but wonders whether it would not be much better for the United States, instead of transferring branch factories to the Dominion, to bring about a condition of tariffs, in which it would not be necessary for these American industries to transfer branches beyond the line. And Governor Fcss, another very strong advocate of this reciprocity arrangement, deplores the same fact, and says that if it goes on hundreds of millions more will be so transferred, and he thinks the time has come for the United States of America to accept Canada's offer, make the way easy and clear between the two countries and thereby keen the production, the capital, the labour an9 profits, the homebuilding and wealthmaking in the United States, instead of transferring it to Canada.
Why are they solicitous for this trade Mr. FOSTER.
treaty with Canada? It looks out upon every page of their argument ; it slips oft the tongue of every advocate of the pro posal. It is that the United States of America covets the rich natural resources of the Dominion of Canada-covets these resources not with a view to coming where the resources are, bringing labour and capital, and working them up where they exist; not that, but covets them to draw them away to their own manufacturing industries, to the centres of their own country, to make them up with their own labour to their own profit, directly and with all the subsidiary gain which accrues to manufacturing in the United States. ' How will they get these raw resources ' ? you say. Well, Sir, outside of what they already owrn in this country-and they own, prob ably, more than any one who has not looked into quite understands-this arrangement will not have been in operation for five years before the big trusts and moneyed interests of the United States^ will own everything that is loose in this Dominion in the way of great natural resources. What they do not wish to buy from the man in Canada who raises it or digs it from the mine, they will raise and dig on their own properties under their own direction in this country. They will have these natural resources, they will command them. And, as I have said, I want the people of Canada to keep this in mind-that the object in all this is not to work up the raw materials in Canada but to work them up in the United States of America. They will allow me cheaper and less skilled and less concentrated operations of labour to be performed in Canada, but the better paid, the more skilled, the more aggregated, are to be carried on in the United States. They will let Canadians take out the ore, catch the fish, fell the trees, raise the cattle and other stock, do the mechanical and exhausting farming work -and-all the rougher processes of industry ; but all the progressive processes of perfecting the raw material with all that pertains to those processes, and the distribution of them with all the profits that pertain thereto, these they covet for themselves. And the tendency of this arrangement is to put it within their power to carry out this purpose.
What I want to ask is this : Of what particular benefit will that be to the Dominion of Canada? You say : It is not possible for them to take away all the raw material. I do not press the argument that far ; but I do say that the tendency is and will be to draw, as far as possible, the rawer resources of Canada to their centres and work them uip there. And that they will do more and more, and in larger proportion as the years go by. I say that the broad effect of this agreement if it is to foe as sue-

cessful as these advocates argue, will
be to leave the rawer rougher processes of the work, the digging, the mining, the felling, the collecting, all the processes of common labour at lesser wages, to the people of Canada, and as few as possible of the perfecting, more highly-paid and better-conditioned processes to the United Slates of America.
If that be true, what is the first effect? The first effect is to exhaust, in proportion to what they draw from us, the natural resources of the Dominion of Canada and to husband what they have left of their own resources as far as they possibly can for future generations ; to take away from Canadians the higher and better processes of development in their own'country, and to transfer these to the United States. Here is a general tendency, which, in its beginnings, has already been carried out with all the intense vigour, the enterprise, the skill, the money power which lies in the United 'States of America. I ask any one to settle with himself whether this is for the future good of this country as an independent nation or whether it is not. I appeal to every man who is not so thoroughly impregnated with the commercial spirit that he would say, as the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) did the other day : Wherever we see a raw resource in this country, for Heaven's sake let it loose and send it to the United States, and let them work it up there, so long as we get the money for the raw material itself-I appeal to every man who is not so impregnated with commercial spirit, but who believes somewhat in the idea of the trusteeship of the present generation for future generations, whether it is not worth while to think, and think deeply, before we set ourselves irrevocably on the stream which leads us down with resistless current to the future which I have but dimly and poorly pictured.
How is capital to be affected iby this? And how is labour to be affected by this? For forty years we have had a fairly stable policv in this country. The national idea came to birth in 1867 and it has ruled in this country from 1867 to this day. The national spirit carried with it the National Policy. And the national spirit and the Rational Policy appealed to the capital of the old country and of other countries, on the ground that this was to be a national development under a settled policy. And capital, which is eminently sensitive, which looks long before it invests itself, has gradually invested itself in the great public *works and important national enterprises of Canada until to-day $1,800,000,000 of British capital lies m our great routes of transport and the public undertakings of this county* Under what conditions was that placed there? Take the capital invested
in your east and west lines of communication, was it ever dreamed in Britain, Sir, that the time would come when a change of policy would be inaugurated iby the men who petitioned for the money, who plead for the investment of capital and got it at long last, was it ever dreamed that when this capital was securely fixed and invested, the long lateral lines of railway should be tapped every few miles by communication to draw off the trade intended for them to southern routes and do away with the long haul of the east-and-west lines?
So this proposition of the Finance Minister absolutely changes the conditions of all capital that has been invested in that way, invested from Great Britain in our great national concerns. In those times we wanted money, and our credit, though good, was based more upon hope than fulfilment; it was what we expected to happen in this country upon which we made our appeal for finances, to bring what we expected to birth and to fruitage. But, Sir, as the years went on, and expectations began to be fulfilled, that stream of money widened and deepened, and to-day it is coming into this country from Great Britain at the rate of $150,000,000 a year, and increasing from year to year. The men who have their money fixed in it have to stand the new conditions, thev cannot get their investments out. Canadians have not been simply trying to get investments in the past, but they have, as we know, been endeavouring to make the flow deeper and more plentiful into this country for the ever ripening and recurring development which it is necessary for us to make in a new country like ours. How will this instrument affect capital that has not come, that is ready to come, but which, under doubt and uncertainty, will hesitate to come and invest itself in this country ? I do not follow that out any further, it is not necessary.
Let me state another thing: That just as the flag follows trade, just so labour follows capital, and capital is going to be sensitive and careful of investing itself in this country on account of the unstable conditions which are imported by this arrangement, and will go to the side where there is the largest population, where there is the greatest market, where there is the greatest fixity and stability of financial conditions. For you find no intimation amongst the powers that be, or the powers that are to be, in the United States, that while they are quite willing, for purposes which I shall hereafter disclose, to open the barriers and to make free trade between Canada and the United States, they are at all disposed to throw any barriers down against the rest of the world. They do not intend to do it. Then, Sir, the invest-



come in not only theoretically but practically with the ability to send large exportations into the Dominion, free, or at a modified rate of duty. Animals, grains, vegetables, fruits, butter, cheese, fish, salt and other articles can come in from Argentine, Austro-Hungary, France and Algeria, Norway. Russia, Switzerland and some other countries. With that superior smile which more frequently graces the face of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister when he labours for lack of information than otherwise, the Prime Minister rather smiles now at I suppose the silliness of my argument; nevertheless each man has to make his argument according to his light, and each man has a perfect right to judge of it as he wishes.


Wilfrid Laurier: And to smile also.


George Eulas Foster: My right hon. friend can smile and take a smile for all I care; I won't quarrel with that. But what is more important-and now perhaps my right hon. friend will rather want to take a.smile than to smile-what does happen is this, and it is rather an important point it seems to me. I want to remind my right hon. friend of a statement made in cold blood by the Prime Minister of Canada; a statement which he is supposed to have known the meaning of, and which no honourable statesman would fail to carry out. Sitting in that chair the other day, he said to the 1,500 that were interviewing him: Gentlemen, I am sorry you come too late; if you had come a few weeks before, why, we could have interchanged opinions and you could have had your questions taken up. Afterwards, hearing some of these gentlemen talk, one said to the other: Oh, well you see, this is the misery of the thing, we did not come early enough; did'nt you hear what the Prime Minister said; if we had come earlier we would have got all we wanted maybe. Yes-said the other, did'nt we have the Prime Minister's pledge as a public man and a gentleman that he did'nt propose to make any adjustment and revision of the tariff until he had appointed a tariff commission? I thought the answer was a good one. I make the same answer to my right hon. friend here to-day. Why did he make that promise and why did he fail to fulfil it? Why did he pledge himself in the west and pledge himself here in this House of Commons in the early part of the session unless he honestly intended to abide by the pledge? In reply to my hon., friend the leader of the opposition, he said:
I stated that we would have a commission of investigation before we undertook a revision of the tariff. Does any member on the other side of the House take issue with the promise I make. Would any of them advocate Mr. FOSTER.
rushing into a revision of the tariff without previous investigation. Hon. members may laugh at that but they will dare not to say that they would favour such a course.


Mr. HUGHES.: Who said that ?


George Eulas Foster: at British preference, and I want no better corroborative argument than this, namely, the joy that broke out in the British House of Commons among the anti-tariff reformers when this news came to them, which, it was declared, dished tariff reform in Great Britain forever and aye. This is how imperial preference has been treated.
The preference being destroyed, the hopes of preference with the United Kingdom being dished, we shall be more and more impelled to join our fortunes in trade with the United States. That is the way the argument and the circumstances work. I notice that my
'hon. friend, the Finance Minister, in the closing part of his speech the other day, dilated upon what good this would be to the United States, and also to the people of Canada, but he was significantly silent as to any good it would work out to the empire. That part of the argument evidently appeared to his mind as not in keeping with the proposition he was laying before the House.
I lay on the table a list of the rates, the importations, the preference reduction that has been made, not of all the articles, but I have picked out a number of them :



RATES AND IMPORTS SHOWING PREFERENCE REDUCTION.

[Stage Direction]
Articles.	Present Prefer- ence.	General Rate.	Proposed Rate.		Value of Imports from		Preference Reduc- tion.
					Great Britain.	United States.	
15 cts.	25 cts.	i	ree.	$ 64,384	$ 55,806	10 p.c.7 M	10 ..	F ree.	13,449	13,833	3 cts.Barley, pot and pearled 	20 p.c. 10 „	30 p.c. 15	15,772 9,615	1,399 35,406	10 p.c. 5 n121 „	224 „	17	>
M	65,057	73,706	5 11Antiseptics	12j * 20	20 „ 35 „	17 32	r 11 i 11	40,060 31,611	69,785 198,567	24 « 24"Vegetables..	
Sw§et biscuits	15 „	30 „	25	11	93,385	863,715	5 ii174 "	274 ..	25	11	96,029	7,905	241.Biscuits unsweetened	15 „	25 i.	20	18,912	18,686	5 I*Biscuits and confectionery	224	35 ,1	324 „	426,505	130,623	24 <*8 cts.	12b cts.	11	cts.	99,291	48,977	1 c.Coal 	35 >,	53	45	M	91,212	1,144,129	8 cts.5 p.c.	10 p.c.	Free.	14,705	895,693	5 p.c.174 ..	30 „	Free.	75,523	532,998	124 -Grapes	14 „	2 cts.	Free.	104,679	114,218	14 cts.l| t.	2J ..	2	cts.	36,002	55,012	i *15 ..	274 p.c.	25	p.c.	114,604	2,615	24 p.c.Motor vehicles	15 „	25 11	224 M	106,126	1,569,227	2 S «*Clocks and watches	20	30 „	274 u	43,376	310,063	2b M*Cutlery	20 2 cts.	30 „ 3 cts.	27	ree.	223,854 22,487	32,403 45,319	2| „ 2 cts.Musical instruments, cases, pocket books.	224 p.c.	35 p.c.	324 p.c.	118,398	349,339	2J p.c15 p.c.	25 „	22	b 11	11,000	15,934	2b [DOT][DOT]Feathers	
Pickles, &c 	
Lard and compounds	
Rolled iron sheets	
Salt	
Meats-fresh and salted	
it canned and extracts	
...	10 'u 25 „ 1^ cts. [DOT] Free. Free. lb cts. 17| H	15 11 35 2 cts. 5 p.c. 5 cts. 2 274 p.c.	124 .. 324 t, l| cts. Free. Free. 14 cts. \ 20 p.c. j	43,431 292,039 26,468 3,490,612 256,558 69,933	41,723 80,818 1,410,806 2,751,211 141,003 2,163,746	2b it 24 Ir i ct. 5 p.c. 5 n / J ct. \ 10 p.c.
I think these figures bear out my assertion, which may have seemed somewhat harsh that the Prime Minister forgot his pledges that he solemnly made here and elsewhere, and that the information which was given to Prime Minister Asquith and the British ambassador is not reliable information, but that the British preference has been in part lessened and in part v iipd out. This is PTOven by the figures I have taken from their own little blue-book. which figures I have accepted with-Mr. POSTER.
out revision ot examination as being absolutely correct. What are the distinctive features of this treaty, and how far do they conform to the conditions of reciprocity? Suppose that I am a maker of jack-knives of a certain quality, and my hon. friend opposite is a maker of jack-knives of the same quality. I could send over to >
m and buy a dozen jack-knives, and he cculd send over to ire and buy a dozen iack-knives, and this might be called trade; tut there would be no reciprocity about

