BANKING AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE-PROPOSED REDUCTION OF QUORUM.

Mr. MILLER moved :: That the quorum of the Select Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce be reduced from 21 to 11 members.


Mr. LENNOX.: Explain.


Mr. BURRELL.: 


Henry Horton Miller: At the last meeting of the Banking and Commerce Committee, a resolution was passed asking this House to authorize a reduction in the number of the quorum. It was then urged by a member of the House who is also a member of the committee that, perhaps, the discussion which took place at that time would lead to a larger attendance at the meeting of this and other committees. The Banking and Commerce Committee was called for business for last Friday morning at 11 o'clock. We had no quorum. The committee was called again for this morning at 11 o'clock, and, although there was present a solicitor interested in one of the Bills to he up for discussion, and though that solicitor endeavoured to drum up a quorum, he failed to do so. I understand that the new Banking Act will be referred to the Banking and Commerce Committee this session. If so, there will be a large number of meeting's of the committee, and I think it is very important that (business be not impeded, and, with that view, that the quorum be reduced, to a possible number. It has been urged, as the members of the committee number 132, that 21 is not an unreasonably large quorum. But I would point out to you, Mr. 'Speaker, and to the House, that while there are 221 members of this House, 20 constitute a quorum. It does not seem unreasonable that we should have the same proportionate quorum on committees of the House.


Mr. SPROULE.: When the committee proposed the reduction of the quorum, their recommendation was that it should be reduced from 21 to 15. The chairman (Mr. Miller) now proposes that it should be reduced to 11. I think that number is low, and especially in view of the very important Bill likely to come 'before the committee, the general banking Bill. I think that the quorum of the committee to consider so important a Bill should be more than 11 members. It seems to me that 15 would he a reasonable number, but quite low enough.


Mr. BLAIN.: I do not think that the House should make -any change in the quorum of the Banking and 'Commerce Committee. My hon. friend from South Grey (Mr. Miller) spoke of the meeting this morning. Well, this morning, three different committees were called for the same hour-eleven	o'clock ; Public
Accounts, Agriculture and Banking and Commerce. If the chairman of committees are not more careful in seeing to it that committees are not called for the same hour and day, they cannot expect members to attend in such numbers as, I am sure, my hon. friend from South Grey would expect in the case of a committee that has to deal with such important questions as those which come before the Bank-

ing and Commerce Committee. I rather think that, when any change is made with respect to the quorum of these committees, it should be by a change in the rules of the House, and not by selecting one committee for change while leaving the others as they are. This is a matter that ought to receive very careful consideration by the House, and should not be done in this sudden way of simply passing a resolution. Perhaps it would have been all right to pass a resolution of this kind even with respect to the Banking and Commerce Committee at some other time, but my hon. friend knows that there is to come	before this committee the
most important matter that will come before	any committee this session,
the change in the banking law. 1 think that the committee should not take up the consideration of these very important enactments without at least 21 members out of the 221 members of this House present. I suggest to the chairman that he leave this over for further consideration and for more thorough discussion in the Banking and Commerce Committee itself. Surely he will not wish to press a matter of this kind now. I think that when the discussion was on in the House the other day the general expression of opinion was in apposition to the proposal to reduce the quorum of this committee.


Mr. FIELDING.: I was not able to be present at the meeting of the Banking and Commerce Committee at which this matter was considered. Personally I should be willing to accept the judgment of the committee and its chairman orTTKbr subject ; at the same time, unless there is something like a general concurrence of view in the House, it would not be desirable that the change should be made. If there be any considerable difference of opinion, I would suggest-though I agree with him on this subject-that it would be better to withdraw the resolution for the present, and let it be further considered in the Banking and Commerce Committee,


Mr. HUGHES.: It was not considered in the Banking and Commerce Committee this morning?


William Stevens Fielding: No.


Haughton Lennox: I rise with some diffidence to discuss this matter as I am not a member of the Banking and Commerce Committee, but I desire to be heard because this is a very important time in connection with the work of this committee and it is a very important committee, and its action affects the interest of all classes of people in Canada. It seems to me that the difficulty pointed out by the chairman of the committee (Mr. Miller) is not overcome by his motion. Did I understand him to say that when the committee was 114
called to meet a few days ago no one attended?


Henry Horton Miller: I said that not a quorum attended.


Haughton Lennox: I understood him to say that no one was present. And how many were present at the meeting called for this morning?


Henry Horton Miller: About eighteen or nineteen.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There were nineteen present at one time.


Haughton Lennox: That, I presume, was after the drumming up referred to by the chairman. This difficulty arises out of a general condition of things, and not out of anything connected with this committee specially. I have taken the liberty more than once of calling the attention ot the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to thi3 subject, No matter how good and active a member of parliament a man may be, he cannot be in two places at the same time. Nor can the member of parliament do his work properly by trying to divide his attention between two committees that are meeting at the same time. The trouble arises through summoning a number of committees for the same day. And The reason for that-which may be regarded as another difficulty-is that we do not summon committee meetings for Monday or Friday.


Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds).: Yes, the Public Accounts.


Haughton Lennox: -I am corrected as to the Public Accounts Committee. I venture again to suggest to the Prime Minister that it would be better if we had committees meeting on Mondays and Fridays as a regular thing. There is no reason why members should be encouraged to absent themselves from attendance on their public duties on these days. If the suggestions I make were adopted, and if the membership of each committee were reduced to a reasonable number, the difficulty we are now discussing could not arise. Now, the special reason why I speak at this time is that a most important matter is supposed to come before the Banking and Commerce Committee this session. I have heard the rumour that the government does not intend to introduce and pass the Banking Act this session. I trust that is only an idle rumour.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: It has been introduced.


Haughton Lennox: I said ' introduce and pass.' I have heard, since the Bill was introduced, that the government does not intended to move forward and pass it.


William Stevens Fielding: No foundation for that.


Haughton Lennox: I am glad to hear from the Finance Minister that there is no foundation for that. I would urge the Finance Minister to get a little active in regard to this matter, and not leave it till the last of the session, when, as we know by experience, matters that come up do not receive very close attention. The Banking and Commerce Committee this session has more important work before it than any other committee of the House, I venture to say; and I can promise my hon. friend (Mr. Miller) who moved this motion that when the Banking Act comes up for consideration there will be no lack of members there, and there will be no lack of spectators either. The country is -aroused on the question of the banking law of Canada, not only by reason of the Farmers' Bank, but by reason of other earlier events, and of events that have supervened. When this Bill comes up to 'be dealt with, we want a full (attendance of members, we want a quorum which will guarantee responsibility to the people, and we want a condition of things which will insure a most careful and rigid handling of that question. Therefore, speaking with a sense of responsibility, I for one decidedly object to a change in the number constituting the quorum of the Banking and Commerce Committee.


Mr. WILSON (Laval).: I do not agree with the remarks of my hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Lennox) as to the work being less efficiently done by a smaller quorum of members. I think 11 or 15 members of that committee are able to do the work just as well as twenty-one. As a matter of fact, referring to one very important matter, the Lumsden affair, the House felt perfectly safe, and in the opinion of my hon. friend the interests of the country were perfectly safe, in the hands of only seven members.


Haughton Lennox: The four did better than the seven.


Charles Avila Wilson: As a matter of fact, after some of them saw fit to leave the committee, the affairs of the country were thoroughly well managed by four members of this House who were on that committee. Now it occurs to me at the moment that there are two ways of bringing the 130 members of that committee to a sense of their duty, to bring them into action. The first way is by persuasion, by sweet remembrance of the duty of each one of them. The second way is by chastisement-my English expression may be poor


An hon. MEMBER.: It is all right.
Mr. WILSON (Laval) but if it is all right so much the better. I was a victim of the second way a few days ago. In the Montreal ' Gazette ' and Montreal * Star ' a Mr. FIELDING.
list was published of the members who were absent when the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) presented his motion asking for delay in regard to the reciprocity arrangement; and the insinuation was made in those papers that the member for Laval was not in the House for the very good reason that he approved of the motion of the member for Jacques Cartier. But it so happened, Mr. Speaker, that I was not aware that the hon. member was going to present that motion, and that is the reason I was absent. Now, I would propose that the members of the Banking and Commerce Committee should be_ chastised in the same way in order to induce them to do their duty, and that the names of the absent ones should be published. But when the names of the absent are published, I for one will be under a great disadvantage, because the names are usually published in alphabetical order, and as my name begins with the letter W, it comes last on the list-always excepting one other hon. member of this House, that is the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. Wright). He may be the wrong Mr. Wright some times, or he may be the right Mr. Wright at other times. So I think perhaps the best way to settle the matter would be for each member of this committee to perform his duty. Now the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) used an expression about members getting ' busy.' Well, perhaps I am not entitled to speak for other members in this regard, but there is another member of this House, a very prominent one, who is nearly always busy at his duty somewhere else than in the committee. I venture to suggest to my hon. friend from Simcoe that he urge upon his friend, the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), to attend more often the Banking and Commerce Committee, where his services would be so valuable.


Mr. NESBITT.: I think hon. members lose sight of the fact that we do not want to change the number of members on that committee. Everybody can attend the committee, and it is their duty to do so, even if the quorum is reduced. I quite agree in the view of the importance of the Bank Bill that is to come before the committee. I might also mention the Insurance Bill which was before the committee, when it was very difficult to get a quorum, although the Bill was just as important perhaps as the Banking Bill which is to come before the committee. In the case of the Insurance Bill it iwas very difficult indeed to get a quorum, and nearly every morning the chairman had to preside over the committee when there was not a quorum present. I do not see any' reason why the quorum of the committee should not be reduced, because at present we do not get a full quorum there. It is not fair

to those who do attend to keep them waiting from 15 to 20 minutes or half an hour for other members to turn up. So far as I am concerned, I strongly endorse the recommendation to change the quorum so that we can get on with the business.


Henry Horton Miller: This is a matter not of much interest to any except those members who are interested in the work of the committee. They have been doing business morning after morning without any quorum at all, and we thought that it would be better to do business with a quorum that could be obtained under the authority of the House. The members of the committee who are in favour of reducing the quorum are those who are regularly present. I do not care to press the matter contrary to the wishes of the House, and if it is the wish of the House that the quorum should not be reduced, I beg to withdraw the motion.
Motion withdrawn.



QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	What quantity of grain was stored in the elevators at Port Arthur and Fort William during the four months commencing September 1, 1910?
2,	How much of the grain so stored has been forwarded to the sea-board?
-3. By what routes have the same been sent forward, and what was the quantity forwarded by each route ?
4.	How much was forwarded in Canadian bottoms ?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	56,673,690 bushels.
2,	3 and 4. The government have, as yet, no information on the other three questions.


NORWEGIAN BARK ' PETRA.'
Mr. CROSBY:: 1.	Has the Marine Department any information regarding the Norwegian bark ' Petra,' which was lost at Pennant on or about the 20th or 25th of December?
2.	Have the men from Pennant and Sambro who went to the rescue of the crew, running great risk of their lives in doing so, been in any way specially provided for, or any payment given to them, by the Marine and Fishery Department? If not, has the department any intention of remunerating them liberally for their services, and when may it be expected ?


Mr. BRODEUR:: 1.	Yes. The ' Petra ' stranded on a ledge of rocks near Big Pennant island, Pennant Bay, Nova Scotia, on the afternoon of Monday, 19th December, 1910.
114i
2.	No. The matter is being inquired into, and any persons who will have been shown as having assisted in saving life will be rewarded.


RIFLE RANGE AT BEAR RIVER, N.S.
Mr. JAMESON:: 1.	Have any communications, telegrams, letters, petitions or plans relating to the rifle range at Bear River, N.S., been received since January, 1909?
2.	If so, from whom have such been received, and upon what dates respectively?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: I would ask the hon. gentleman to make that a notice of motion.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Stand as a notice of motion.


PRINTING BUREAU EMPLOYEES.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. HUGHES:
1.	How many persons are employed in the Printing Bureau now ?
2.	How many were there on or about December 23, 1910?
3.	How many are Protestants, and how many are Roman Catholics?
4.	Are there upwards of seven hundred persons employed in whole or in part at the Printing Bureau?	.
5.	Is it true that of that number only about eighty are said to be Protestants and upwards of six hundred are Roman Catholics?
6.	What is the reason for such recognition of ecclesiastical influence?
Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	687 employees; -6- carters t -36 -charwomen.
2.	682 employees; 6 carters; 36 charwomen.
3.	The information asked for could not be obtained unless each employee of the Printing Bureau was questioned as to his or her religious belief, and the government is of opinion that in the public interest, it is not advisable that this should be done.
The Printing Bureau is a manufacturing establishment, and, in accordance with' the rule that prevails in mercantile houses, the employees are engaged not on account of creed but because of their fitness for the work, which they are to perform.
4.	Answered by reply to No. 1.
5.	The statement, if made, would be untrue.
6.	No such reason exists as ecclesiastical influence has neither been exerted nor recognized.


POSTMASTER GENERAL'S VISIT TO ROME.
Mr. HUGHES:: 1. What was the object of the mission of the honourable the Postmaster General to Rome as he returned from South Africa?

2.	What correspondence, either by voice, letter, wire, or otherwise either direct with him or indirect through others, passed between the government or any member thereof and the honourable the Postmaster General concerning his visit to Rome?
3.	What instructions, requests, or suggestions were indirectly or directly given him?
4.	Has it been arranged with His Holiness flit Pope of Rome that ecclesiastics of his church in Canada are commanded not to take, or are to be prevented taking, part in political discussions?
5.	Has it been arranged with the aforesaid personage that the Nationalist party in Quebec is to be an ally of the Liberal party?
8. Why is it necessary in Canadian political affairs to obtain or to permit the intervention of His Holiness the Pope of Rome?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: '
The answer to all these questions, is simply that the Postmaster General had no mission to Rome.


SHAD FISHERIES.
Mr. STANFIELD:: 1.	Who composed the commission that took evidence re shad fisheries in 1908?
2.	What was the cost of said commission?
3.	When may the House expect the report, and what is the reason of the long delay in piesenting it?
4.	Will the said report be printed, and when?


Mr. BRODEUR:: 1.	S. F. Morrison, Halifax, Nova Scotia; Simon Melanson, Moncton, New Brunswick; E. E. Prince, Commissioner of Fisheries, Ottawa, Canada.
2.	.$2,651.07.
3.	The report is now in the press, and will issue within a few days. The preparation of some shad fishery maps has delayed it.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


IRON AND STEEL BOUNTIES.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. SHARPE (Ontario;:
1.	What is the total amount of bounties paid by the present government since 1896 in connection with the steel, iron and other industries, respectively?
2.	Before the government commits the country to the renewal of the iron and steel bounties, will parliament have an opportunity to discuss the advisability of such plan?
Mr. FIELDING:: 1.	From June 30, 1896, to January 31, 1911: iron and steel $16,315,862.00; lead, $1,580,793.37; manila fibre, $243,254.15; crude petroleum, $1,888,195.38.
2.	The bounties can only be extended by proceedings which require legislative sanction.


Samuel Hughes: 


CANADIAN VETERANS AT CORONATION.
Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: Is it the intention of the government to include in the Canadian contingent at the Coronation anv representatives of the veterans of 1866 and 1870?


Frederick William Borden: See unrevised ' Hansard,' p. 3346, 1st paragraph of answer to Mr. Middlebro's question as follows:
' It is proposed to send representatives of every regiment or independent unit of the permanent force and active militia,
including departmental corps.

' Preference will also be given to those who have served in the field.'
So far as the above may include veterans of 1866 and 1870, they will be represented, but no special contingent of veterans will be sent.


ST. ANDREWS WHARF, P.Q.
Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	When were tenders called for building the proposed wharf at St. Andrews, Quebec?
2.	Who were the individual tenderers, and what were the amounts they asked, respectively ?
3.	Has the contract been awarded? If so, to whom and at what price?
4.	How much money has been spent in connection with this matter since March 31, 1910, and for what purpose?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	September, 22, 1910.
2.	Bridge and Wharf Builder Company, $3,245.00; G. R. Phillips, $3,790.00; Eugene Paienaude, $3,837.00; G. P. McClintock, $4,120.00; James McAllister, $4,159.00; O. B. Lafleur & Fils, $4,320.00; John Guilin: ult. $10,500.00.
3.	Yes, to the Bridge and Wharf Builder Company for $3,245.00.	[DOT]
4.	$135.78 for advertising and printing.


THE RECIPROCITY AGREEMENT.
Samuel Hughes: Before the orders of the day are called I desire to ask a question of the government. On the front page of the Montreal ' Gazette ' of this morning, I find the following:
Washington, D.C., February 14.-* We are preparing to annex Canada,' announced Champ Clark, leader of the Democratic party in the House of Representatives, in the course of the discussion on the proposed reciprocity treaty. Immediately after he had made that sensational statement, he and all the other Democrats except three from Louisiana, proceeded to vote for the passage [DOT]** reciprocity agreement.

As a result of Democratic support of the proposed treaty, the fiual vote by which it was passed in the House to-night showed 220 members to be for it and 92 against it. Eighty-nine representatives refused their support to a measure backed by a Republican president. On the other hand, with the exception of the three votes mentioned, all the Democrats supported the titular leader of the opposition party, a thing that has not happened in this country for many years.
Annexation of Canada was the keynote of the speech by Mr. Clark, who will be Speaker of the next house, in whipping the members of his party into line in support of the reciprocity agreement with Canada. Not once, nor twice, but thrice, did he boldly declare:
' We are preparing to annex Canada/
Further down it says:
Mr. Clark, who at a public meeting yesterday joined with President Taft in advocating reciprocity between the United States and the whole world, has now called attention to the rumored movement of the ' one flag, the Stars and Stripes, from Central America to the north pole.'
Has the attention of the government been drawn to this matter? Have the government taken any cognizance of this statement, and if so what is their intention? Do they propose immediately withdrawing the reciprocity agreement if the foregoing report is verified.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have not had my attention drawn to this until this moment, and I have only to say that the policy of the government is already settled on, but if some nefarious intention of the kind mentioned in this article should be put into action, I shall call upon my hon. friend as a gallant soldier to dispose of it.


Samuel Hughes: Does the right hon. gentleman place the matter in my hands? If so, I shall proceed forthwith to Washington.


William Sora Middlebro: Might I ask whether, if the statement made bv Mr. Clark, the leader of the Democrats, be true, will that in any way alter or influence the course of action of this government?


Wilfrid Laurier: I gave my answer a moment ago.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax!. I would like to ask my hon. friend the Minister of Finance what countries will come under the free list and the reduced list in the reciprocal arrangement with the United States. It seems to me that to give that information ought to be a simple matter. I asked my hon. friend, when he brought down the information we have already had, to include that in it. It must certainly be accessible because such a list was prepared in connection with the French treaty.


William Stevens Fielding: Does my hon. friend refer to the question put to-day by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Sharpe).


Robert Laird Borden: I wish to know to how many countries besides the United States will the proposed arrangement apply under the favoured nation treaty clause.


William Stevens Fielding: A memorandum was sent me answering the question as I came into the House, but I found it imperfect and thought better to let it stand over. The exact number of countries is twelve. I do not remember what countries they are, but they will be found in the published tariff list. The only qualification is that France is not a favoured nation country generally but to a limited extent. The list will be found in the customs tariff book, but I shall bring it down in a more formal way if Any hon. friend wishes.


Robert Laird Borden: In answer to a question my hon. friend said there were certain countries as to which he could answer definitely, but certain others as to which he could not and therefore I should like a definite statement as to which these countries are to which these provisions will certainly apply.