it. Reciprocity, I think, has this as a prime condition-that it shall be between two countries, each producing a surplus, but a surplus in a different line of articles, and each wanting articles of which the other's surplus is made up. More than that, for ideal reciprocity, this should not be a mere occasional surplus, but should be the result of fixed conditions of climate, soil, and so on, that will make the surplus permanent. Two countries that show ideal conditions of reciprocity in trade would be the West India islands and Canada. The West Indies produce a surplus of tropical fruits, of which we produce none. But they produce absolutely no dairy products, none of the food products of the temperate zone, of which we produce a great surplus. These are_ examples of two countries between which a reciprocity trade arrangement could be made with great profit. In the same way, reciprocity between us and Great Britain is possible in lines or articles which _ will readily suggest themselves to the minds of hon. members. But in the ease_ of the arrangement we are now discussing, you are trying to establish reciprocity between two countries, each of which has a surplus, and a surplus of exactly the same products. With the exception of cheese and fish, the United States of America has a surplus of every article which goes from Canada, under 'this arrangement, into the United States. And not a slim surplus, but in every respect a substantial surplus, and in some respects a-g£ry-dflrgn_aumlus. I do not wish tn weary the House with figures^ ButTlet me take a few instances. I find that the United States of America exported last year $68,000,000 worth of wheat, and $51,000,000 worth of wheat flour. Of this combined export, 58:57 per cent was of wheat, and 41 -43 of wheat flour, and the total export represented an aggregate of 114,000,000 bushels of wheat. There is a large and substantial surplus. Nor is there any probability that, within a reasonable time, the United States will cease to be a grower of wheat in excess of the wants of the people. In the case of animals, the excess of exports from the United States over imports is $20,000,000. In breadstuffs, the excess is $150,000,000; meats and dairy products, $157,000,000. Of beef products they export $21,000,000, of hog products $114,000,000. What is most noticeable in the trade history of the United States is their persistent encouragement and nurture of manufacturing industries. At first, the United States of America was an exporter of food and natural products but of few or no manufactures. In 1899, her exports of manufactures were only $123,000,000. But in 1910 her exports of manufactures were $440,000,000, an increase of 250 per cent. And President Taft, in his message
to the United States Congress, says that what the United States must set itself to do is to increase its exports on the line of manufactured goods. That is its future. It cannot expect to make large exportations of food and other products. What we want, he says, is raw' material close at hand, 'what we want is cheap foodstuffs, so far as we can get them from the northern country in order that we may be better provided and furnished for this increased product and increased export of the industries of this country, in which our future lies in respect of the world trade. That is the policy shining out in every statement, shining out in every line and article of this proposed agreement. The United States knows what it is after, with a tariff wall against the world, desiring to preserve its own unused natural resources so far as it can, dipping into the virgin resources of Canada so far as it may be able, fortifying itself by the conservation of its own and [DOT] by the destruction of ours, makino itself the great manufacturing country of the world, and increasing its wealth and its power in that way.
So I say that the elements of real reciprocity are not found in the conditions of the two countries. The reciprocity that you will have between this country and the United States will be largely a sectional, fitful, occasional reciprocity. If the hay crop is poor in the United States, and we have a good crop, that will be our opportunity to a certain extent ; although if the hay crop is very poor in the United States, and the !Txistence~of dhein-cattle depended upon hay being got, no matter what the duty was in reason, they would have to pay for the hay and pay the duty. But the Finance Minister laid little stress on this part of the arrangement, that whilst the United States gave us a market we gave the United States a market as well. If we can turn our products into their country in certain sections wheTe drouth or frost has made a shortage at certain seasons, when, from any circumstance, there is a failure of any particular CTop in whole or in part, the very same thing can be done by the United States when these adverse circumstances visit the Canadian crops, and the Canadian farmers. There is a market given to us, but there is also a market given by us. As I said before, the reciprocity between the two will be largely a fitful, sectional reciprocity.
Now,' we hear a farmer living on the border of the United States, say: If there was no duty I could take rny wheat free to the other side and sell it for ten cents a bushel more than I can now. Do you mean to say that it is not the tariff that does that? well, Sir. I will let Mr. J. J. Hill answer that. Mr^ Hill is a man of great experience, of wide knowledge in everything
[Stage Direction]
that pertains to the production, the carriage and the transport of the business of the west. On the 10th inst,, Mr. Hill spoke in Minneapolis, and let me tell you what he said, in commenting on wheat prices to the farmers of the United States: Are you afraid to take off the 25 cents per bushel, and let the Canadian farmers in free? Will it decrease the price of your wheat? You say wheat in Winnipeg is so much, and is less than the price paid in Minneapolis. Are you afraid, then, that if the tariff is taken off, wheat will be put into your market at a lower rate? Is it the tariff that does it? Then he quotes from averages of the year with reference to wheat prices in different states of the United States, and he says:
For the year ending December last the average price in California was 84 cents a bushel, 12 cents a bushel higher than the price in Oregon.
There, he says, are two states of the United States, Oregon and California, no tariff between them, and yet in one wheat was selling at 12 cents more than in the other. How do you explain it? Evidently not by a tariff.
The average price for wheat per bushel, in 1909, in the North Atlantic states, was $1 12; in the South Atlantic states it was $1,171. What made the difference between the two? Was it the tariff? But there is no tariff whatever, so you have to seek for some other cause to account for the difference. The average value per bushel on the farm, in 1910, for Iowa, was 72 cents; for Missouri, 78 cents; for Tennessee, 90 cents; for Alabama, $1.02; for Oklaliama, 73 cents; for Arkansas, 85 cents; for Oregon, 72 cents; for California, 84 cents; for North Carolina, $1.01; for South Carolina, $1.14. Now will some one explain that great difference in price? It is not due to the tariff.
So, said Mr. Hill, and Mr. Hill is evidently right. So what I say is that if this thing goes into operation under the glare, and glitter, and glamour of a promised fabulous rise in prices for the products of which the United States exports its surplus, there will be disappointment keen and bitter. I hope our farmers will never be subjected to the risk of that disappointment. The Finance Minister came back and he said to the farmer in the west: See here, look at the gift I have brought you; your wheat goes free into the United States, I have given you a second market for your wheat. The Northwest farmer already had two markets for his wheat, he had the miller and he had the British market, and the British market absolutely fixes the price for the surplus wheat of the world. Mr. Hill takes great pains, in his argument at Minneapolis, to show that in the general trend of commerce the surplus wheat of the world, coming from all countries. has its price fixed in Liverpool and Mr. FOSTER. -
London, by the circumstances and relations of supply and demand; and he says it make no difference whether wheat comes from the Canadian west and filters through American lines of communication to Liverpool, or whether wheat comes from the Canadian west and reaches Liverpool direct; it makes no difference in the price that each must take for ihis grain in the Liverpool market. All that varies the price is the cost of transportation and incidental charges.
Now the great argument of the Finance Minister, and the argument that is used throughout the country, is this: We have given you another market for your wheat. As I said before, there are two markets for wheat now. The Canadian northwest farmer need not sell his wheat to the miller if the miller does not give him the fair ruling price; he can export it to London and Liverpool and get the price that the world gets, which fixes the price that the miller gives, outside of certain incidental circumstances of location and the like of that. Thus he has two markets now. But the Finance Minister forgot to go any farther, forgot to trace out just what he was doing when he presented the gift of free entry of Canadian wheat into	the
United States market. He forgot to point	out that the miller of	the
Canadian west, and the miller of the west United States, has in the end, after the local supply is satisfied, to find the same market in London and Liverpool. He forgot to point out that he made it possible for the United States miller to get Canada's- No. 1 hard wheat, to mill it in the United States mills and satisfy the people in the United States who ask for high grade flours and pay fancy prices for them and then take the less strong flours and export them to the European market, which is largely, as I am informed, for those grades not the strongest and not the best. So that what happens is this: The Canadian miller will be at a disadvantage in competition in the export market in flour with the United States miller, who draws on his best, who has the offal to supplement his gains, and to diminish his charges, and has at least shorter and possibly cheaper routes of exit to the old country markets. The milling industry is an important industry in this country. It is important because of the by-products and the absolute necessity for those byproducts if we are going to have improved and intensive'farming in that great northwestern country. Did you notice that President Taft and Mr. Hill in their arguments, lay great stress on this ? They say that the people of the United States should now turn their attention more and more to improved and intensive farming. Is not that as good advice for Canadians as it is

for the people of the United States ? and if that impetus is given to the export of raw wheat because you have got a more facile market, and may be at times a better market, although it is certain at other times to be a less good market, you make a set and tendency in that great northwestern country to shear off the wheat and sell it with less trouble of farming and by doing that, neglect the improved and intensive and mixed farming which alone can restore your impoverished soil, bring it to its natural state as productive and as valuable as it was at first. Tihe more milling you have in the west, and the more offal for feeding the better you will attain this end.
Take again, the pork packing industry. The Minister of Finance comes back and says to the hog raisers and the cattle raisers in Ontario: I have brought you a gift, I have got a free entrance into the United States for your hogs and your cattle. We had representatives here from the west. What did they say ? They said that the cattle industry in the west could be made a splendid industry, but in order to do it, they must do something other than raise and export stock cattle, they must carry out the refining processes and perfecting processes in the west in order to cultivate their farms, to feed back what they have taken from the soil and make sure and steady the occupations of the farmer and the cattle grower. That was true. You will hear no more about that, if this arrangement -goes-into- operation; every stocker that can be raised will be cleaned off the ranches and farms in the west and carried down to the perfecting and manufacturing processes in the United States of America, There they will have the_ advantage of the by-products for the enrichments of their land and can carry out in that way the advice of Mr. Taft and Mr. Hill, to turn their attention to mixed farming, to intensive farming, that kind which yields best and keeps the soil up to its quality and its standard. The Finance Minister came back and said to the farmers: We have got a market for your hogs and your cattle, another market for you. They already had a market, the packers of Ontario and Quebec. The market that you give to them in the United States at times is higher and at times is lower than the market in Canada, The absolute condition, I am informed, of good, straight, honest packing and preservation of the market for the product of the packers, is that delivery shall be steady and constant and shall be made directly, the product not being stored for any length of time. But if you take the prices of hogs in the United States and the prices of hogs in Ontario and Quebec, year in and year out, the average price is higher in the province
of Quebec and Ontario, than in the United States of America. Just at this present time the prices of hogs are higher at Buffalo and Detroit, than they are in Ontario. What would happen if the market were opened ? Every hog that could be got away, would be taken to the Buffalo and the Detroit market, and a supply would not be possible for the packers of Ontario and Quebec and the packers' establishments would close. The Finance Minister is trying to give to the farmer another market for his hogs, but in the process, he runs the risk of destroying the stable market he now has, destroying that stable market and leaving the Ontario hog raiser to the United States market. Today that market is away up, and he gets a good price; to-morrow it may be away down, and he gets no price, and so, discouraged and disheartened, by the rises and falls of the American market, the Ontario farmer finds less inducement to carry on his business and hog raising goes out of its present stage in Ontario and Quebec. What else have you done? You have reduced the preserved and cured meats duties. Into the northwest provinces, millions of dollars worth of these cured products have been going and a large trade has been carried on during the last seven years. Under this arrangement, if it comes into force, the northwest provinces will be supplied absolutely from the packing establishments of Chicago, Milwaukee and the nearby places in the United States of America. You take away from the packing industry of this country, a part, and a valuable part, of its local market, the domestic market in the northwest, and you transfer it to the United States market. What else do you do ? By making the supply fitful, now up, now down, now plentiful, now nothing, you destroy his chance for export to Great Britain, and the $7,000,000 of products which to-day are exported to the British market, run the risk of being diminished and ultimately of coming down to the vanishing point. There is more in it than simply the selling of raw material, more in it to the man who sells the raw material, and more in it to the man who does the finishing processes, and moTe in it to the country in which both are carried on.
So much with reference to reciprocity. The next point I wish to make is, that this instrument restricts and may ultimately destroy our fiscal freedom'. Has this people of 'Canada lost its sense of what is due to it as a responsibly governed people. I do not believe it. But it is hard not to believe it just at this particular time. I put the matter in this way before, and I put it again, because it is vitally important : Here are two men,
[Stage Direction]
members of the government that have absolutely had no mandate from the people of any kind or sort ; no mandate because they declared to the people that they had done with reciprocity and were cultivating now the British market. These two men with no extraordinary business ability or experience go down to Washington, make a pact with the administration there, sign it with their hand and seal, come back here and present it to the free parliament of Canada, to the free people of Canada. And when the people get their breath they say : What does this thing mean ; why, this goes the wide length of the Dominion ; it enters into productions of every sort and kind, it makes an absolute change in our fiscal relations, it may go further and affect the productions of our country immensely, it may go further still and .affect our national ideals and our imperial relations. And, yet Sir, these two men with their limited knowledge, consulting with nobody but 14 other men of equally limited knowledge-and I give them credit for all they are worth ; I was there myself once and I know how limited really the knowledge of a minister of the Crown is with reference to these things-these two men bring back an instrument and without asking leave of the people, without giving to parliament a free hand they impose that as a pact, and backed up by the whole party force and power they put it into operation no matter whose back is broken, no matter what interest is invaded, no matter what great national consequences hang upon it, and what interests may be injured thereby. I say, Sir, that if such a thing .had happened 30 years ago in any province of the Dominion of Canada there would have been a revolt in that,province. It amazes me to think that men could dare to assume such rights ; it amazes me still more to think that they dare to assume such responsibility. Why, when this pact was made I can imagine the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Customs, two good men, two simple-minded men, two men of fair but limited knowledge, with two clerks with them, facing the trained men of business at Washington, going down there with fear and trembling, wondering if they could get a little bit of a slice so as to justify their going, creeping into Washington, and when they meet, the United States representatives suddenly hand out to them a proposition which in their wildest imaginings they did not suspect would be offered to them. Overwhelmed, overpowered, they pick it up and telegraph back to Ottawa : Goodness gracious, Sir Wilfrid, see what they have given us, shall we take it. And Sir Wilfrid looks at it, and he says it is the whole thing, and he telegraphs back : Take it, take it, take it. And the pact is signed. Sir, the gift is brought back but the mort-Mr. FOSTER.
gage has to be met. And if this is passed the future of this country economically and nationally will pay that mortgage to the last cent and curse the men who made that mortgage possible.
Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds).: That wakes them up.