William Stevens Fielding: At earlier stages there were some doubts-perhaps I should not say difficulties-in answering the question because the imperial authorities were not very clear themselves as to the operation of all these old treaties, but there came a time, particularly in connection with the French treaty, when we had to determine officially what countries were so entitled. A list was then made up which will be found- in the customs_ tariff book, but I shall bring it down in a more formal way.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: I would like to ask if, when these changes were being arranged in Washington, quarantine regulations were considered. The hon. minister will remember that some 30 or 40 years ago quarantine regulations were made by order in council under which live animals coming into Canada must have a certificate of health. For instance, in the case of hogs, a certificate was required from the parties who raised them that they were free from disease; but as I understand it, if hogs or other cattle went from Canada to the United States they did not require any certificate as there are no quarantine regulations in that country. You cannot, however, bring hogs into Canada under this arrangement unless you have those certificates which it is impossible for the pork packers to get.


William Stevens Fielding: The reciprocity arrangement does not touch on the question of quarantine regulations at all. Each country remains free to impose any quarantine regulations it may deem necessary either for public health or for the health of animals. That matter has not been dealt with at all.



WAYS AND MEANS-RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Ways and Means.
["The hour of adjournment is so near, that I cannot continue this discussion longer. I have heard no substantial reason advanced against this proposal, which will bear investigation. Every interest of Canada, is guarded. It gives us three markets, instead of two. Every interest of Great Britain is guarded. If a day comes when Great Britain is able to enter into better arrangements with the colonies and to bring us all together, our hands are free. If we become a greater and more prosperous people, if we become a richer people, we shall be all the stronger as a British nation and a part of the British Empire, and we shall never, with my consent, be other than a part of the British Empire. But why mix this matter up with questions affecting our political relations? The whole and sole question foT us is, have we made a good bargain? As for me and the part of the country which I represent, this proposal will be welcomed as one of the most progressive acts of a government which for 14 years has shown nothing but progress, development and success in Canada.\nProgress reported.\nAt six o'clock, House adjourned.", 'Thursday, February 16, 1911.']
Martin Burrell: Mr. Chairman, in continuing the remarks which I addressed to the House last night, I wish to refer for a few moments to the demand made by that great delegation _ of 800 fruit growers who came from Ontario generally and from the Niagara district in particular, and the Prime Minister's answer to them. They came to Ottawa on February 10 and on February 6 the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) asked the following question of the Prime Minister:


Richard Blain: I desire to ask the Prime Minister whether or not serious consideration will be given to any special interest in Canada that may be affected by the proposed reciprocity arrangement should it become law? In the county I have the honour to represent there is a very strong feeling in respect to these matters. Throughout the western part of Ontario, at the pi'esent moment, large sums of money are being subscribed to send delegations to the government to explain the position of specific interests that will be affected if these tariff changes become law. Will the government give serious consideration to the representations of these interests if they are made to the government? I may anticipate by saying that a general answer that the government will listen to all complaints of everybody will not be quite sufficient. I want to know if the government will give serious consideration to these matters, or whether it will be better for these gentlemen to stay at home on the ground that this proposal will not be changed?
To this the Prime Minister replied:
We will give most serious consideration to all the interests represented, reserving our judgment.
I think the Prime Minister will frankly admit that the unanimous views of these men, practical fruit growers, all of them, men who are thoroughly familiar with the multitudinous details of their own special business, presented, the Prime Minister will also admit, in a fair and moderate and absolutely convincing manner, should have been listened to with a great deal of attention. From 1883 to 1899 I lived in that district, devoting myself entirely to fruit growing. I may fairly say that I know the conditions as no other man in the House knows them. The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Customs could not have listened to that careful presentation backed by statistics, and presented not by opponents of this government, but largely by Mr. FIELDING
their political friends and not realize how grave an injustice had been done these great interests. I am not going to repeat those arguments, but two phases of this matter I will touch on for a minute. In that belt of country stretching from the Niagara river to the city of Hamilton, a country, Sir, which is the pride and delight of every Canadian who knows it, there are 1,000,000 peach trees in cultivation, roughly 10,000 acres. A low estimate of their value would be from three to five million dollars. There is absolutely no doubt that this special and vastly important branch of horticultural industry is grievously injured by these proposals. I can tell this House that western New York has been earnestly hoping for some such thing as this. Even with the duty it has been possible for some of the canners to buy at twenty cents a basket, or a cent a pound, on the New York side of the river, the duty protecting the Canadian grower so that he can get a livable price. Let me point out to the Prime Minister another grievous wrong done. Amongst other matter presented on that day was the following memorial:
To the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, in parliament assembled:
We, the undersigned, the president and executive committee of tire Old Country Association, composed entirely of men born and bred in the British Isles, and the great majority of whom are engaged in the fruit industry, respectfully and earnestly beg to draw the attention of the Dominion government to the peculiar hardship which will be imposed upon us should this proposed tariff legislation come into effect.
We have been induced to leave Great Britain, and to come to this peninsula, and to invest our capital in the purchase, planting and general improvement of fruit lands in a large measure owing to the very wide distribution of official pamphlets and other literature emanating from Canada, and distributed throughout the British Isles, positively stating that ' the Ontario grower is protected in the home market by a high tariff against foreign grown fruit and vegetables, and thus enjoys that market without serious competition from outside sources.'
The amount of customs tariffs on the various fruits is specifically stated in these pamphlets and literature; and in order that this particular advantage to the Canadian grower may be clearly understood by the Britisher, this tariff scale is not only set forth in Canadian money but is also set forth in the coinage of Great Britain. Under the bplief that these conditions would be stable, we have not only sunk our own capital, but have been instrumental in bringing many of our countrymen here to invest in this growing industry, which owing to the steady rise of recent vears in the values of land now requires a large amount of capital to purchase and equip even the small farms the majority of us own, and to provide for the maintenance

of our families during the years it takes to bring an orchard into bearing.
(Signed),WILLIAM BRIGGS, President.
"	R.	Y. GRACE,"	H.	LAMPARD,



[Stage Direction]
"	A.	BAKER,"	A.	N. DAVIS,
Executive committee.
St. Catharines, Feb. 4, 1911.
Now, Sir, the facts are as stated. Some of these men, and there are a great number of them, were sent by the Dominion government officials to the officials of the Ontario government, because, as is natural, that government had special knowledge of the Ontario fruit districts. Canada invited them to come and embark their capital. Canada set forth the advantages they would get. Stability of tariff in relation to the fruit industry was assured them. They came, scores of them. They have been a splendid type of immigrant. These men have done what I wish Englishmen would do elsewhere, joined themselves together in an association to'help others who come here in their initial steps; to assist them in learning to know Canada and to so adjust themselves to its conditions as to become worthy citizens of their adopted country. They have invested their thousands, and have in many cases brought their orchards almost to the bearing point. They have found it an expensive process, more especially as they had to nav, and still have to pay under these proposals, heavy duties on their spraying machines, their tools, their implements with which they had to equip themselves. Is it any wonder that this large body of men feel that Canada has betrayed them?	.
Bir, wbat was the character ot the Prime Minister's answer to these 800 Canadian citizens? I do not want to use extravagant language; but no man ean have heard the Prime Minister without feeling that it was a hopelessly trivial, unbusinesslike and disappointing answer that he gave. He made no attempt whatever to give a serious answer to a serious statement. He showed no appreciation of the issues involved. I do not expect that my right ho.u. friend should be intimately acquainted with the details of the fruit industry, but I did expect, and these men had the right to expect, that the First Minister of the . country would at least have given an intelligible and intelligent answer to their presentment. He told them that the Canadian orchards were the finest in the world-that the Montreal melon was eaten in New York. If he attempted any answer at all to arguments, it was this, that some time before a delegation of farmers had come to the government, and that amongst them the fruit interests were voiced in favour of free fruit, and therefore, as the opinion of the growers was a divided opinion, the government found it a difficult matter to deal with. Sir, if the delegation on December 16 from the west had been a delegation of the fruit growers of the Dominion, I could understand such a reply; but what are the facts? One gentleman from Nova Scotia spoke-and I have already dealt with this statement and shown that the Prime Minister cannot shelter himself there. One man from New Brunswick spoke, and I cannot find that he spoke with authority even from that province; but his remarks were to the effect that he would find a better market for his hay and potatoes and turnips in the United States, and would have saved $200 on his strawberry crop by free fruit. Sir, it is almost inconceivable that the Prime Minister of this country could cite such evidence in detail as a reason for refusing these eight hundred men, and the thousands whom they represented, their requests. One man also from Ontario spoke, an apple grower of Norfolk who has had business connections in the United States for some time past and is interested in shipping some of his fruit in that direction. But even from Norfolk much of the fruit has gone to the prairies, where it will now not be able to withstand the free competition from the western states, afld I may point out that even if every Norfolk apple grower wanted free fruit, which is far from being the fact, Norfolk county, excellent district though it may be, is only tenth in the list of the fruit growing counties of Ontario. Its orchard areas are not so valuable as the single strip of peach area to which I have alluded, and not one-tenth of the area of British Columbia, where the damage brought by these proposals is deplorable. Yet, Sir, this was all the argument brought to the consideration of this great delegation's case.
I have read the report of the western farmers' delegation very carefully, xney stated that they had come to Ottawa at great expense and inconvenience, but that they felt justified in incurring it all in order to show the government they were in earnest. Sir, was that still greater delegation on February 10, representing the fruit industry, less in earnest? In the report of the western farmers' delegation 17 pages are taken up in a lengthy plea for government ownership and operation of terminal elevators-this was what they pleaded for at greatest length; 34 pages in a plea for the establishment of the chilled meat industry, 7 pages in urging the construction of the Hudson Bay railway, and
[Stage Direction]
amendments to the Railway Act, 8 pages in dealing with the customs tariff, chiefly, I might almost say solely, with the argument for a lowering of the duties on manufactures and on easier entry into ttie United States' markets for grain and cattle. One of the most forcible addresses on customs tariff matters was from Mr. Thos. McMillan. He said on page 43:
We come before you asking no favours, but we claim that agriculture should under the tariff be placed on an equal footing with the other industrial enterprises of the land.
That applies with equal force to the horticulturists. Let me commend it to the Minister of Customs. But, Sir, in the whole of this report there is but a scant page which deals at all with fruit, and which even then deals with it in the fragmentary and unrepresentative way which I have already touched on. To say that the western farmers were making tne abolition oi the fruit duties an important part ot tneir case is to mistake plain facts. To say that the fruit interests were in any adequate way represented at that time is also entirely contrary to the facts. The Prime Minister may have been in a tight place- he may have already made up his mind; but it would have been fairer to have told these men not to come than to have treated them in so shabby, so unconvincing, so hopelessly inadequate a manner. Man after mdfi, family after family, in that district will see his business prospects clouded, will see his long years of waiting unrewarded; and it leaves but a bitter taste in the mouth to be told in reply that they must go home and sacrifice themselves and their hopes-not, as the Prime Minister suggested, for other horticulturists, but for other and not more important interests, who are being catered to by these proposals.
Now, Sir, I wish to turn for a short time to the case of the fruit growing industry in my own province of British Columbia. In no part of Canada is this national industry hit with equal force by the proposals before the House. Not within the whole range of our economic history in Canada can there be found so strong an instance of a great industry, which has deserved, and has had some encouragement and some aid from all governments, being deprived of such help without the shadow of an equivalent, or of compensation. I can emphatically state that the pressure of the western fruit-growing states, which are already faced with great difficulties in disposing of their large surplus of second grade fruit, is responsible for President Taft's desire to obtain the privilege of free entry into Canadian markets.
The very first fruit trees planted in British soil west of the Rocky mountains were Mr. BURRELL
planted in the life time of many members in this House. Until the eighties the vast interior of the province was practically a terra incognita. Such settlements as there were made under unusual hardships and drawbacks. The trees for the earlier orchards were, in many cases, brought hundreds of miles on horseback over dangerous and difficult mountain trails. Mining and cattle ranching formed the chief activities of the huge, but sparsely settled, country. But there were not wanting evidences of the special suitability of the climate and soil for the production of fruit. The coming of the Canadian Pacific railway stimulated the work, but even up to 1891 but slow progress had been made, and it was not until 1897 that the first shipment of fruit was sent beyond the limits of the province itself. Commercial horticulture in British Columbia practically commenced then, commenced when this government had decided that fruit-growing was still to have something approaching to a fair measure of protection in common with other Canadian industries. In 1901, ten short years ago, our industry was still small,
567,000	trees representing the orchards of that far west. We have had the faith and energy to build it up under conditions more expensive r nd difficult than those ever faced in oUier fruit-growing districts of Canada We have had to bear the enormous cost of clearing land of our heavy timber and immense outlays in engineering works for irrigation purposes.
I may point out to lion, members that in one valley alone, the Okanagan, $1,500,000 have already been spent in irrigation works for orchard purposes and vast outlays of the same kind are going on all over the province at the present time. We have had, and yet have, unusual difficulties in transportation, owing not a little to the mountainous character of the whole country. We have had, in addition, always a scarcity of labour, with a corresponding high remuneration. We have had little or no help in procuring more labour or additional settlers. I might Tefer ministers to a speech in this House in 1907 delivered by the former member for Yale-Cariboo, in which he pointed out to the government which he supported that they had done nothing to assist in solving this problem. Yet, Sir, in spite of these things, we have progressed to an extent that in the past ten years we have increased our orchards one thousand ner cent, and to-day have
5,000,000 trees. It is a record that should be a source of pride, not onlv to ourselves, but io every true Canadian who realizes that the sound development of the Pacific-coast province is as vital to the welfare of the nation as the development of the east. But although we have made rapid progress we are still only in the beginning of things. Immense tracts of land are in process of