George Eulas Foster: So, as I have said, from this time out, if this holds, Canada's interests cannot be met and satisfied by the Canadian parliament in the Canadian forum. Our hands are tied. Ninety-three millions of people plus eight millions have to give their assent. The predominant partner has to he seen and has to give his consent, .and to every grievance brought by the individual interest the government must answer we know we aie wrong, we see you are going to 'be destroyed but it is the whole pact or none, we cannot let you off or the whole business goes by. Now, let me put this to my right hon. friend : You started out on the right track in 1910 just before the big stick was lifted ; you told us in parliament that you were brave and that you would continue to be brave ; you said you would do what was best for Canada and let the United States do as it liked, and you carried through the French Treaty in that fit of bravery and courage. But the February of 1910 came when a surtax of 25 ner cent was possible within a month of going on, -when the big stick was raised, and then Sir, you wilted ; you forgot your brave words and your brave sayings even in parliament, and you came here with the excuse : Well, it was unjust, we knew it was, we should not have asked to do it, it was not neighbourly treatment, we had treated them splendidly and they have treated us in niggardly fashion ; they had no right to do it, but see here, we cannot face a disturbance and dislocation of the $300,000,000 worth of trade between the United States and Canada, and, therefore, we give in. And if this pact should increase your trade between Canada and the United States to $600,000,000 as you say it will, then let a demand come from the other side equally as unjust as that, and you will again say : It is unjust, it should not have been, we should not be asked to make a sacrifice like that but here is $600,000 -000 of trade involved and we cannot disturb and dislocate it. Don't you see the fetters you have put about you ; don't you see the bonds in which you have wrapped yourselves up, the more this is successful in stimulating trade between the two countries the more we are in the power of the predominant partner. Let a man with $8,000 go into business with a man with $100,000, and who manages that business? It makes no difference that the man with small capital is wiser than the man with large capital,

the man with, small capital sees his interests are not being well cared for and sees he is subjected to injustice, and he goes to the predominant partner and says : I want this thing changed, and the other says : You do, do you, well I don't want it changed ; what are you going to do about it? So the United States oan say to Canada.
I am the predominant partner; I have a hundred millions in this, and you have only eight millions; do you want to sell out, or are you prepared to grin and Ibear it, and take the injustice? One or the other ; and it is not an alternative for a young nation to have placed before it. It does not square with that spirit which has been cultivated for the last forty years, and you know it does not. Then, why don't you simply say so, and say as patriots and good citizens have said before, in every crisis of their country's history:	Sacrifices, if
necessary, we will make that our country may be saved and our flag may be preserved. I say, therefore, that we have given up our fiscal freedom to a large extent, and we have endangered it absolutely. This country is young; it develops rapidly. Who is wise enough to say to-day that five years from this we ought not to have a totally different alignment of our tariff? But under this you bind yourselves; you are not free to make it. Suppose that, five years from this, this country came to the conclusion that with regard to one of these products Canada's duty to herself, and her people was to pTnbihit, flip j?xport of it, or to put restrictions upon it tnat it should be manufactured in this country with our own capital, with our own labour, and for our own first uses. You come uip against the fact that the predominant partner says: You cannot do that without disturbing the whole arrangement; are you going to imperil $400,000,000 worth of trade? The argument is not irresistible, but it is almost irresistible practically. Theoretically you are free; practically you are bound; your strength and your power and your sovereign right of first service to your own citizens in your own country has been bartered away, and bartered away, in my opinion, for a petty mess of pottage.


Mr. PATERSON.: We are in bad shape, aren't we?


George Eulas Foster: Well, the Minister of Customs has his biscuit box yet; he is not in bad shape.


Mr. CARVELL.: Two-and-a-half per cent on it.


George Eulas Foster: Well, his previous profits will keep him chewing quite a while Of course, the market gardeners, poor fellows, are in a hard way ; but they don't make biscuits, and they don't smile about it. The minister smiles sitting on
his biscuit box when he surveys the troubles of the market gardeners.


William Paterson: Don't you think you
would be better of a biscuit now. You must be tired?


George Eulas Foster: Well, if you send over one of your best, I will send back a cent for it, and will not charge you anything for the advertisement. Another feature of this proposal is that it clashes with the new sentiment and, I hope, policy of conservation in this country. I am not able to give very much time to that, but I think it is well worth mentioning, even though the Prime Minister smiles at my taking up so petty a matter as conservation.


William Paterson: Only at the three hours.


George Eulas Foster: These hours which I take up will not be grudged by the country, and if they have any effect in restraining the madness of these two estimable gentlemen who constitute themselves the judges for the whole people


Mr. TALBOT.: We have heard that stoTy before.


George Eulas Foster: And there are some stories which my hon. friend might hear very often and much to his improvement. The Ten Commandments and the moral law and all the maxims of business and of social refinement and of civilization never can be repeated too often to any of _us in this world of strugghWAnfi-temptatkrm-So-i am willing to take a little more time, and repeat it^again for my hon. friend if I thought it would do any good. I think it will do good; I think he is appreciative of it. Are we simply playing with this matter of conservation, or are we in earnest? Is it merely something to display to the people, something nice to talk about on the platforms and in great meetings with people of other countries, that we are alive to the conservation of the natural resources of this country and are doing something towards it? If it is not simply display, the government is in earnest in this matter of conservation. It is an important question. The government have become seized of the facts if it is important, and they are going to set themselves towards a line of policy, and a line of conduct which shall aid in the conservation of our natural resources. Now, Sir, there is no meaning in conservation unless we approach it from this point of view, that we in this generation are the trustees for the generations that come after us. If we divest ourselves of that feeling, there is nothing for us to think about, but this present generation and day-take, eat, drink and be merry; you may die to-mor-
COMMON a
row, but you will have all you want whilst you live. Trusteeship is the foundation of conservation in principle as well as in method.	If that be
the government's idea, the point I wish to raise, and the only point in this, is: Is an agreement like this, which aims at an invasion of all the rich natural resources of this country, with added yearly incentives to their destruction and extinguishment, a matter which affects this country at all or which may affect it in respect of its conservation? If it is, we ought to be careful before we enter into it; for if we enter into this pact, we have practically made an agreement with the United States that so long as it continues, they shall have free access to our natural resources. Unless that is an underlying part of this agreement, then there is no underlying principle in it at all. Now, Sir, the whole bent and force of this arrangement, so far as I have seen, is that this is wanted in the United States on economic grounds for the purposes of supply out of our raw materials. This goes into force; a year from now, this government may find and the Conservation Commission may advise this government, that certain of our resources should not be exported except under certain conditions, or that they should not be exported at all, or that such of them *as are used should be made up under regulations, and made in this country alone. As we are now, you have a perfect right to pass that legislation; you have given bonds to nobody.
You have given bonds to nobody, but if this passes you have not a perfect right to enact sudh legislation. Before you can adopt any such enactments you have to go to the United States and ask their leave. Otherwise you would be violating the conditions of the pact. But they say the pact was made for the very purpose of getting free access, and we do not wish to accede to your request. There is the difference; how is it to be settled? $600,000,000 of trade is involved, and the government say : There is enough for our time ; we will tell the Conservation Commission that we are under a contract with the United States and that we cannot now carry out its recommendations. That is a sample of what is liable to happen in every department. The fish foods of this country are a most important article of our consumption now, and if conserved will be a most important article of our consumption for all generations. We therefore establish our close season, and prohibit export. We do that now with game and fish, and may have to extend that policy to other things. That is our national right if our national interests require it; but we can only do that fully and properly when we keep our full rights to legislate unimpaired.


George Eulas Foster: I venture, now, with some timidity and in all humility to approach this question from a national standpoint. I make no apology for doing it. The economic side of this question is important, but no good citizen will satisfy himself by keeping his mind fixed simply on the economic side, if he believes that there is in the thing itself a peril to the nation and his country. Unless you admit that, you deny that countries can exist, you deny that there is anything like patriotism, you deny the right of the people to keep up their own national home for themselves and make sacrifices for that object. If a foreign army threatened us on the border every Canadian would rise and take up arms to defend his country, but have we no duty, no service to perform in defending our country in times of peace? Battalions of armed men are not the greatest menace to the country. Oft times the peaceful warfare of trade and pact is more fatal than open arms. You cannot get away from the proposition that- there comes a time in the examination of this subject, when you have to look at the national as well as the economic side. If it' be for the better preservation and maintenance of your national ideas and your national life, well and good. But what is the American view? My hon. friend the Finance Minister appealed to history. I am also going to appeal to history. What has been the American view since the American republic came into existence with reference to this British North American country? At the first they tried to persuade this country by every art to rebel against the mother country and join in the revolution and become a part of the United States. They failed in that. They next sent their armed detachments to conquer us into submission and annex us forcibly. In that also they failed. Afterwards they took a long, tedious and annoying course of trade restrictions, prohibitions and harassment of our fishery grounds, the negation of our fishery rights, the assumption of privileges which they did not possess under the treaty, and for long years they worried and harassed us on these lines. For what purpose? For the avowed purpose of tiring us out and inducing us to throw in our destinies with them. Is there any doubt about that? But they found a people, sturdy, independent and strong, who did not urge unreasonable pretensions, but at the same time did not give away its well-known rights, and I make this assertion, that to-day the United States have a respect for us, a hundred times greater, than they would have had if, like poltroons, we had given way to their influence and menaces. Consequently there is absolutely the best of friendly feeling between us and our neighbours. It is of no use for hon. gentlemen opposite conjuring up the exist-

ence of some dangerous feeling between us and the United States, which it requires sacrifices on our part to assuage. There is nothing of the kind. The American people respect and admire us, and they do so for one thing. They respect and admire us because we have clung to our rights, our nationality and our own standards. Well, after this long course, Senator Sherman, speaking in 1888 in the United States Senate, pointed out to his countrymen a change of method. He said:
Now, Mr. President, taking a broader view of the question, I submit if the time has not come when the people of the United States and Canada should take a broader view of their relations to each other than has heretofore seemed practicable.
Since the conquest of Canada by Great Britain in 1763, she has been a continuous warning that we cannot be at peace with each other except by political as well as commercial union. Canada should have followed the fortunes of the colonies in the American revolution. The way to union with Canada is not by hostile legislation, not by acts of retaliation, but by friendly overtures. This union is one of events that must inevitably come in the future. The true policy of this government then is to tender freedom in trade and intercourse, and to make this tender in such a friendly way that it shall be an! overture to the people of Canada to become a part of this nation.	*
That was the advice given by a far-seeing man, and a senator of the United States. Years go by, and in 1903 the Chamberlain idea was to the fore, and we find a representative New York paper, The ' Post,' in combating the Chamberlain idea, saying this:	-
Instead of any such mad course as retaliation, the path really open to us is one that will quietly, peaceably and forcibly defeat the whole project of discrimination against our goods. Canadian reciprocity is, in our judgment, the only road of safety and profit now open to us.
Mr. Blaine was at that time trying to make a treaty with Newfoundland.
The Boston 'Herald' says:
The underlying motive of Blaine's Newfoundland treaty was to draw the British colonies into the net of annexation.
And the Springfield ' Republican '. a very
representative American paper said:
There need not be any hesitation in saying that the Newfoundland treaty should be regarded as a stepping-stone to a similar one with all Canada, and that the great end in view which should appeal to any American statesman with imagination and foresight is the ultimate peaceful combination of Canada's destiny with our own.
That is explict. But the abjective is still there, just as strongly as it was in 1775, or in 1812, or in all the years since
then. But here was a change of methods suggested. And now we come to President Taft's message to Congress. He carries out the very same idea:
They are coming to the parting of the ways.
Who? Canada. What ways? One the broad highway that we began to construct in 1867 running transversely across this continent with its east-and-west lines and ending, for our market, in the grand old mother country, the emporium of the markets of the world. And what is the other way? It is the way brushed out and trailed by Messrs. Paterson and Fielding, leading off this old and well-beaten highway down amongst unknown obscurities and hazards, but ending in the United States of America. These are the two ways; and we are at the parting of the ways, says President Taft, and something must be done.
They must soon decide whether they are to regard themselves as isolated permanently from our markets by a perpetual wall or whether we are to be commercial friends.
Is that a threat? If we are to think of a perpetual wall, who put up the wall?- 42 per cent high on their side while our neighbourly wall was only 26 per cent; a wail that gave us a paltry $33,000,000 of free entry into the United States, while we gave $104,000,000 of free entry into Canada for the goods of that country. Is it a threat that, while we are looking nation-wards, forces us to a path looking United States-ward? TDoes it mean?-Come down this path at the peril of isolation and commercial war between your country and ours.
Should we not now, therefore, before their policy is too crystallized and too fixed for change, meet them in a spirit of real concession, facilitate commerce between the two countries and thus increase the natural resources available to our people.
President Taft is, I believe, a very far-seeing man. He knew the history of these men-knew it well. He knew that in the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) he was dealing with a man who, not so many years ago, declared that the maritime provinces could not live and endure as part of this Canadian confederation; who headed a campaign in his own province to take Nova Scotia, and, if possible, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island along with Nova Scotia, out of this union. President Taft knew the Finance Minister's history and felt that there was reasonable ground for working upon a man with such a record. He knew that the Finance Minister, in 1891, pledged his party to, and fought tooth and nail for, commercial union with the United States as against closer trade relations with Great Britain; and he thought he had good

hopes when working upon a man with such a history. And the Finance Minister had with him the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) behind whom was the towering figure of the old knight of Ontario, Sir Richard Cartwright, who had declared in the halls of Boston that Boston, New York and Portland ought to be the metro-poli of the maritime provinces, that nature had so made it and the decrees of nature ought to be carried out; who declared that there was no market in the world which would compensate us for failure to acquire free access to the United States of America; and who, when asked the question: Would you go into a scheme like that and discriminate against the mother country? Answered nromptly: Yes I would discriminate. And Mr. Taft had some very fair idea that he could work upon a government which had members such as these. Then he had the right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). President Taft knows the right hon. gentleman's history from A to Z. It has been tortuous work following it, but President Taft is a very active minded man, and he has good men to help him. I have not the least doubt that there is not a political path that the right hon. gentleman has trod, in which he has turned and twisted, but President Taft has followed his course, either himself or through some of his advisers. And he knew well that the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier stood in the market-place of Boston and declared that trade should not follow sentiment, that the time would come when Canada's interest would differ from the interest of the mother country, and when that time came he would look to Canada's interest; that the right hon. gentleman had declared that the interest of Canada lay With the United States rather than with Great Britain. President Taft knew all that. So, knowing the history of these men, knowing that they were guided lby no principle save political op'portunisin President Taft thought that this thing should be clamped now before the ' policy became too crystallized ' as it might very well be if these gentlemen happened to go out of office and another government came in. Can there be anything more clear than President Taft's opinion? He did not say:	You have to
come into this country, and this is the first step. But he said what was equivalent to it, absolutely equivalent to it; and it is in the lines I quoted.
But I not only take President Taft then, I take President Taft since. Hs is now stumping the United States in favour of reciprocity, and as he goes he grows a little more and a little more decided. At Columbus, Ohio, he declared:
The greatest reason for adopting this agreement is the fact that it is going to unite Mr. POSTER.
two countries with kindred people and lying together across a wide continent, in a commercial and social union to the great advantage of both.
What says Mr. Hill, the railway magnate?
I want to say to you that we cannot afford to let this opportunity pass. It is said that ' opportunity calls once at every man's door, but that if you leave the door open it will come again. Let me say to you that the conditions in the British Empire are such that if we let it pass it will never come again. If we neglect the opportunity that is now manifesting itself, if that is refused, it is almost a certainty that imperial federation will follow, and if it does, where is your independence, where is your market?
What says Senator Beveridge? What says Governor Foss? What say the newspapers from one end of the country to the other? What is the allusion, what is the call to the United States for viewing this question, not simply from the low business standpoint, but from far-sighted reasons of statesmanship and National Policy? What does it mean? It means that the old objective is there, it means that the methods have changed, they propose to have the Trojan horse with its Ibig gifts introduced into the fortress. Sir, ' I fear the Greeks when they are bearing gifts.'
I could go on quoting from one and another ; these are but samples of what T could quote, and therefore, are indicative of the general trend in the United States. All their methods of the past we have withstood and met, and we are on terms of absolute good friendship with the United States. I want to repeat what I said before, that to-day they have more respect for us in Canada, and more admiration for our enterprise and-our work, than at any other period in the history^ of these two countries ; and we on this side have just as high an appreciation of them as they on their side have of us. There _ is absolutely to-day no cause of dissatisfaction or ill will between us and the United States. But it does not follow that, because you are friendly with your neighbour and are doing each other good turns, you should give him half or three-quarters of your house and install him in it. Neither does it follow that because we want to be on good terms with the United States we are to hand over the rich possessions we have hewn out and made for ourselves, and go into a dangerous partnership with them. Nor does it agree with our policy, our instincts and our ideals. It was the conquest of Canada aimed at in 1775 ; it was the conquest of Canada aimed at in the years around 1812, and since ; it was the conquest of Canada and its incorporation with the United States aimed at by the methods I have snoken of in respect to our tr.ade and fisheries ; and the dominant spirit in the United States that is pushing recipro-

city through to a successful enactment today is not economic, it is political. It is still the conquest of Canada. But it is conquest of Canada by peaceful means and large gifts, to bring about the time when, from the frozen north to the Mexican gulf, there shall be but one power predominant, and that the United States of America, and when British and European influence shall be banished forever from this North American continent.
This being the ideal of the United States, let me in conclusion-and I know you will all breathe a sigh of relief, and myself as sincerely as my hon. friends opposite^ let me say a few words on the national aspect of this question, and just now, by the national aspect, I mean the Canadian aspect. I yield to none in my devotion to the British flag and empire ; but it is not necessary, in order to view the national interest properly in connection with this subject, to go outside the bounds of Canada itself, our own country, our own nation within the empire. Patriotism is to the soul and conscience of a nation what religion is to the soul and conscience of the man. Religion soothes the soul, gives it peace, assures security, it strengthens the conscience, and rounds out the man for better and nobler work. Patriotism does the same for a country. It purifies the soul of a nation, it reinforces the conscience of the nation. And I tell you, Sir, that a nation has a soul and has a conscience ; and when the soul is not aflame with high purpose, and that conscience not reinforced and righteous, healthy patriotism cam' not exist within it, and the nation is robbed of one of its strongest bulwarks. So I make no excuse in appealing to the patriotic feeling of Canada in a discussion of this subject, limiting it just for the present to our own Dominion of Canada. Fifty yeans ago we began pursuing the quest of reciprocity, at first a reality, later ia phantom. In 1891, and in 1897 we abandoned the quest, the Liberal-Conservative party first, the Liberal party afterwards; and from 1891 and 1897 the quest was absolutely abandoned in this country from one end of it to the other. If we had abandoned the quest of reciprocity 25 years before we did, we would have been 25 years further .advanced on the road of progress. Uncertain and doubtful, now hoping and now despairing, with a narrow horizon, capital and enterprise alike timid, what _ could we do in the way of nation building and in the way of settled endeavour and enterprise? No fixed purpose, no ideal, and a country that has no fixed political purpose and no fixed political ideal, has but a wobbling and uncertain gait, it cannot make progress.
Then, Sir, we suffered what seemed a stroke of adversity, but what, under God's
Providence, was the best kick that Canada ever had administered, that was the abrogation of the treaty of 1854 in 1866. Then our ideal began slowly to evolve, then gradually a purpose was developed, then a policy was established of Canadian nationality within the empire. That was our ideal, Canadian resources for Canadian developments, Canadian and British capital for Canadian industry, Canadian workmen for Canadian production and Canadian routes for Canadian trade. That sums up the economic and political ideal of Canada as it gradually evolved itself from the doubt and uncertainty of 1866 and 1869, and first formulated itself and next found its place in the hearts and affections of the people. Then, Sir, new blood pulsed in our veins, new hopes fired our hearts, new horizons lifted and widened, new visions came to us in the night watches. We faced geography and distance and fought them to a standstill. We shamed the croaker and the pessimist and the coward into silence, and then recreated him into a good citizen at the glowing fires of optimism and of hope. The plains were belted with steel, the moun-tained tamed and tunnelled, our national arteries were well filled with the rich blood of commerce, our industries grew,, our workmen multiplied, our villages became towns and our towns became cities with astonishing rapidity. Across the seas, we clasped hands with our sister nations within the empire, and surrounded with a cordon of love and defence the old empire that gave birth to us all.
~ And with all This- we-have made -great _ material progress. Can any one doubt it? In all this struggle and toil, when was the hand of the United States extended to us with helpful aid? Not in one single case. This land is ours, we have made it, we and our fathers-please God we will keep it for our children and our children's children, to the remotest generation. We have not wrought so in order to bestow a great gift upon a rich nation, we have wrought to build ourselves a national home with a fireside and altars for ourselves and for those who come after us in this great far-flung country that God has given to us for our own.
This proposal cuts square across that national ideal, challenges it at every point, will endanger it undoubtedly, may destroy it entirely. Should we not think before we enter into it? Ninety-three millions to the south of us mean it in the way of absorption and hegemony and mean it in no other way, hence these gifts. This proposal cuts our country into sections and at every section bleeds the life blood from it. The well-filled arteries of interprovincial trade will be drained until the whole system grows aenemic and flabby. Do not treat it lightly. The sustained pressure of

ninety-three millions to eight millions, the far-reaching effect of business affiliation, the close proximity and constant efflux and influx, the seductions of commercialism, the constant intercourse of business, social and official life, will inevitably1 weaken the ties of empire and wean the thoughts of our newer generations, if not of ourselves, towards the predominant power, and create new attachments, until like Samson we would arise and would shake ourselves and find that our strength is gone.
I utter the most solemn words I have ever uttered in my life, and I believe them to the very bottom of my heart, that there is danger, and deep danger ahead. This path entered upon leads us away from home to a strange country. I pray, Sir, that the full meaning of this first istep may sink into the hearts of members- of parliament and into the hearts of the people of thite' country until there shall burst forth a protest of such strength that the steps contemplated will be recalled to the old paths, leading east and west, in and out amongst our own people, converging on the great metropolis of the mother land, and which we may follow without uncertainty and without menace to our national existence.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILL.