being subdivided, and of being turned into more orchards. As yet but a small percentage of our trees are in bearing. Thousands of men have spent their all in the expensive work of bringing their small holdings to a stage when they will see some reward for their labours, and it is a deplorable and cruel proposal put forward by this government, for the wiping out of' the moderate tariff assistance now in force can be described in no other terms.
What is our position? Our natural, our great market is in the Canadian prairies. We face there competition from our sister province Ontario, whose friendly rivalry we do not deplore. But we face, also, a much more dangerous and fierce competition from the Pacific coast states. Absolutely no argument can be advanced to show that British Columbia has an equivalent in the form of a market in those states. Their markets are glutted with their awn products, and each of the great fruit-producing states is exporting an enormous annual surplus. California, besides her vast exports of citrus fruits, exported this last year 14,050 cars of such fruits as we grow in British Columbia and Ontario. A careful estimate of existing conditions indicates a twenty per cent increase in their output annually for the next few years. I submit an extract from a report carefully prepared by the chief of the horticultural department in British Columbia dealing with production last year:
Apricots-Wenatchee	valley, 300 cars,
Yakima valley, 12 cars, other producers, 15 cars.
This is in the state of Washington alone.
Peaches-Wenatchee valley, 300 cars, Yakima valley, 1,000 cars, other districts in Idaho and Washington, 300 cars. Total, 1,600 cars.
The tremendous preponderance of these districts in peaches over British Columbia districts resulted in a had glut and low prices this year. In plums the American side produces principally the Italian prune. The Williamette valley put up 200 cars of the dried article. Washington valleys shipped 100 cars of the fresh fruit, and southern Idaho shipped 450 to 500 cars. This latter district broke the market for British Columbia prunes and made the season, while not disastrous, one of quite low prices.
Apples-Yakima valley, actual shipment about 2,800 cars. Wenatchee, 2.000 cars. Walla Walla and Dayton not quite 400 cars. Mood river, 500.
And many other similar returns from the innumerable well established fruit valleys of the whole of the northwest states.
In apples the tremendous production indicated above broke the market latterly.
The market referred to is our own prairie country.
And No. 1 Rome Beauties are being offered in Calgary laid down at $1.45, which equals
$1.10 in the Okanagan valley for high class fruit. The total yield in the States west of the Rockies, including Colorado, this year was close to 15,000 cars.
A typical illustration of these valleys is that of Yakima, in Washington. A recent sketch in the ' World of To-day ' magazine contains the following:
Yakima valley is 200 miles long. The Yakima river extending through the valley irrigates the immense orchards. The acreage in full bearing is relatively small, but there are in different stages of bearing about 18,000 acres principally apples, peaches and pears. There are at present 45,000 acres set to fruit and the acreage adapted is fully double that now planted. The shipments for 1910 are upwards of 5,000 carloads of which 3,000 carloads are apples.
Now Sir, the tale of this great horticultural field in the western states might be extended, but I have already given the House a sufficient idea of the standing of our competitors. With this enormous output, it is obvious that profitable markets are a matter of keen anxiety to the United States. And here I might read part of a speech of President Taft as showing why they want these markets and why, from their point of view, this agreement should be put through. President Taft said:
We have, with pioneer energy, pushed on to the Pacific, and taken up all the good land. We are now spending millions to reclaim the arid and semi-arid lands of the great western desert.
They are reclaiming- these lands_for _th_e purpose of extending their fruit ranches.
Should we not, by taking down a useless and unnecessary tariff wall, bring within our agricultural resources the great plains of the Canadian Northwest?
In other words: Should not we get this duty removed in order that we m_ay get the enormous Canadian market in the Northwest.
The United States secured for the farmers the free listing of such important agricultural products as cottonseed oil, all kinds of fruits and vegetables, timothy and clover seeds, eggs, and numerous other products in which the movement to Canada from the United States is much greater than from Canada to the United States.
I think it is absolutely clear what President Taft intended, and what is the knowledge on this particular matter of the men on the other side of the line.
The transportation rates of Washington and Oregon to Winnipeg are as favourable, if not more so, than out own. American capital is already quite heavily interested in the wholesale trade in the western provinces. The wholesalers who have American connections, keep in constant touch with the shipping houses and pack-
[Stage Direction]
ing firms of Washington and Oregon. The highest class fruit is customarily shipped eastwards to the big American cities, to which they get a more ready access than we could ever hope for. The tremendous surplus is forcing its way into our own market, competing against our No. 1 stock and often beating down our prices to _ a point none too profitable for us, but which their growers accept rather than get nothing. Much of the fruit is bought outright f.o.b., on the American side, but Sir, in addition to the great quantity of ears handled in this way, there were this last season, 95 cars sent into our prairie markets on consignment-not ordered, but literally dumped-the growers of Washington and Oregon prepared to take whatever a commission house could procure. These conditions obtain with a duty of 13 cents a case on apples, 20 cents a case on peaches and 10 cents a case on plums. What will happen when that duty is wiped out ? I need not point out that the danger to the Ontario and especially to the British Columbia, producer, is not only the loss of the amount of the duty, but the fiercer competition from those large and ever-growing areas which will naturally deflect a far greater volume of their products when even that slight barrier is swept away. If it is retorted that we have just as good a country and should be able to hold our own on equal terms, I can but reply that the terms at the present time are not equal. To say nothing of the handicap which a business in its constructive stage must always have as against a powerful rival fiTmly established. I may point out that our costs of production are greater than those of our southern competitor. I again quote from a careful report made to our Provincial Association:
In the Rogue river valley, Southern Oregon, a team costs $4 to $5 per day, as against our $6 and $7. Day labour is from $1.50 up to $1.75 as against our $2.50. The average cost of packing apples is 6 to 7 cents a box as against our 8 to 10 cents. The boxes themselves cost 10 to 11 cents as against our 14 cents. In the apple districts of eastern Washington prices are somewhat in advance of these, but as a rule prices for labour and boxes are 25 per cent cheaper than in British Columbia. Our selling prices, however, must be based on those of our competitors who are operating under those more favourable conditions.
Mr. Speaker, I have endeavoured to place the claims and the position of the British Columbia producer as fairly as I could before the House. It is the same position that was taken in 1907 when the last tariff revision took place, a revision which slightly increased the fruit duties. At that time the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson), remarked that it was a tariff Mr. BURRELL
which applied to the whole Dominion of Canada and he urged members to look upon it from the standpoint from which the Finance Minister felt it to be his duty to look at it-that is-and I quote his exact words (Hansard 1907): ' to see what he could do that would be fair to all parts of the country.' No further hearing was given to the fruit-growing interests before this blow fell. There was a bare possibility that our fruit interest might be endangered by pressure from Washington and accordingly, the Ontario Fruit Growers' Association at a representative meeting in Toronto on November 17 last, passed the following resolution:
Resolved, that in view of the possible negotiations with the United States in regard to reciprocity of tariffs, the Ontario Fruit Growers' Association wish to put on record our unqualified disapproval of any reduction in the duties on fruit coming into Canada without consulting a committee to be appointed by this association, the same being now much lower on an average than the duties on manufactured goods and lower than they ought to be in view of the fact that there can be no monopoly or combine in fruits, the prices being fixed absolutely by the law of supply and demand within the Dominion, which contains ample territory suitable to produce in the utmost profusion all the fruits that the country can consume for at least many decades to come, which insures that the consumer cannot be injured in the long run, and the fruit industry can be extended _ in proportion to the growth of the population with some assurance of a permanent market at home.
Now, Sir, I desire to call the attention of the House particularly to two points in connection with this matter. The Prime Minister hinted to the delegation of fruit growers the other day that they were too late, that their views should have been made known when the western farmers' delegation presented their case on December 16. Sir, this very resolution which I have read was forwarded to the Minister of Customs, and he acknowledged receipt of it, on December 15, the day before the western farmers were heard. But, Sir, the report of the western farmers' meeting, the report which I hold m my hand, contains a resolution specifically setting forth the views of the fruit growers along the very lines of the other resolution which I have read. I will not read the resolution, it can be found in the earlier part of this report, and is from the Niagara District Fruit Growers' Association, and is along the same lines. It was brought before this House, or telegraphed, on the same day. Does the Prime Minister think that these subterfuges were creditable to him? Did he think they were likely to deceive those men who came up here? Should it ever be too late to keep faith? Should it ever be too late to fulfil promises? Should it ever be too