[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 115) to incorporate the Guardian Accident and Guarantee Company.-Mr. Doherty.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed in Committee of Ways and Means.
Mr. D. B. NEELY (Humboldt).: Mr. Chairman, the remarks that I shall address to the House on the resolution before us for consideration will be as brief as I can make them consistent with what I conceive to be the very great importance of the question. The House listened with very great patience for some two hours and a half this afternoon, and for an hour or so last week to the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) discanting, according to his viewpoint, on what he conceived to be the great disadvantages of Canada entering into reciprocal trade relations with the United States. It would appear to me, Sir, that the position taken by the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) on this question is possibly the most astounding ever Mr. FOSTER.
taken by a public man in Canada since confederation, when a question of trade and commerce was before the people for their consideration. The whole history of this reciprocity question must be familiar to every member of this House. One of the strong points that the hon. member (Mr. Foster) endeavoured to make against this agreement was the fact that the government undertook to negotiate it, as he said, without a mandate from the people. Why, Sir, as far back as I can remember-and history tells me the question was a live one in the minds of Canadians long before that -the question of better trade relations with the great republic of the south occupied the attention of all our leading public men. We have only to turn to the history of bygone days, the days when Sir John A. Macdonald formed his administration in 1879, and propounded his famous National Policy, on which he was elected to lead the government of this country, to find that in the tariff provisions of that very policy there was incorporated a statutory enactment which provided for practically the same reciprocal trade relations between the United States and Canada as that announced to the House a few days ago by the Minister of Finance. It is not news to any member of this House, although it maybe to some of our newer citizens, that the very government that established the National Policy, a policy of protection, incorporated in it a provision for reciprocal trade between Canada and the United States. Now, strange to say, that provision deals with practically the very same articles as are dealt with in the measure now submitted to us and for the benefit of those who may not be familiar with it I shall place on ' Hansard ' a list of the articles dealt with in that section of the Tariff Act of 1879. The clause reads:
Any or all of the following articles, that is to say: animals of all kinds, green fruit, hay, straw, bran, seeds of all kinds, vegetables, including potatoes and other roots, plants, trees and shrubs, coal and coke, salt, hops, wheat, peas and beans, barley, rye, oats, Indian corn, buckwheat and all other grains, flour of wheat and flour of rye, Indian meal and oat meal and flour meal of any other grain, butter, tallow, meats, fresh salt or smoked, and lumber, may be imported into Canada free of duty or at a less rate of duty than is provided by this Act upon proclamation of the Governor in Council, which may be issued whenever it appears to his satisfaction that similar articles from Canada may be imported into the United States free of duty or at a rate of duty not exceeding that pay-i able on the same under such proclamation when imported into Canada.
As I read this list I am borne out in the statement that it covers to a very large extent the list of articles that are placed on the free list in the proposed trade agreement now before parliament for its

ratification. I might just mention en passant, what I am sure will be very good news to the people of this country who are interested in seeing this trade agreement rushed to a speedy conclusion, that word has come over the telegraph wire that the first step has been taken by the Congress of the United States towards ratification as the Bill has to-day passed the House of Representatives.


Mr. LENNOX.: That was dead sure.


David Bradley Neely: 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I do not wish mterrupt the hon. gentleman, and though a discussion of the subject referrec to m the resolution on the Order Pape] by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie a cognate subject is clearly in order 1 do not think he need direct the attentior ol tlie House to the resolution itself.


David Bradley Neely: Mr. Chairman, I have no wish at all to depart from the subject before us. I am dealing with one particular item of the agreement which refers to the reduction of the duties on farm implements, and I was simply saying that I should suppose my hon. friend from 1 ortage la Prairie would be hardly satis-tied with the small reduction that is being made along those lines. Now, Sir, there is a story in the good old Book about a certain younger son who sought to obtain his blind father's blessing by disguising himself so that he resembled his elder brother. But the old blind patriarch was not altogether deceived, for he said, as the son attempted to obtain his blessing: The hands are the hands of Esau but the voice is the voice of Jacob. The position taken by a great many of our western friends reminds me very much of that story from 1134	'
ancient Bible history. They go to the-people seeking to obtain their blessing by offering to them a greater tariff reduction on farm implements, but alas, Sir, the voice is the voice of Jacob because they are protectionists and they cannot get away from it. While I am quite agreed that, in reference to the features of this argument as bearing on manufactured articles, probably many of our western farmers will not be wholly content nevertheless it is an old adage and a true one-that half a loaf is very much better than no bread. .
We have heard a great deal from the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) as to the great damage that this agreement is going to do to the transportation systems of this country running east and west. I am sure that our sympathies go out very strongly to the transportation systems of this country, especially to the Canadian Pacific railway, because it is such a weak, delicate institution that it is entitled to a lot of sympathy. But there are those people in this country, who they are I do not know, who appeal to the public in a very striking way sometimes, and one of these appeals we find distributed very assiduously through the country, published and printed in the Montreal 'Star', of Saturday, February 4, and copied into many other papers of this country. It is published on the front page of the 'Star.' I am quite sure, as some of my hon. friends suggest, that it is a paid advertisement, nothing more or less. I would like to know who are the parties interested in publishing such an hysterical appeal to the people of Canada, as this appeal to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the one man who can save Canada. There is, as some of my friends suggest, a very important admission in that. We on this side of the House are quite agreed that Sir Wilfrid Laurier is the one man who	can	save Canada.Our hon. friends admit it, they are talking all the time about the great strides forward in Canada's	progress	in	the last	fewyears. What	has done	it?	Surely it	hasnot been the	carrying	into effect of	any
policy which they bequeathed to this government, for in the declining years of the late administration it is a well known fact that our trade and commerce was falling off as rapidly as it possibly could, and yet, ever since the advent of this administration, Canada's trade has been increasing by leaps and bounds. We find transportation systems extending east and west all over the country where formerly they did not exist. We find our prairies populated by many who to-day are fairly prosperous people, not all of them perhaps, but many of them. To whom, Sir, shall we give the credit? Our hon. friends say: Give it to Providence. Well, Providence does not build railways, Providence does not conduct

an immigration policy, at least not the kind that gets the people from some other country to ours. These are matters to be dealt with by a progressive administration, and in passing I want to give credit to this government, the credit which to them is due for having instigated an immigration policy on their advent to power that is quite as progressive, as, if not more progressive than that adopted by any other country under similar conditions in the history of the world. We are getting the people almost as rapidly as we can assimilate them. In this connection let me say that I believe farming in the -west will become so much more advantageous to the farmer, so much more profitable, that in the next four or five years we will see1 such an influx of immigration from the United States of America that not only will our Canadian railways running east and west have all the business they can handle, but they will be compelled to have the assistance of the Jim Hill roads to the south to carry some of the surplus products in that direction. We hear talk going around that if this thing goes through we will not need to deepen the Welland canal or to build the Georgian bay canal, and that the Hudson Bay railroad will be money absolutely wasted. If my faith in the results of this agreement is anywhere near the mark, not only will we need the Hudson Bay railway and the deepening of the Welland canal and the building of the Georgian Bay canal, but it will not be many years before we will need another transcontinental railway running from the Atlantic to the Pacific. I might mention in passing, one very remarkable thing about these prophecies of despair that we find in this appeal that has been sent broadcast throughout this country : that while on the front page of the 'Star' there is pictured for our consideration the blue ruin that will result to the transportation system of Canada if this trade agreement goes through, on the back of the very same sheet at the head of the stock department in large bold type you will find the querry: Will the Canadian Pacific railway go to $300? That would not appear to indicate any very serious loss of faith in the transportation systems of the country on the part of the financial interests who are behind these transportation companies, when even after this trade agreement has been announced, after it is fully expected it will pass this House and the legislative bodies of the United States, these financial interests are still willing to stand behind these transportation schemes. If there is one thing in connection with our transportation companies in which this agreement will work more beneficially to the people of Canada it will be to my mind in the competition that will be brought about with the railways of Mr. NEELY.	;
the United States and in the consequent reduction of the rates for which the people throughout Canada are clamouring.
I am sure that my hon. friend from South York will cheerily hail with acclaim this reciprocity agreement, being convinced, as everybody mdst be convinced, that it will tend very largely to lower freight rates in western Canada and bring about that condition that he has Ipleaded so often for on the^ floor of this jrarliament. Sir, this reciprocity agreement will not change the transportation routes of this country from east to west to north and south, tout it will multiply the routes by which the products of Canada will be carried east and west and north and south to the markets of the world. The feature of tihe speech of tire hon. member (Mr. Foster) that most pleased me was the modesty he showed in waving the old flag. I expected that the hon. gentleman would have given us quite an exhibition in this line because we all know of his ability in that direction, and I was more or less disappointed that he refrained. He did, however, refer to the possible danger to imperial connection if this trade arrangement went through, but that question I shall not discuss at any length because on the face of it it is so, entirely absurd that it seems to me the intelligent citizens of Canada will take no stock in it. It does not appear that the' people across the -water are worrying about it, and I have here a short quotation from the London ' Spectator,' one of the leading Unionist weeklies of Great Britain which says :	.
We do not wonder that the agreement has been received in a noticeably lukewarm spirit by tariff reformers in Great Britain. Great Britain obviously cannot give a preference to Canadian corn if the American and Canadian markets are thrown into one. We should, of course, have no regrets on this subject ourselves. for we believe that the best policy for Canada is to trade where trade is easiest: Only about three and a-lialf per cent of British exports go to Canada. It is only thosei who accept the fallacy that trade is dependent on political relations -who urge the policy of linking np the empire by artificial bonds. Our great trade with Germany proves that commerce is independent of political mti-macv. If Canada gradually approaches something like free trade with the United States all round, so much the better.
When such a view is held across the water, I do not think that we in Canada need worry much. My hon. friend from North Toronto has found great fault with this agreement 'because, as he says, it interferes with -the British preference, and he expressed his amazement that this government dared to carry through the negotiations without a mandate from the people. Well, Sir, it has always been a matter of verv great surprise to me that the hon.