late to do justice to the people of this country? Now, in addition to the resolution to which I have referred, there was another one passed almost a year ago by the British Columbia Fruit Growers' Association. On January 7, before these proposals were put into effect, the British Columbia Fruit Growers' Association, in annual convention, passed this resolution:
That this representative meeting of British Columbia fruit growers is absolutely opposed to any reduction on fruit entering Canada, as such action will undoubtedly result in great loss to the fruit industry here in its present stage of development.
Now, when I was speaking here last night, urging upon the Minister of Customs that the condition of the fruit industry had not altered since 1907, except in the direction of making a still stronger case, the minister took a rather curious stand. Hon. gentlemen who were here will remember that he interrupted me and claimed that I was not fair in my presentation, and that the conditions were different, as we would now have free entry into the United States. In all, or nearly all, the resolutions recently dealt with, the consistent plea is for retention of our duty. Where we have asked for equalization or revision, it has been for revision upwards on a scale something like that of the United States. Equalization by the abolition of all duties would not be equalization, but it would be the absolute destruction of those interests. No fruit grower ever dreamed of abolishing the Canadian duties. Why, Sir, the minister was there for the express purpose of guarding those interests. If he, who should have known the facts, has allowed himself to be over-reached, or to be out-played by the great fruit interests of the United States, upon him and upon this government the responsibility must rest, and for ourselves we can only regard it as the most culpable negligence on their part. I would like to call the attention of the Minister of Customs to this point.
Samuel Hughes: The Minister of Customs is not here.


Martin Burrell: I verv much regret that the Minister of Customs is not in his place, the Minister of Finance is not in his place, and the Prime Minister is not here either, when a great national industry is being menaced with destruction. I am glad my hon. friend has called attention to the fact that they are absent. I must sav that when the only fruit grower in this House, representing this enormous industry, is doing his level best to put a moderate and fair presentation of the case before the House, and to protest against the proposal to destroy this industry, one of these ministers ought to be in his place to listen to the case.	[DOT]


Mr BORDEN (Halifax).: I would suggest to my hon. friend that he move that the committee rise until we can get some of the ministers present.


Martin Burrell: I understand that the Minister of Customs is not very far away. But I think the suggestion of the leader of the opposition is one that should commend itself to this committee, and I beg to move that the committee rise _ and report progress, or rise until a minister comes in.


Mir. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The hon. gentleman can move that the committee rise and report progress, but he cannot move that it rise for the other reason given.


Martin Burrell: Well, I move, then-Ah, here is the minister. Now, Mr. Chairman, that we have got one of these gentlemen back in his seat, I would like to call the attention of the Minister of Customs to a point which he did not seem to understand last night. I regret, of course, that he has not been able to follow me when I quoted the resolutions which bore on that matter, but if he will carefully read the various resolutions to which I have referred, lie will note that the one from the Ontario Fruit Growers' Association, which he received and acknowledged the day before the western farmers'' delegation came here, plainly put on record its ' unqualified disapproval of any reduction of duties,' and it states that the duties are now ' lower than they ought to be.' The resolution from the Niagara district, to which I have referred also, urges that the present duties, if continued, will be to the advantage of the country. The whole argument is against the abolition of duty. The British Columbia resolution urges in positive terms that no reduction be made. Now, Sir, these protests came to this government before the reciprocity proposals were known, and since the nature of these proposals has become known to every industry of Canada, and since the intention of the government has been disclosed, the government is aware that petition after petition, resolution after resolution, have been sent in, and all these are along the same lines, deprecating a reduction of duty, and pointing out the grave nature of the injury to the fruit industry of British Columbia especially. I have many of them here, and not a day passes without more of them coming. Here is one from a district where the fruit interests are as great as those of the whole province of Nova Scotia. I refer now to the valley of the Okanagan. I received this letter only yesterday, and there is with it a resolution from the Associated Boards of Trade of the Okanagan valley. I call upon the Minister of Customs, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Inland Revenue, who have all been down in that district, to pay par-

ticular attention to this resolution. I received this yesterday, but it was dated five or six days ago:
Associated Boards of Trade for the Okanagan Valley.
Office of the Secretary, Vernon, B.C.
Copy of Resolution.
That the Associated Boards of Trade for the Okanagan Valley at their annual meeting now assembled urged in the strongest manner upon the Dominion government the absolute necessity of maintaining the present import duty on fruit as from the United States.
The fruit industry in British Columbia is in the infant stage with great possibilities which has been stated by responsible men will equal the lumber industry of the province, and at present stage requires careful handling and fostering. There are millions of dollars invested in the fruit industry in the province more than in the farm implement business of Ontario which has been nursed and protected; by so doing these factories of Canada are classed in this line as the leading industries of the world. Without this protection through their growing years these magnificent plants now employing thousands would never have existed. The same applies to the British Columbia fruit industry in which the growers have invested many millions of dollars, besides the very large investments of capital in irrigation systems running into millions of dollars.
The necessity of a protection duty outside the fostering of a young and promising industry, is the undeniable fact that the natural market for British Columbia, ' The Northwest Territories ' is made the dumping ground for surplus fruit from the Northwestern States which already possess a large and fully developed fruit industry and the pernicious action of consignment is resorted to on a large scale. It is well taken that the fruit growers are entitled to have their rights guarded the same as has been the case for other enterprises.
Now. the Prime Minister knows something of the development in that country. The Minister of Agriculture lias been over a considerable portion of the fruit districts of British Columbia. He stayed in the great peach district along the Okanagan lake. He knows, or ought to know, what positive and direct injury and discouragement will be inflicted on that section of British Columbia. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) told the House the other day that as a bachelor he had great difficulty in living on $9,500.


Mr. FISHER.: I said I had no difficulty in doing it.


Martin Burrell: I certainly understood the hon. gentleman to suggest that he had all he could do to live comfortably on it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. gentleman entirely misunderstood me.


Martin Burrell: Did not the minister sav that while he could live on $9,500 a Mr. BURRELL
year it was very difficult, indeed, fo? a minister with a family to properly support that family on that income?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, I did.


Martin Burrell: ment of fruit-growing and the farming population. If I did believe that a savage hunt for the dollar was the dominating principle of our life-that every man and every province -would ruthlessly pursue their own interests absolutely regardless of the hurt to others-that the knife was to be plunged into a Canadian brother for the sake of personal gain, then, Sir, I should indeed despair of our citizenship and could but say: God help this confederation which was built up on very different and very much more noble principles.
Sir, why did British Columbia enter confederation ? There was much to lose, there was much opposition-but the deep-rooted, the passionate desire to see a great highway from east to west, in order that scattered peoples holding the same traditional faiths, might become one nation, overcame every obstacle. The echoing thunder of the first transcontinental train as it swept through the Fraser canyon to the Pacific coast, meant much for Canada. It meant not only that it was possible for east to trade with west, it stood for the close linking of province to province, of brother to brother, in ties of sentiment as well as ties of commerce.
I have said we lost much. That is too long a story to tell now, but I may remind the House that, owing to the exceptional and difficult character of our great mountainous country, we have faced a burden of administrative expenditure utterly out of proportion to any other province in the Dominion. We received an absolutely inadequate compensation- financially, and that fact has been recognized, though somewhat late in the day, by the Prime Minister. But I will say to the Minister of Finance especially, that we in British Columbia accepted the responsibilities, the obligations, the burdens of confederation, though we have tried and shall still try to get them honourably and equitably adjusted. But the Minister of Finance' with less reason, with far less justification than ourselves, was the man, who himself, preached a fiery and bitter crusade throughout his own province, with disruption of confederation as his text. He, of all men, knowing at least something of our difficulties, should be the last man in Canada to add another pound to our burden._ My right hon. friend, the Prime Minister, cherishes a grievance against British Columbia. He has himself to blame for the fact that the whole province is solidly arrayed against him. But, Sir, additional injustice meted out to the people of the far west is not the way to heal old wounds. No one should know better than the Prime Minister, that the alienation of a whole province is a bitter and irrefutable proof that his government has not dealt justly with British Columbia. No additional Mr. BURRELL
harshness of treatment can strengthen my right hon. friend's hold on the popular heart, it will lead inevitably to the further weakening of himself and his party throughout Canada.	_
Sir, this is a movement, confessedly initiated by the United States for their own purpose. It is in some respects a ceding of our own control over our own destiny. If consummated, it will loosen and not tighten existing ties between province and province. We who have for years purchased hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of products from our prairie friends will find ourselves compelled to buy from the immediate south, from the foreign producer. It does irreparable harm to our interprovincial trade-it lessens the national feeling of the people of Canada and turns their energies in new directions. It means the exploiting of our natural resources and raw materials by a people who will expend their own energies and labour in the varied work of turning out the finished article. If it is an economic truth that every import must be paid for by an export, then our natural products, finding their market in the United States, will soon be paid for by a great flow of their manufactured goods.
If it has a shattering effect on our interprovincial trade and puts a new face on our national life, it also foreshadows possible changes in our political future. I have only to allude to the item in to-day's paper, already referred to, the statement that the annexation of Canada, was the keynote of Mr. Clarke, Speaker of the House, in whipping the members of_ his party into line in support of the reciprocity agreement. Not once or twice, but thrice, did he boldly declare: We are preparing to annex Canada. In the light of these words, there is some ground for that noble and passionate appeal in the closing words of the speech delivered yesterday by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), who said:
This is our land, and please God we will keep it for our children and our children's children. This proposal cuts square across our national ideas and will endanger them. We should think well before entering upon it. The path we are about to enter leads from home; it should not be entered upon lightly.
I do not say that we in British Columbia are more imperial, more anxious than our fellow Canadians in other provinces to strengthen the bonds which bind us to the mother country, but British Columbia, of all the great provinces which form this confederation, would be most loth to see any step taken which would conceivably end in sharing the political future of that great country to the south, and in this proposal, we see nothing that strengthens
362ft

the grip of hands across the sea, but much that weakens it. The pact was unnecessary, the arrangements as a whole, have dangerous tendencies, and the scheme involves a grave injustice to one large body of Canadian producers and citizens.
No redress for plain grievances. No remedies for obvious injuries; take it or leave it, says the government. Have it all, or have none. Sir, I say for myself then, and I think I speak for my constituents too, 1 want none of it.


Mr. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington).: Mr. Chairman, like every hon. mem her in this House I realize the magnitude and the importance of the question now before you and the great influence which it will, in all human probability, exert upon the future of this country. I happen, in this debate, to follow my hon. friend from Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell) who has devoted by far the greater part of his remarks, to one particular branch of the subject, namely the effect of the present proposals upon the fruit industry in this country. I do not for a moment claim to have the knowledge of my hon. friend from Yale-Cariboo either in regard to fruit or in regard to general conditions in British Columbia. It was, I believe, arranged that my hon. friend from Nanaimo (Mr. Ralph Smith), who is at present indisposed and has sickness in his family, should reply to the speech of the hon. member for Yale-Cariboo, and I think that I had better leave that task to my hon. friend -from Nanaimo^who expects shortly to be present again in his seat. But there are a great many general principles involved in this question which can be, and should be discussed by members from the various sections of Canada, not as they pertain to local or special interests, but as they bear upon the whole trade and future development of this great country. This is the eleventh session that I have had the honour of occupying a seat in this House. I represent a riding in the central portion of western Ontario having a population equally divided between rural and urban. The whole county of Wellington may be said to be a fair average of the counties in the western portion of the province. Its industries are similar to those of neighbouring counties such as Waterloo, Oxford, Perth, Brant, Huron, Grey, Bruce, Duff^ erin and other counties. These are all to a considerable extent manufacturing counties, but to a very much larger extent agricultural counties. The agriculture carried on in my own county is not the agriculture which is carried on in the west. It is not to any large extent a grain-producing county. What grain we do produce is largely consumed in the feeding of livestock, which may be said to be the leading farm operation of the county. Consequently the county of Wellington is very greatly interested in the proposals now before the Chair. The grain we produce is fed to a high-bred class of cattle. We raise beef cattle for the supply of the local market, the Toronto market, and very largely, at certain times of the year, the Ottawa market ; 'but by far the larger portion of our cattle industry is concerned with foreign markets. We have in the county of Wellington a large class of purebred cattle, sheep, hogs and poultry. A casual drive through any part of the county of Wellington during the summer time would serve as an eye-opener to many people in regard to the conditions as they exist among the rural population of that county. I would like to take my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) on a short trip through the riding of South Wellington, and let him see the class of people who are engaged in the great farming industry there. I realize that these proposals affect my constituents directly. I realize also that I represent a city population of 16,000 people, living in the city of Guelph, as well as five villages, each containing some manufacturing industry besides the ordinary village population. I believe that the various classes of the population are all vitally interested in these proposals ; and, having given them my best consideration and judgment, I have come to the conclusion that it is of the greatest interest to the county from which I come, and to all counties similarly situated in the western portion of the province _of Ontario, that this measure be adopted by this House.
In this instance I desire to follow the lead and the good example set by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition in dealing with this question. He discussed it in what I consider the best parliamentary form-not from the standpoint of party politics at all ; but be gave us what I assume was from his point of view his reasoned judgment-his conclusions and the reasons for those conclusions ; and while I do not agree with him, I do not think I can do better than follow his manner and method in presenting my case to the House. I may say also for the hon. member of the opposition who also preceded me (Mr. Martin Burrell), that he argued his case from his point of view without that asperity, that bitterness, which we frequently have in this House over questions which should be argued rather on their merits. I regret that I cannot endorse or approve of the method adopted by my hon. friend from North Toronto, who,
I am sorry to see, is not in his place this afternoon. It might be the part of presumption for me to offer any suggestions to the hon. member for North Toronto is to parliamentary style or as to the method or . manner of presenting his ease ; but were

he in his seat I would tell him that if his speech were stripped of its rhetoric, if the feathers and the plumage were taken from it, and we came down to the facts he presented and the arguments he sought t; make, we would find that the speech was perhaps the most meagre and insubstantial that he has delivered in this House. I hope to be able to show before I conclude that some of the arguments he presented are absolutely without foundation, or, if they have a foundation, he certainly did not reveal that foundation to the House. Some of them are ridiculous and some of them absolute absurdities. I believe that the hon. member for North Toronto himself realized that, and hence we find him, in his best declamatory style, a style of parliamentary eloquence which during the last half-century has, I think, rather dropped out-if not in this House, certainly in the Imperial House of Commons, where all that they ask is the facts and the arguments, waiving the declamation.
It has been said in this debate that it would be well for the government to withdraw this measure for the present. It has been suggested that the House has not had sufficient information on the subject. I take issue with that statement. This question has been very prominently before Canada for a year at least, since March, 1910, in the newspapers, on the platforms, in political arguments at various places. Every man of ordinary intelligence knew that it would be a subject for discussion in this House, and I am sure that hon. members of this House have canvassed the situation and canvassed it pretty thoroughly. That of course was only as the question presented itself in abstract form, but since the 26th January last, we have had it presented in concrete form, with all the details and information necessary to enable us to give it full consideration and form an independent and calm judgment upon it. The ordinary channels have been open to all hon. members. We have been educated by the press, by the representations of deputations, by communications from our constituents and by petitions of various kinds, and we have had at our disposal a very complete summary of the whole case in the tariff blue-book handed to the House some ten days ago, so that if any hon. gentleman should complain that he has. not sufficient information on the subject, I can only say that he has not shown the necessary energy and perseverance, because otherwise he would have had all the information he could possibly desire to enable him to pass an intelligent judgment on the question. It has been said also that there is no demand for any such measure. Where is the demand, has been asked? Whence does it come? Why, it almost seems waste of time to answer such a question, but for the purpose of my argument I desire to do Mr. GUTHRIE.
so; and I state without hesitation that there has not been a period in this country since 1866 down to the present year of grace when there has not been a positive demand in Canada for better trade relations with the United States. And that demand has not been a dormant one, but one made public in many ways and on many occasions. Nor has it been the demand of one political party or one political leader, but from every government and from the whole population of Canada; and I desire, even at the expense of a few moments of our valuable time, to relate something of the history of that demand.
In the first place the old reciprocity treaty was abrogated in 1866. Sir Alexander Gault and Sir William Howland representing Canada, and Mr. Smith and Mr. Henry representing Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, proceeded to Washington and remained there a couple ot weeks before the abrogation and pleaded to get a new treaty. In this they failed. Confederation came in 1867, and our first tariff Act in 1868 expressed our demand for reciprocity by containing a clause stating our readiness to enter into such a treaty. In 1869 another demand was made on Washington by the government of Sir John Macdonald. That government despatched Sir John Rose to Washington to obtain reciprocity, but he also failed. In 1871, I think it was, another deputation went to Washington, headed by Sir John Macdonald, when the treaty of Washington was negotiated, and again a demand was made for reciprocity and again refused. The government of Mr. Alexander Mackenzie, which came into office in 1874, sent -a deputation to Washington with Hon. George Brown at its head. As the result of their mission, a draft treaty was submitted to the Senate of the United States which that body refused to pass. In 1879, there came a change of government, and the tariff policy of the Conservative government contained a statutory offer to the United States for reciprocal tariff legislation or reciprocity. Then we come down to 1891 when Sir John Macdonald put himself on formal record in regard to that matter in his address to the electors of that year a copy of which has recently been published in the Montreal ' Gazette.' Commenting on the policy of the Libera] oarty of that day, he said of the policy of the Conservative party towards the United States.
We are perfectly willing to trade with you on equal terms. We are desirous of having a fair reciprocity treaty, but we will not consent to open our markets to you while yours remain closed to us.
In 1891, after the Conservative victory at the polls, we had another deputation going to Washington, and on this deputation, was