member (Mr. Foster) could ever muster courage to discuss on the floor of this House any injury to the British preference because it is a matter of record that the hon. gentleman has always been opposed to Canada giving a preference to British manufactured goods. In 1892 when the hon. gentleman and his friends occupied the treasury benches, one of their supporters brought in a resolution to the effect that Canada should give a preference to Great Britain if Great Britain would undertake to change her whole fiscal policy and give a preference to the products of Canada in the British market. That was the kind of preference that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) advocated when he was in power, and the Liberals then in opposition moved an amendment which introduced the principle of the British preference such as we have it to-day. Why, Sir, for many years in this country the Conservative party claimed a monopoly of the flag and all the flag waving there was to be done, and tried to make believe on every possible public occasion that they possessed all the loyalty that was possessed by all the political parties in this country, yet when it came to the practical question of establishing a preference for British manufactured goods coming into Canada, these loyal gentlemen took a position of absolute opposition to it unless Great Britain would agree to give in return a preference in her markets for the products of Canada. I say to my hon. friend (Mr. Foster)-and I am sorry he is not in his place that I might say it to him directly ;-I say to him that the people of this country have fairly good memories, and it (would appear to me to be first-class politics if nothing else, if the hon. member for North Toronto said just as little about the British preference as he can possibly get along with. As was truly said by the Minister of Finance the other day, the people of Canada feel that the British preference is perfectly safe in the hands of the men who created it. I have expressed some sentiments which possibly the manufacturing industries in this country are not very much in accord with, and I think I would not be doing justice to myself or to the people I represent, if I did not say a word or two to the manufacturers of Canada. That deputation which came from the west some time ago to place their views before the government on trade questions did not come here for the purpose of injuring the manufacturers of the east. We realize that in a young country like Canada when these industries are first established probably it is necessary that the state should throw around them to some extent the arm of protection.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Uh.
Mr. NEELY". But we have come to the conclusion that that privilege has been
exercised to altogether too large an extent,, and I would advise my hon. friends -opposite not to say ' oh, oh,' until I get through. The farmers of the west have come to the conclusion that their burdens have been too heavy, that the protection has been too great, and that while the Canadian tariff may not be as high as the United States tariff or possibly the tariff of some other countries, all the same our manufacturers have flourished under that tariff, and the farmers think the day has come when there ought to (be still greater reduction in the customs duties on manufactured articles. I am free to say that I heartily agree with those views in every particular. I do not think that any man in this House can argue for one moment that the ideal condition of trade is not freedom of trade-freedom to buy and freedom to sell wherever we list. But we have had our difficulties in the past in establishing manufacturing industries in this country. Those' difficulties have been largely overcome, and it would appear to me that the manufacturers of eastern Canada might very well concede that the requests of the western Canadian farmers were not by any means premature ; and, while the reductions on these manufactured articles are not as great as we might hope to see, yet we are glad that the government took those views into consideration, and made substantial reductions on many important lines of agricultural implements.
Now, Sir, I have just one word more to say on this question : So far as I have been able to ascertain the sentiment of the people of wejtern Canada since the announcement of'this trade agreement was made, has been one of entire approval of the agreement. We are an optimistic people in western Canada. There may be those in eastern Canada who conceive that their interests have been injured by this agreement; and I am free to say that the large deputation that visited this chamber some days ago for the purpose of interviewing the government with respect to the apprehended injury which it would bring to the fruit-growing industry of Canada, had a large measure of my sympathy. But I cannot see for the life of me wherein the contention of that deputation can possibly be true when they come to prove the agreement after it is put into effect. If our soil and climate are adapted to fruit growing, I cannot see why the Canadian fruitgrower cannot compete with the fruity growers of any other country. So far as the home markets are concerned, they have the benefit of a less cost for transportation. If there be anything in the argument that fruit is grown cheaper in the southern states because of the cheapness of coloured labour, that surely is made up for by the lesser cost of transportation from our

orchards to our home markets; and I am satisfied that the opinion expressed by many fruit-growers in the Niagara peninsula and in other fruit districts of Ontario, that the best thing that has ever happened to our fruit industry has been the placing of fruit on the free list, will eventually prove to be a true prophecy.
There was one other point in the argument advanced by the hon. member tor North Toronto which I think is worthy of a moment's consideration. He said that if this agreement went through, it would tend to discourage the investment of foreign capital in Canadian enterprise and Canadian securities. Well, Sir, I wonder what is the consideration that attracts the British or other capitalist when he comes to invest his money. Is it a question of what flag the country flies, or is it a question of what interest he can get on his money? I think that is the answer to the hon. gentleman's argument. To my mind, instead of capital being frightened away from investment in Canadian industries and Canadian securities as a result of this *agreement, there will be such rapid development and prosperity in this country that we shall find an ever-increasing stream of population coming from other countries, bringing with it more and more capital for investment in this country and for the development of our national enterprises.
Sir, I have only to say in conclusion that while conscious of my inability to do justice to the many important features of this agreement, I believe that, if it is ratified by this parliament and by the Congress of the United States, as we have every reason to believe it will be, it will prove to be a measure of the greatest possible relief to the producers and the consumers of both these great countries; and the public man who undertakes to stand in the way of an arrangement which opens up the markets to the south of us for the product of our Canadian farms, so that the tillers [DOT]of the soil in this country will get the opportunity for which they have been longing for _years, will assume a most serious responsibility, and one for which sooner or later he will have to give an account at the bar of public opinion.


Mr. MARTIN BURRELL (Yale-Cariboo).: protests against the policy to which this government has pledged itself.
There is another great aspect of this question besides the purely Canadian one to which I have not referred, and which to thoughtful people presents great dangers and gives cause for much anxiety. I allude to the diversion of trade from that great country which is the mother of our free institutions and the source and inspiration of much that is best in our national life. With Great Britain and with other British dominions across the seas it is the earnest wish of the Canadian people to form closer ties, commercial and other. It may be true that Britain has been slow to take what some may conceive to have been the necessary steps, it may be true that Australia has regrettably delayed in her efforts to foster closer commercial ties with this country; but at least this government may well have waited to discuss these high matters at the imperial conference next May. The .Prime Minister knew well that such matters would be discussed; knew that it was the earnest desire of all the dominions to strengthen the bonds commercial and national between our scattered peoples. Why could he not, in fairness, wait before plunging the country into a step which makes, not for unity, but for disintegration in the empire. We were doing well enough -the hour had struck for the republic to the south to move in new directions-it had not struck for us. This, too, will be counted heavily against the men who to-day are assuming to guide us into paths when'the instructions for so guiding us have not been given to them. Government speakers deride the suggestion that there is any national danger in the drift and final tendency of this new policy. The Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) in a speech which was characterised by time-worn platitudes and many extraordinary omissions, closed by regretting that there was any opposition to this proposal. He added: ' I regret it for the sake of hon. gentlemen opposite.' Sir, is the minister fatuous enough, misguided enough, to dream that British Columbia members can fall down and worship the golden calf he has set up?
Mining is one of our foremost interests, and the particular section of that enormous industry which might have been helped by free, or easier entry of its ores into the United States is the zinc industry. Did the minister lift a hand to help it in this way? Not he. This is something for the Minister of Mines (Mr. Templeman) to explain to the people of his province. Did the Minister of Customs, after dealing a knock-out blow to the fruit industry of British Columbia expect us not to oppose this measure? Sir, all through his speech there was not a single word which even acknowledged the existence of the fruit in-Mr. BURRELL.
dustry. Whether he was ashamed to touch it, or afraid to, I cannot say. And then, Sir, the Minister of Customs closes by saying:
Well, I am sorry to say they appear unwilling to join in this last patriotic movement for the benefit of the people of this country.
We do not join because we do not believe that it makes for the permanent benefit of this country. We do not join because we believe it is not patriotic, that in the last analysis it will be found to undermine and destroy Canadian and imperial patriotism. Thoughtful men on both sides of the water are to-day feeling this. Prominent statesmen in Great Britain have voiced their fears. And, Sir, what did this government immediately do? The Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) sent a cablegram to Lord Stratheona, and conveyed the impression that Canada was, or ought to be, a unit in the matter. His precise wrords were:	[DOT]
It is evident that some British journalists and public men have received erroneous impressions concerning the reciprocity agreement. Reciprocal trade relations with the United States have been the policy of all parties in Canada for generations.
Sir, I may not very well understand political ethics, but this is a strange message to place before the people of Great Britain. If the end justifies the means, if all is fair in political war, there is nothing to say. But there are many people in Canada who will condemn so singular a use of official power as this. The policy of all parties in Canada for generations!-I need not labour this point, "in the powerful speech which has been delivered by the member for North Toronto he has dealt with this whole matter in a way which will make a tremendous appeal to the thinking men of this country. So far from the Conservative party being tied up to this policy we have long cut loose from it. The trend of events in Canada for the past score of years has been in otheT directions. Years ago Mr. James G. Blaine said ' We will give you reciprocity if you will discriminate against Great Britain in our favour.' We know that when that famous proposition of commercial union was made by my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in 1891, he was unable even to retain within his party Mr. Blake who saw then, as he would see now, whither such a step would lead. Let me give the Prime Minister a few extracts from Mr. Blake's letters which are singularly applicable to the present hour. Speaking of commercial union he said:
No manufacturer, looking to the continental market, would fix or even enlarge his capital or business in the country of five millions at the risk of being cut off from the country of sixty-five millions. Our neighbours, instead of engaging in manufactures here, would

take our markets with goods manufactured there. And our raw material, instead of being finished on the ground, would be exported to be finished abroad. Uncertainty would alarm capital and paralyze enterprise.
Could there be any statements more absolutely apropos to the present proposals before the House? But Mr. Blake went further, and sounded a note of alarm which the people of this country should heed at the present hour:
Assuming that absolute free trade with the States thus described as commercial union, may and ought to come, I believe that it can and should come only as an incident, or at any rate, as a well understood precursor of political union, for which indeed we should be able to make better terms before than after the surrender of our commercial independence.
Now those were the words of a man whose intellectual force carried enormous weight in this country, and he would have nothing of such a proposition. The proposals now before the House are leading in the same fatal direction as they led in 1891. The advocates of reciprocity on the other side of the line are speaking of annexation as a logical result. Let me point out what President Taft said the other day in speaking to the Illinois legislature :
It will give to the United States much greater control of the wheat market than it ever had before. It will enable its milling plants to turn Canadian wheat into flour and send abroad its finished product, and it will stimulate the sale of manufactures and-other things that we have to sell to Canada.
Chairman McCall, of the Ways and Means Committee, in his report, says significantly:
And the benefit to us would be enormous if we could sweep away all tariffs between the two countries, it would have the effect upon our trade of another Louisiana purchase.
And still more significant is the closing paragraph of his report:
The Bill takes a long step towards establishing for the continent of North America a policy of unrestricted trade and eommerec. 1
If that is not commercial union, what is the meaning of the English language? Now there are other proofs of the certainty with which hve are drifting along this road. Senator Beveridge, one of the ardent and able expounders of reciprocity, said the other day:
There must be reciprocity with Canada. Our tariff with the rest of the world does not apply to our northern neighbour. That policy already has driven American manufacturers to cross the Canadian borders, build vast plants with American capital on Canadian soil, employing Canadian workingmen to supply trade. That capital should be kept at
home to employ American workingmen to supply Canadian demands.


Now Sir George W.: 
And Mr.  W. R.@: Hearst says:
Let us have commercial union first, and political union afterwards.	.
Now surely no man can avoid seeing where the Canadian people are drifting in this matter. Canada is literally to be the hewer of wood, the drawer of water, the purveyor of food to the powerful nation which aims by such an arrangement to be the great workshop of the continent. The Prime Minister, willing to go one step, will soon be willing, or be forced, to take the other. Great as is his facility for swallowing his own words, he can hardly forget the passion with which, on the platforms of this country in 1896, he vowed that he would not be satisfied until he had wiped out every vestige of protection.-Sir, it is in vain that the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) thunders forth about the patriotism and the benefits of this measure. In the long run it will be neither patriotic nor beneficial, but subversive of both.
Now it was not my intention so much to indicate the national dangers in connection with these proposals, as to point out to the House and the country, one dark blot in particular on the pages of this agreement, and to protest in the most vigorous manner possible against a grievous wrong that is being done to a great national industry, the fruit industry of Canada. What has been the animating principle governing my hon. friends the Minister of Customs and the Minister of Finance in making their arrangements with the negotiators at Washington? Certainly the desire, the oft confessed and repeated desire, on their part to find for the producer of Canada a freer and a wider market. I noticed that when the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) was speaking just now, he practically agreed to the soundness of this argument. I took down his words:
' The agricultural classes are the foundation of this country '. Well, we can all