my hon- friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) then Minister of Finance. Nothing again was accomplished. The American authorities still turned a deaf ear to our requests, and these gentlemen were not able to make any impression on them. In 1893 was held the great Liberal convention in this city of Ottawa in which a reciprocity plank was placed in the iplatifonn as one of the things which the Liberal party would attempt to obtain if returned to power. They were returned in 1896, and in 1898 sent a deputation to Washington for the very purpose of securing a reciprocity treaty. That deputation also failed in its mission.
That then is the record up to 1899 of both parties with regard to reciprocity with the United States. Now the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) says that in the year 1899 the leader of the present government, the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), declared in this House and afterwards in England that he had turned his back on Washington, that he would no longer seek reciprocity with the United. States, but that he would endeavour to make trade arrangements with the rest of the world and particularly the British Empire. Well, there is this to be said, that my right hon. friend was the first Prime Minister of Canada who took that dignified stand with regard to negotiations with Washington. Previous governments had made offers and had been refused, and sometimes the refusal was not couched in the most polite terms, as my hon. friend from - North- Toronto (Mr. Foster) could tell us if he would. The only proper, dignified, statesmanlike course to pursue was that taken by the right hon. the leader of this government. If any further attempts, he declared, were made to obtain reciprocity, the offer would have to come from Washington and not from Canada. We waited many years during which we made no further demand or request, nor did any come from them, but at the end of ten years a request did come from Washington, and at the end of eleven years that request is now before the House in concrete form. In the face of these facts, how can the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) or the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), argue that there has not been a positive demand in this country for such a measure since 1866.
My hon. friend the leaaer of the opposition says that times have changed, that we are now in the year 1911, and not in 1866, and that conditions have changed. True they^ have, but neither geographical nor climatic conditions have changed. The nature of our products has not changed nor has the character of the products of the United States, but our lines of transportation east and west and north and 115
south have been perfected, and if there was good reason for a demand for reciprocity in 1866, there is just as good or better in the year 1911.
Just a word as to the proposal itself. The proposal does not come in the form of a treaty, and I think it is well that it does not. Had it been m the torm ot a hard and fast binding treaty for 25 or 50 years, i could have seen some torce in me argument that we had tied our hands and could not enter into reciprocal arrangements with other countries and could not improve our relations within the empire with regard to trade matters, it came in the form of a simple international bargain based on good faith. I think that is one of the best features of the measure as presented to the House. The terms of the measure can all be taken from ia single clause in the letter addressed by the hon. Minister o.f Finance and the Minister of Customs to the Secretary of State of the United States, on the 21st January, 1911. These are the words :
Nevertheless, it is distinctly understood that we do not attempt to bind for the future the action of the United States Congress or the parliament of Canada, but that each of these authorities shall be absolutely free to make any change of tariff policy or of any other matter covered by the present arrangement that may be deemed expedient.
Surely, that is clear, plain and simple; and it is a statement which is formally confirmed by the letter of the Secretary of State of _the United States. And that is air the bargain or agreement between the two countries at this time.
Now, treaties may be good at times and they may be bad at times. Treaties do involve, sometimes, international entanglements of an unforseen kind. Treaties sometimes involve or cause subsequent embarrassments. A treaty made between a country having the wealth and population of the United States on the one hand and Canada on the other hand might, some day, prove an embarrassment to this country and an embarrassment to Ureat Britain. So, if my opinion is worth anything, I give my opinion that the present arrangement, based on the mutual good faith of both countries, and, as we hope, for the mutual advantage, of both countries, is the best possible arrangement, so tar as Canada is concerned, in the way of reciprocal trade arrangement with the United States.
It has been argued: Wiiy do not you wait until the colonial conference has met in London this year; something new may be developed there, something new may be evolved. The answer is that we have not made any hard and fast treaty; no binding arrangement has been made; our hands



are not tied, our hands are free; and, if anything better for the interests of Canada shall be developed or evolved at the colonial conference, Canada is perfectly free to take advantage of it. These are the reasons which lead me to the conclusion that the present arrangement, resting as it does on a mutual bargain, is by all means the best form in which to put an arrangement with the United States.
It has been said by some that Canada has ail the best of the bargain and hy others that Canada has all the worst of the bargain. I do not believe that arguments of that kind will appeal to any reasonable man. A bargain has always two sides to it, and unless the advantage of the arrangement be mutual, it will not last a twelve month. We cannot have it all our own way, the other contracting party must have some of the advantages. It is very much as was said by David Harum in the book of that name: ' When you make a horse trade, it is always well to let the other fellow get something out of it.' I do not think that a one-sided bargain would have been of any advantage to us at an. But what I do say is that the arrangement presented before us will give Canada tremendous advantages over the position which she now occupies, and, on the other hand, I am ready to admit that the United States may get some advantage also. But I do think that the advantage preponderates on the side of Canada very, very largely.
In order to place my case connectedly before the House, I would like to examine the trade position of Canada to-day? I do not intend to impose a lot of figures on the House, and I shall only refer to them in round numbers and as rapidly as I can; but I think that it is necessary, if one is to have a proper appreciation of the effect of the present proposal, to have regard to our present conditions. I find that the total trade of Canada of last year, exports and imports, amounted to $693,000,000: based on home consumption, $649,000,000. And the astonishing, even startling, fact is that $580,000,000 of our total trade is done with the United Kingdom and the United States. Our export and import trade with Great Britain is $245,000,000, and our export and import trade with the United States, $336,000,000. In other words, 9U per cent of our whole foreign trade is done with two countries and only ten per cent with the rest of the world. As this trade proposal or agreement affects the trade with our two best customers, it is of far more consequence that we should scan it very carefully to see that in what we may now do we injure neither our trade with the one nor our trade with the other of them.


Hugh Guthrie: It is well also to note the nature of the trade we have with Great Britain, and the nature of the trade we have with the United States. From Great Britain we import $95,000,000 worth of goods, and to Great Britain we export $149,000,000 worth. From the United States we import $223,000,000 worth and to the United States we export $113,000,000 worth. In other words, Great Britain buys from us 54 per cent of all our exports, but the United States buys from us 40 per cent of our exports. Great Britain sells to us 20 per cent of all our imports, and the United States sells to us 60 per cent of all our imports. Now, it is frequently said that the balance of trade, as between Canada and the United States, is entirely against Canada. It is also argued and urged- and was urged by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax)-that we have given Great Britain no real preference at all, that all we ever gave was a sham preference, a pure fiction. I must say that, on the tariff rates which my hon. friend gave to the House, and which I believe to be approximately correct, there is, apparently, a discrimination against Great Britain in favour of the United States. But I think the leader of the opposition should have been candid enough to give the reason, because he knows the reason and knows that the discrimination is not a real discrimination but an apparent one. You may examine the rates of duty which we charge in Canada, and you will find in the Trade and Commerce report, page 15, the following average rates: On all imports entering Canada from all countries, the average rate is 16/416; on all dutiable imports coming into Canada from all countries, 26-713. On all imports coming from Great Britain, the average rate is 18-914; on all dutiable imports from Great Britain the average rate is 25-107. On all imports from the United States, the average rate is only 13-570 and on all dutiable imports from the United States, the rate is 24-837. And the difference on total imports as between the United States and Great Britain on goods coming into Canada, is now 5J per cent in favour of the United States, and the average difference on all dutiable imports is one-fourth of one per cent, or 25 cents on $100 in favour of the United States. So that there is an apparent discrimination in favour of the United States and not a preference for Great Britain. But, as I say, it is apparent and not real. The reason for it is not hard to find. The reason for the apparent discrimination is to be found in tne list ofl free imports. On our total imports from Great Britain, amounting to $95,000,000, only $23,000,000 came in on the free list.
FEBRUARY Is, 1911
On our total imports from the United States, amounting to $223,000,000, over $98,000,000 come in on the free list.
When you average the free and the dutiable goods together, an apparent discrimination in favour of the United States appears, because the United States supplies to us so much of our free imports. Well, some one says, why don't you buy them from England? Why do you buy them from the United States? The reason is obvious, and if any one will glance ovetr the trade and navigation returns of this country he cannot fail to be struck with the reason almost in the first two or three pages of that report. Of the free imports I will take only a few of the large items. The imports of corn amount to $4,600,000; we get that all direct from the United States free, and it is not produced in, nor is it exported from, Great Britain. We want it .here to feed our hogs and cattle. Hon members will remember that prior to 1896, under the Conservative government, the farmers paid 7 cents a bushel to get that corn to feed their stock. I wish the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) was here now, because I never look at that corn item without thinking of the anomaly which he permitted to exist in the government of which he was Finance Minister. He charged the farmers 7 cents a bushel to bring in corn to feed to their export cattle, and he allowed the distillers to bring in corn free to make whisky for export purposes.
- Mr. SPROULE, Might I ask the hon. gentleman a question? If I understand him correctly, he said that there was an apparent difference in favour of the United States, but it was only apparent, and he gave the free imports from Great Britain and the United States to show that the duty charged against the United States was only apparent. But leaving out the free imports entirely, when he considers the dutiable goods separately, the balance is really in favour of the United States; in other words, the duty was a little lower against the United States than against Great Britain.


Hugh Guthrie: That is correct; I will come to that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If that be so, is it not real?


Hugh Guthrie: No, it is not, as I will show presently. Do not anticipate me. Before I leave that question of importing corn for the distillers, I must say that after a time that anomaly in the tariff was removed. The people in my county who imported dutiable corn to manufacture export cattle did not like their neighbours in the adjoining county of Waterloo to have the privilege of importing free corn for the manufacture of export whisky, and the 1151
present junior judge of the county of Wellington informs me that he, as the leading prohibitionist of this House on the Conservative side, called the government's attention to it, and they took it off.


Richard Blain: Which government did this?