agree to that, and I presume he will include the fruit growers of this country as forming part of the agriculturists. He touched on the very small reduction in the duty on agricultural implements, but he thought it was helpful, and added: ' The farmers are reasonable people, they do not expect a revolution ', that is, they do not expect to sweep away protective duties. ' They are satisfied for the present to get free markets for their products '. That was his argument, and it was the argument that had all along been put forward by the government. Let me remark to my hon. friend that although he did not believe in the revolutionary process of sweeping away the duties on agricultural implements, the government is now proposing to sweep away the duties on the fruit industry, and my hon. friend does not object. Now this is the plain and open defence put up by the government, the producer and not the consumer of Canada is primarily considered by the government. If I wanted to prove my point, I need only to allude to the remarks of the Minister of Finance on the coal industry. He has made in these proposals an insignificant cut of eight cents a ton, certainly no help to the consumer, yet so anxious is he that the producer of his own province shall not be hurt that he says:	' I
hope, as one who has warm sympathy for the coal trade, that they will be able to stand it \ Turn to his remarks about the trifling reduction of duties on agricultural implements, a reduction so small as to little affect either consumer or producer. I quote the whole passage and ask the House to note the extraordinary significance of the words and their logical application to the case of the fruit-growing industry of Canada:
With regard to agricultural implements, the House need not be reminded of the strong desire on the part of our western farmers to have better terms on these articles. They would be glad to have them free of duty, but anxious as I am to meet their views I must frankly say to them that we do not think that is fair. Like all others they must be( prepared to give and take, they must bel prepared to bear their share in the burdens of the country, and I believe that when the matter is fairly put to the farmers, they will recognize that principle. We do not propose to make agricultural implements free but to make some reductions, and we trust that, while these may not be all the farmers want, they will be evidence of the desire of the government to meet their views as far as possible without doing any injustice to the industries of Canada.
Without doing any injustice to the industries of Canada? Mr. Chairman, in wiping off every vestige of protection which the Canadian producer of fruit has hitherto been afforded, the minister has violated the very principles laid down by himself. He has singled out one large class of pro-Mr. BURRELL
ducers, and one only, and has dealt that great industry a blow, the effect of which, will be a shrinkage in value of all the great orchard areas of Canada and especially of Ontario and British Columbia, and the discouragement of thousands who have invested their all in slowly building up what has come to be recognized as one of our great national assets.	*
Mr. Chairman, I shall make no apology for dealing with this matter with some degree of fulness. I am persuaded that few men in this House appreciate the nature of the blow which has been struck. I am equally persuaded that members ,of this House will recognize the injustice of the blow, when they are more fully apprised of the facts. I may not know any more or as much of political economy as many of my hon. friends opposite, but they will admit that 28 consecutive years spent in the practical work of fruit growing ought at least to enable a man to speak with some little authority as to what will help, or what will hurt, the special business in which he has been so long engaged. I have stated that the case of the fruit-growers stands out as a glaring instance of one large body of producers who are unquestionably going to be injuriously affected by this arrangement. The government's own action in the past warrants the statement. In 1896 the House will remember that great uneasiness was manifested as to the trade policy of the present government. The country had been led to believe that widespread reductions of the tariff would follow and the rapidly growing fruit industry shared the general alarm. It fell to my lot to assist in the preparation and presentation of the fruit-growers' case to the Tariff Commissioners, who were the very ministers who have negotiated the present reciprocal arrangement with the United States. In the course of my remarks, I shall have to summarize the arguments and data then put forward, but I may simply state now that the commissioners were sufficiently impressed with the strength of the fruit-growers' case to decide that the moderate protection they then had, should be continued. Under that decision, the industry still further expanded. Since that time we have witnessed the establishment of commercial horticulture in my own province of British Columbia, and the investment of enormous capital in all lines of horticultural development. In 1905-6 the government undertook an exhaustive investigation of tariff matters and for that purpose a commission toured the country from ocean to ocean, giving careful hearing to all Canadian industries. Again it fell to my lot to assist in presenting the case of the fruit-growers to the commissioners, this time in British Columbia, and still to the same two ministers, the Min-

ister of Finance, and Minister of Customs. Strong as the case was, and is, for Ontario it was still stronger for the far west, and once more, after full consideration, the government acknowledged the justice and strength of our pleas and the industry remained in statu quo. I ask the government, I ask the Minister of Finance, have circumstances altered since that date ? Is the case weakened at the present moment, nay, is it not rather strengthened ? He cannot reply that the wiping out of the United States tariff alters it. Not at any time did we urge this feature. It was not free entry into the States but protection against a mammoth and more favoured competitor in our own markets that we persistently asked for.
When that 'has induced the government to do what an overwhelming majority of the fruit producers of Canada have implored them not to do, and agreed not to do in 1907, Sir, I am driven to the only possible conclusion, viz : that our interests have been bartered away for privileges to other interests which otherwise may have been difficult to obtain. I am justified in such a conclusion, (by a significant passage in President Taft's message to Congress. In the main President Taft has considered the interests of the American consumer but in fruit no one knows better than he that the American consumer will receive no benefit and he frankly and directly acknowledges that he has taken this step in the interests of the American producer. He says : It has (been found possible to obtain free entry into -Canada for -fresh Truits and-vegetables-a matter of special value to the south and to the Pacific coast in disposing of their products in their -season.' Here tnen is *the United States reason, nakedly, plainly expressed for reciprocal free trade in fruit. What answer has this government got? What justification can it offer to the House, to the country, and to the industry itself for thus penalizing the Canadian grower in his -already difficult fight against an immensely powerful foreign competitor in the Canadian market. Absolutely none 1 Sir, this industry means far more to Canada than the layman realizes. It means so much that anything which can in the slightest degree injuriously affect it is an injury to the -whole of Canada. W'hat has been our continual pride and boa-st in -Canada tout this, that we are a nation, not primarily of shopkeepers, but of farmers. The settlement of every great province of the Dominion has been the history of settlement of the land, the foundation of the rural homes, from which have sprung so much that is strong and clean in our national life. We have arrived now at a different stage. The problem, acute in all older countries, is -already showing itself here, that of too -great a congestion of the cities and towns, 'mere is a vital reason
for the universal cry ' back to the land,' and in no form is that cry so successful as when it appeals to the -man to throw his energies into horticultural work. The first effort of the new settler to create a real home in his new environment was the planting of the orchard. The man who plants 'trees thereby gives hostages to that particular spot of earth. Unlike the cattle man, the sheep man, the general agriculturist, he is in no sense nomadic. Consciously or unconsciously he has pledged himself to his soil. Each additional tree planted ties him more firmly to his home. In the earlier days it- was not without doubts that he did plant. Canada was reputed the great north land of snow, ice, and harsh climate. Those pioneers who had courage and faith to attempt the beginning of our orchard work builded better than they knew, and deserve the heartfelt -gratitude of those who came later. With the progress of years, with the growing proofs, orchard work branched out into a special industry, and thirty years ago, though as compared with the present development still small, it bad assumed in various portions of Ontario and eastern Canada a large importance. It called for a heavier investment than ordinary agriculture. It demanded a more special attention, and I may here fitly quote the words of Dr. James Robertson that :
The highest form of labour applied to the cultivation of the soil is that of the horticulturist.
___It_. involved years, -not only of patient
labour but of patient wuuHngjMor financial results, and in all these things it deserved and will ever deserve, the -sympathy of the great mass of Canadians who are following other pursuits. In 1890 to tire Montreal Horticultural Society was entrusted the task of organizing the first conference of fruit growers throughout the Dominion- the seal and sign of the industry having attained something like a national growth. Expansion continued and when the census of 1901 was taken we have the following figures of development : Apple trees, 15,053,875 ; peach trees, 1,301,775, -pear trees, 962,101 ; plums, 2,415,695 ; cherry, 1,288,368 ; other fruit trees, 179,425. A total of over t-wenty-one million trees besides 2,783,596 grape vines, and large acreages of small fruits.
In 'this large area amounting to nearly
400,000	acres of orchard the great province of Ontario ranked first with nearly seventy per cent of the total, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, British Columbia and Prince Edward Island following, in the order -named. It is impossible to state accurately the increase in the last ten years but from the careful researches which I have made I am -approximately correct when I place the -present acreage at more

than half a million acres. The most remarkable growth is in British Columbia where since the census we have increased ten times, having at the present time some
5,000,000 trees representing roughly from
100,000	to 110,000 acres.
Does the government ; do members of this House realize what these figures mean; what potential and actual wealth of investment they represent? Ten acres of bearing orchards will supply the railroads with freight equivalent to that from 100 acres of grain. Ten acres of orchard means the employment of practically as much labour as that employed in 100 acres of wheat land. A similar proportion exists in reference to values and I am giving, the House a very conservative estimate indeed When I place the orchards of the Dominion of Canada at a valuation of $150,000,000. But if these figures imply an industry so important as to deserve the amplest consideration at the hands of the government, I ought to also point out other equally strong reasons for the same consideration. The great bulk of these 30,000,000 trees are apples. The development of these orchards calls for special skill, and great expenditures, and a close and eternal vigilance against innumerable enemies of the orch-ardist. It means five or six years in the west, and eight or ten years in the east, 'before the fruit-grower gets returns which will even pay current expenses, and many more years before he can hope to be recouped for his years of constructive but not productive work. In this respect his position is more nearly similar to the manufacturer, who is through a series of years perfecting his plant and machinery before he makes his large output. He is in a more hazardous and difficult position than the ordinary farmer. The wheat grower, the cattle grower can under pressure of adverse circumstances move to fresh fields and pastures new. The orchardist must stand or fall by the capital which he has locked up in the trees which have taken many years of patient intelligent toil to bring to the stage of production, and any blow which strikes him must strike with exceptional severity, and it can be demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that such a blow will be dealt if the proposals now before the House go through.
I have referred to the fruit-growing industry as a great national asset. It is in very truth such an asset. No specialized form of agricultural industry employs an equally large amount of labour with corresponding distribution of wages. It adds a heavy volume of traffic to the railways of the country. It feeds large and import-and subsidiary interests such as box barrel and basket manufactories, canneries, nurseries, cold storage plants, and so on. It does an invaluable service to the country by building up compact and thickly-Mr. BURRELL.
settled communities of the best type and it affords to the world the best proof of the unrivalled climate and soil of the country. It was not long since we laboured under the imputation of being ' Our Lady of the Snows/ and you need not go far in the world even now to find the idea prevalent that this great land of the north is an inhospitable clime. There is no finer or more convincing proof to the sceptic to the contrary than that which is afforded by the magnificent fruit grown in Canadian orchards and coloured by Canadian sunshine. Sir, I remember in 1884 the first visit of the British Association to this country. Some of the world's influential men were in that great group of men, many of whom, for the first time, set foot on our soil. They, too, had harsh and convinced ideas of the character of the country. I can recall a number of them standing on the wharf at the old town of Niagara-on-the-Lake when 10,000 baskets of peaches were awaiting shipment to Toronto. It was a revelation to them, and thousands of dollars of government literature could not have conveyed the truth to those men in the manner which that sight did. Yet, of all the branches of the industry, peach-culture will be hit the hardest if reciprocal free trade in fruit becomes an accomplished fact. The theory set forth by the government, is that free entry of our fruit into the United States will compensate for such losses as we may sustain by the unrestricted influx of American fruit. I am not dealing with anything but the effect on the producer. I will touch the case of the consumer later. I have been at some pains to obtain information from authoritative sources as to the effect of these proposals in the east. Those near the border believe that the sale of their earlier apples and berries will be helped by free entry to New England markets, and I am not disputing it, although I may here point out that New England annually produces 3,000,000 barrels of apples, of which she exports twenty per cent, so that too much faith cannot be pinned to that market for apples. Nova Scotia, by far the most important horticultural area in the east, is essentially an apple-producing province, and ships, and will always ship, the great bulk of her crop to England. Prior to 1907 her exports for several years averaged 400,000 barrels. In 1909, 700,000 barrels were exported. Last year was a comparative failure.
A somewhat small percentage, then, of the whole industry in the east will be helped by these proposals. On the other hand, there will be no great effect one way or the other on the main industry. I may quote a telegram, which I have received from Mr. S. C. Parker, of Berwick, Nova Scotia, one of the foremost authorities in

the maritime provinces, and the weight ol whose name was used by the Prime Minister on behalf of free fruit, in his reply to the delegation which came here the other day. His telegram to me was as follows:
Nova Scotia fruit growers practically indifferent to abolition of fruit duty. Britain is our market for winter apples. For early apples think we will gain on United States. Berry growers are pleased.
It must be borne in mind, however, that important as the fruit industry is to the maritime provinces-and fruit-growers elsewhere in the Dominion will rejoice in their progress-it occupies relatively a small position in respect to the whole industry-in the Dominion. Quebec is not producing for export to any extent, and it is absolutely sure that New York State with its immense production will with free fruit find a favourable market in Quebec, and this will not tend to increase the price of his product to the Quebec grower. I am informed by good authorities that, outside of cranberries and wild berries, the orchard acreage in New Brunswick is approximately 10,000 acres. I am informed by an equally good authority that in Nova Scotia it would approximate 25,000 acres. I am aware that great progress in planting has been made in recent years, and a fair estimate for all kinds of cultivated fruits in the Dominion would be as follows:
Acres.
Prince Edward	Island	 7,000
New Brunswick	18,000
kNbva. -Scotia

. -___	 35,000
Quebec	DiOlOOO
Ontario	 320,000
British Columbia	 100,000
Total	 530,000
It will be seen that the maritime provinces constitute only two-thirds of the area of British Columbia, and less than twenty per cent of the orchards of the Dominion. Admittedly their chief market is England, and it will at once be seen that the benefits from free fruit, if benefits there are, affect only a very small portion of the industry in the east, while the enormous and valuable orchards of British Columbia are badly smitten, to say nothing of Ontario.
Now as to Ontario, fruit-growing is scattered over a wide portion of the province, but for climatic reasons necessarily centred more heavily in certain districts. Lincoln, with 20,169 acres of fruit heads the list of the great fruit counties of the' province. There follow in order of importance Northumberland, Middlesex, Grey, Wentworth, Huron, Kent, Prince Edward county, Lambton, Simcoe, Norfolk, Essex, Hastings, Oxford and York, besides many others ranking closely behind. The great bulk of this fruit, more especially the more tender classes, is marketed in the Canadian
markets of the east. A considerable portion, especially of apples, finds its way across the ocean, an increasing quantity reaches the markets of the prairies, and a small percentage across the international boundary. Now, Sir, let me examine for a moment the international trade as it applies to the fiscal year of 1909-10 in both countries. There was imported into Canada an amount of fresh fruit, not including
those already on the free list,	such as
bananas, oranges, &c., made up as	follows:
Apples (duty 40c. per barrel), 59,071
barrels, valued at	$ 261,792
Peaches (duty 1 c. per lb.), 200 cars
(12 tons)	 155,139
Grapes (2c. per lb.), 267,000 baskets
(81 lbs.)	 112,218
Plums (tc. per lb.), 198,587 baskets
(20 lbs.)	 158,756
Pears, apricots, quinces (averaging
Jc. lb.), 247,000 baskets (20 lbs.).. ..	170,346
Cherries (2 c. per lb.), 31,860 cases
(10 lbs.)	 40,376
Cranberries (25 p.c.), 40,854 bushels.	91,751
Berries (2c. per lb.), 2,503,594 lbs..	210,796
Other fruits	 4,369
Total	$1,205,546
As to the importations into the United States, the returns are not itemized so fully, but for general purposes the comparison will be found sufficiently clear:
Apples (duty 75c. per barrel), 14,800
barrels, value	$ 29,323
Grapes	 2,800
All other fruits	 200,653
_______Total	 $232,776
The United States fruit-grower then sends into the markets of this country, under present conditions, from five to six times the amount that the Canadian grower sends into his markets. What will be the effect of the abolition of the duties? Undoubtedly a lessening of the producer's prices in these markets. The reasons for such a statement are obvious to those who have given this matter any study and are perfectly plain to those great fruit-producing states who have, in their own interests, been instrumental in getting fruit placed on the free list.
It may be remarked that while the Canadian duty on apples is less than that imposed by the United States on apples entering their country, yet with other fruits it is not so. In the case of pears and plums the duties are nearly the same, the Canadian tariff being a shade higher. Grapes come here facing a duty of 2c per lb., while our product would face a duty of 25c per cubic foot, or less than the Canadian tariff. Peaches, with a duty of twenty-five cents a bushel in the United States, face a duty nearly twice as high on entering this country. Berries, on which the ' Canadian grower has now a protection of

2c per lb., enter the United States with a duty of only lc per quart. Yet, in spite of having to face a higher tariff to get into this market, the United States grower, in 1910, placed $210,796 worth of berries into this market, or practically equivalent to all the fruit shipped into the United States from this country, with the exception of apples.
Let us take for a moment the case of grapes. In 1883, when I first became connected with grape culture in Ontario, we obtained 10c per lb. for the fruit. Year by year, with added acreage, increased output and strong competition amongst the Canadian growers, the price came steadily down, until the Canadian consumer could obtain the fruit at a price which put it within the reach of all, and left an extremely small profit for the grower. For the past eight or ten years the average wholesale price to the grower would Tun, for his main crop, from a cent to a cent and a half per pound. The ordinary commercial package is the eight-pound basket. For this he obtains from 12 to 15 cents. But, Sir, the late Mr. Murray Pettit, one of the foremost and ablest of those who cultivated this fruit on a large scale, estimated that grapes cost 12c per basket to produce. It is, therefore, obvious that the grower's main opportunity for getting a fair profit for the whole crop lies in the special cultivation of earlier varieties, when the price is somewhat higher. The Canadian grower can and does produce enough to amply satisfy the needs of the Canadian consumer, and the present duty of 2c per lb. simply secures some immunity to the grower here against a wholesale and disastrous exploitation of his own market by New York state, which has more than 6Cb-
000	acres of grapes under cultivation. These things were very ably put before the government, in the tariff discussion of 1907, by Mr. E. D. Smith, then member for Wentworth, and then, as now, an acknowledged authority on the subject. Right here I will call the attention of the Minister of Customs to a remark made by him in that very discussion. It will be found on page 1914 of ' Hansard,' 1907. The minister says, in answering Mr. Smith:
I have listened to the hon. gentleman's remarks in regard to grapes. If I might state my own personal views I think there is a great deal in what he says, hut I am of the opinion that his remarks which would apply with force to grapes, would not apply with equal force to peaches. In reference to grapes
1	think he is right.
Let me ask the minister how he can reconcile his words and conviction then with his attitude now. His answer then was directly applied to the argument that United States competition would ilnjure the Canadian grower. Four years have passed. The conditions have not changed, Mr. BURRELL.
or if they have only in a direction which makes the case still stronger for the Canadian grower. In the face of the minister's strongly worded belief at that time, I can only again assume, and I am amply justified in doing so, that he and his colleague have sacrificed our industry and their own convictions in order to benefit some one else.


William Paterson: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question, in order to be sure that I understand him? He says the conditions will be the same under this agreement as they were at that time. Does he insist that that is correct?


Martin Burrell: I certainly do.


William Paterson: Was there not a duty on grapes going into the United States at that time?


Mr BURRELL.: I have explained that.


William Paterson: It makes all the difference in the world.


Martin Burrell: I do not think the minister's (Mr. Paterson's) remarks are well timed or very relevant. I have already explained that the duty on grapes coming into this country is greater than the duty on grapes going into the United States. The hon. minister will not question that. And, with the enormous acreage of New York state, they are able amply to supply their own market, and their enormous output will not permit of us getting into that market with any profit; but the removal of the duty will assist the growers there, at certain seasons when prices are somewhat higher, to crowd into our market.


William Paterson: I am only pointing out that, if the hon. gentleman wishes to be fair, he must recognize the difference in the conditions. At that time there was a duty against our fruit going into the United States; under this agreement there will be no such duty. When the fruit growers and others who spoke on this question addressed the tariff commission, tbe argument they used was that the United States duties were much higher against us than ours against them-I am not alluding to the particular item of grapes, but am speaking of the general argument,'-and they ask that our duty be put up to equal theirs so that we might be on fair and equal terms. The terms will be fair and equal, so far as tariff is concerned, under this Bill.


Martin Burrell: I am afraid the minister has not followed the course of my remarks very closely. He evidently has not followed what I stated with reference to that very tariff commission.


William Paterson: Yes, I have.


Martin Burrell: I think not. I am speaking about all the conditions of growth and

crops and not the conditions of tariff. 1 know that the conditions of tariff under these proposals are different, but I am speaking of the condition of the crop, of production and the result of the producer's investment. As to what the minister has said, I followed all these tariff proposals.
He knows well that I helped put upi the case for British Columbia; he knows that I did the same for Ontario in 1896. I could bring resolution after resolution to prove that his statement is not correct- that it is only a half truth. It is true that the growers of Canada have always said that the United States tariff is much greater than ours and that ours should be raised to equal theirs. But he will not find in one resolution in a hundred-not one in a thousand-anything to show that any association or grower believed that it *would be a benefit to have the duty *entirely taken off. We never argued -and the minister himself knew it-that the abolition of these duties would put us on fair terms. It would put us on equal terms in one sense, but on hopelessly unequal terms in another1 sense. The minister ought to know that. And I think that if he will permit me to continue my argument I will drive this fact home with compelling force, if he is willing to listen to a fair statement of the case. The minister ought to admit, if he knows anything of my general method of argument in this House, that I try to avoid putting up an unfair argument. I want to put my case fairly, even in those matters which tell against myself. I am so deeply interested in this industry and my convictions are so profound that this is a serious blow, and that that fact can be so clearly proven, that I want to be perfectly fair in my contentions.


Samuel Hughes: May I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Burrell) a question? Do not the grapes come in much earlier in the United States than in Canada?


Martin Burrell: Certainly. I am going to cover all these arguments as I go off. I had dealt with the question of grapes and when the minister interrupted me I was about to take up the subject of peaches. Now, as to peaches:	In 1907 in the tariff
discussion to which I have alluded, Mr. E.	D. Smith, then member for Wentworth, was asking for a duty of 3 cents per pound. The minister (Mr. Paterson) refused, but he was satisfied that 2 cents the present duty-was fair. The peach industry is not only a very large industry in Ontario, but an important one in my own province,, and in a variety of ways is one which deserves the special sympathy and encouragement of Canada generally. The area of peach culture in Canada, owing to peculiarly favourable requirements of soil and climate is comparatively limited. It takes some
years of waiting before the productive stage is reached. The crops are not always regular, danger from frosts is always present, the investment in the industry is heavy. Not always do the growers reap a reward commensurate with the labour and investment. I remember vividly the last large crop we had before I left Ontario. I think it was in 1897. The crop matured quickly, markets were flooded, and in common with many others I had thousands of baskets on which I got absolutely no return, not even sufficient to pay the cost of production. Those people who attempt to argue that free competition from the United States will not injure the producer in Canada are absolutely ignorant of the facts. Sir, facing a duty now of twice their own the American grower sent into this country last year 200 carloads valued at $155,000. What he will do when that cent a pound is removed is easily foreseen. It must be borne in mind that the great southern states have immense areas adapted for successful peach culture. The crop can be cultivated by cheap labour and handled as it is on an enormous scale with every facility of transportation they are in a position of great advantage compared to . our own. But it is not only the southern states, i Through Delaware, Maryland and northerly to Michigan and New York the areas still exist. I am leaving out the Pacific coast phase for the moment. I am in close touch with friends in New York state who are intimately connected with horticultural work and what is their frank opinion as to
-all-This._Sir, they tell me that they are de-
'lighted at the prospect onfeeTfuit; that~ western New York will find an easy and profitable market now in the cities of Ontario and Quebec, and while candidly admitting that it will be a hard blow on the Canadian grower they are very cheerful as to their own benefits. The more thoroughly one looks into this question the more one is amazed that ministers of the Crown, who were presumably guarding, or should have guarded the interests of the Canadian fruit farmer, have thus injured and discouraged him.
Before leaving the case of the Canadian producer in the east, a case which becomes stronger the more closely it is examined, I desire to point out in passing the nature of the injury which will be inflicted on the vegetable growers of the country. In Ontario no less than 57,000 acres are given up to market gardening and vegetable growing. In my own province we are to-day shipping hundreds of carloads of vegetables, practically none of which go to the other side of the line, but which do meet a ^ heavy competition from the states of Washington and Oregon. The government has had laid before it in detail the case of this class of producer. It is intensive farm-

ing in a very real sense. It involves an immense expenditure in labour, a heavy investment of capital and a large portion of this investment depends altogether for its return on the prices obtained in our cities and towns in the early part of the season. Wipe out such protection as they now have and you expose these men with their millions of investment to a fierce competition from the tremendous area devoted to this class of work in the United States. An earlier season, a vast area, low priced labour, are the factors which will enable the American producer to filch such small profits as he now has from the home grower.
Sir, arguments of this character are not advanced solely from this side of the House. Two years ago the pi'esent member for Wentworth (Mr. Sealey) a supporter of this government through thick and thin, moved a resolution asking for greater protection to the fruit and vegetable growers and argued at great length that the present duties on fruit and vegetables were not sufficient and that this * government ought to increase them, and see that Canadian growers were not crowded out of their own market. What will that hon. member do now that his government has given free entrance to United States produce thereby dealing a smashing blow to my hon. friend's constituents?
Now, before leaving the case of Ontario, I want to refer particularly to the demands made by that great delegation of 800 fruit growers from Ontario generally, and from the Niagara district in particular, and to the Prime Minister's answer. I have a good deal more to say, and if the Prime Minister would allow me to move the adjournment of the debate, I would esteem it a favour.
Progress reported.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, House adjourned at 10.53 p.m.

Wednesday, February 15, 1911.