Hugh Guthrie: The government of which the hon. member for North Toronto was Finance Minister. The next item of importation of free raw material from the United States is anthracite coal and coke, amounting to $16,000,000. Then comes binder twine, $1,750,000, made free for the benefit of the farmers. Then comes manilla grass, or hemp, or fibre, $1,000,000, I think chiefly used in the penitentiaries. Then comes raw cotton, $9,360,000. That is not a product that England exports, but one that she imports in tremendous quantities. The next item is tropical fruits, $3,700,000. Then, crude rubber, and rubber sheets for manufacture in rubber factories, a little over four millions. Then lumber imported, chiefly hardwood, $8,000,000. Raw tobacco, $3,115,000; metal ores and minerals, $16,000,000. These are some of the items on the free list. You can go over the free list of goods imported into this country, and you will find that about seventy or seventy-five million dollars worth come in from the United States free of duty which are not the product of Great Britain at all, and are not goods that she exports.
Now, in regard to dutiable goods, there is an apparent discrimination of 25 cents on the hundred dollars, and how is that accounted for? It is accounted for by reason of this fact, that this government, -and, for aught I know, its predecessors, considered that the manufacturers of Canada should be allowed to bring in partly manufactured goods at nominal rates of duty, largely goods used m iron and steel industries. I know of goods coming into Guelph by the carload for the manufacture of an article of iron called skelp; it comes in sheets at the rate of five per cent, and comes in on the list of dutiable goods, but the duty is placed at a nominal amount.
If you look over the trade and navigation returns you will find item after item of this kind going into the manufacture of implements, into manufactures of hardware, and into the manufactures of various kinds of machinery, on which the rates run from as low as 2 to 5, 7 and 8 per cent. Then there is the matter of agricultural implements, on which the rate is only 17i per cent. Wo do not get any of these goods from England. So that in the general average there is an apparent discrimination in favour of the United States to the extent of 25 cents on the $100. But is that a test? Here is the test; Take goods that both countries manufacture and export, take goods of common manufacture which Canada buys from the United States and

Great Britain, and see whether there is a preference or not. Woollens or manufacture of woollens-last year we bought from Great Britain $19,000,000, and . from the United States $925,000. Is there not a 'discrimination in favour of Great Britain there? And so on with the other articles in this list :
	From	From
	Great	United
	Britain.	States.
Silks and manufactures		
	$ 2,500,000	$ 571,000
Ribbons	650,000	106,000Oil cloth	1,000,000	274,000Flax, hemp, jute and manufactures thereof..	3,000,000	210,000Fancv articles	1,500,000	740,000Earthenware and china.	1.100,000	269,000Manufactures of cotton..	12,500,000	3,250,000
Now, that, I submit, is the_ test. There are goods which both countries manufacture in their complete form and send into Canada, on which we have given a British preference of one-third less rate of duty on goods coming from Great Britain. Now, compare the sales made by Great Britain and the United States of that class of goods which they manufacture in common, and see whether there is a real preference or an imaginary one. I have only enumerated nine of the larger items, and I find that in the nine items the volume of imports from Great Britain is $42,000,000, and the volume of imports from the United States is $6,000,000. The United States goods come on an average five or six hundred miles, and Great Britain's goods come on an average of about 3.500 miles.
I am going to turn now to another definite question involved in the proposed arrangement. A great portion of the speech of the member for North Toronto yesterday and the day before, was directed to an effort to show that you are interfering with the British preference, and generally wiping that out, that you are interfering indeed with our imperial standing. I propose to show that we are not interfering with it, and I submit that he gave no facts that would convince any reasonable man that we are interfering with it. In the first place, I know that he has devoted time and attention to this subject. I know that he is a man very capable of examining this question from every point of view. I believe he has left no stone unturned. He has gene into it from top to bottom, turned if over and examined it. Taking his speech, as reported in ' Hansard,' at page 3405, I find he says that the total trade to be displaced or affected will be $95,000,000, that the arrangement will affect an import trade of $47,800,000 and an export trade of $47,300,000. I do not think his figures are collect, but I will, for the purpose of my argument, give my figures which are large-Mr. GUTHRIE.
ly in excess of the figures which he quoted; so that, if his argument be correct, it will be more correct and more imposing 'than the (presentation which he put (before the House. I do not know where he got his import figures, which, as given by the blue-book, are $40,000,000. Adding to that $650,000 for pulp wood and paper under a special item, the amount would be about $41,000,000. Then he places the imports which come to us under the schedules under discussion at $47,800,000. He has increased the amount by about 18 or 20 per cent, but 1 do nut know that that will make any difference in his argument. As I say, I 'do not know where he got his figures. 1 submit that the .present arrangement will not affect -merely $47,000.000 of our exports, but that the amount of our exports to be affected is the amount set out in the blue-book, called Tariff Relations, at page 68 and that is $205,000,000 and not $47,000,000 as stated by the hon. member for North Toronto. That $205,000,000 is made up of exports as follows:	To
Great Britain, $127,000,000; to the United States, $49,000,000; and to all other countries in the world, $28,000,000. Take these figures as set out in the blue-book, which are entirely favourable to the contention of my hon. friend, and arguing from that basis, let me show first the situation with regard to schedule 'A ' that, I know my hon. friend must have gone through from top to bottom, because he counted the items. He says there are 69 items in schedule ' A,' 39 of which have been untouched-not a very good word to express what he meant, a word that might be very misleading to many people. In regard to 30, he says the duty has been wiped out. What he means by 'untouched' I do not know. What he should have said was, that there was not any duty on them, because they have always been on the free list, and the other 30 articles have been placed on the free list. But, in looking over schedule ' A ' I found that there were 44, sections, subdivisions or groups, schedule ' A ' being the free list, and that 30 of these groups relate exclusively to natural products, that 11 of these groups relate exclusively to partly manufactured goods, which come into this country as raw material for the benefit of the manufacturer, and that only three of the articles under schedule ' A ' consist of manufactured goods. These three articles are (1) cream separators, which have always been free; (2) type setting machines of which we only got from Great Britain last year, $177 worth, and (3) paper, paper being a special item by itself. These are all the manufactured goods, included in this schedule. Cream separators always were free, and I do not know that they should always have been free, because I have been

down here with one or two deputations to get a duty put on them. I thought they were machinery just as much as other things were, or that they should properly be classed as agricultural implements, but the government persistently refused to place a duty on them. They always have been free and if they did come in from Great Britain, they would still come free. Type setting machines never did come from Great Britain, and as we only imported $177 worth last year, we could not have brought in any complete linotype machine. Wood pulp never came from Great Britain, but paper did. Paper to the extent of $7,302 came from Great Britain last year. What are our total imports under schedule * A '? Last year we received of goods now under schedule ' A ' $13,894,000 worth. Of that $13,000,000 worth we received from Great Britain, $4,-
190,000,	and from the United States $9,-
163,000.	One third of the goods coming into this country last year now under schedule 'A ' came from Great Britain and two thirds from the United States. The reduction in duty, by reason of the change and by reason of placing the thirty articles mentioned by the hon. member for North Toronto on the free list, will be, on the trade of last year, $1,400,000, or about 17J cents per head of our population, placing it at $8,000,000.
_ Now, my hon. friend's objection was that, you have injured the trade of Great Britain, that you have displaced the trade of Great Britain by the effect of your free )i-si. embraced in schedule ' A T am not going to the extent of quoting-Iris language: it can be found in ' Hansard.' It was ' a most extraordinary statement, and one for which he had not the slightest foundation. If we examine the list we must be convinced that the hon. member for North Toronto wanted to cover up the scanty foundation by a wealth of words, where he was at a loss for argument. What is that trade? We import from England $4,190,000 worth. It is nearly all made up of the single item of rolled iron and steel plates, amounting to $3,490,000. That is on the free list, but that always was in the free list and Great Britain sent that amount into Canada last year as a free article. Will that be displaced ?


William Sora Middlebro: That is not free.


Hugh Guthrie: Not from Great Britain?


William Sora Middlebro: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: It is from Great Britain.


Mr. AMES.: From Great Britain, but there is 5 per cent, when imported from the United States, on that article.


Hugh Guthrie: I understand that it was a free article from Great Britain, and
I also thought it was free from the United States, but I will not be sure about that.


Herbert Brown Ames: It was free from Great Britain, but there is a duty of five per cent from the United States.


Hugh Guthrie: It came in on the free list from Great Britain and from the United States it came in with a five per cent duty.


Herbert Brown Ames: It was last year free from Great Britain, but there was a duty of five per cent when imported from the United States. Now that five per cent is wiped off, and it is free from both countries.


Hugh Guthrie: That represents about seven eighths of the free list embraced in schedule ' A '. I am not going to take up all the items; I only propose to deal with the larger ones. The next item that I shall mention is that of grapes, of which we imported from Great Britain $104,000 worth. Every one knows, who knows anything about the kind of grapes we import from Great Britain, that they are the grapes that retail at $1.50 a pound, or $2.50 a bunch, and are not produced in Canada. They only had a duty of li per cent and the duty amounted to nothing in comparison with the value of the grapes. That trade will not be displaced. Then, we take vegetables and beans. Of vegetables, we imported $91,000 worth. These are not the vegetables we grow in Canada. I am informed that almost the whole value is represented by the one item of Spanish oniohs. which can only be produced in~tropical-countries and which are shipped into Canada via Great Britain. Another article is beans, by wdiich, they tell me, is meant Lima beans, which represent an import of $64,000. These are not produced in Canada; they come from South America and are shipped into Canada via Great Britain. Therefore, no trade will be affected with respect to these articles.
Take the argument of the hon. member for North Toronto, that when duties are reduced down to 10, 12 or 15 per cent, your preference amounts to nothing. I say that under that argument rolled iron and steel plates will come in from Great Britain just as freely as they came in before. These items that I have enumerated amount to almost the entire free list, as represented by schedule * A '. What is that to the total imports into this country from Great Britain-$4,191,000 out of a total of $95,000,000 ? In all probability,- indeed I wmuld stake my reputation upon it-in two or three years, as our purchasing power increases our purchases of goods under that same schedule ' A ' of w'hich we now buy $4,191,000 will be largely increased and not diminished.
Now, let me look at schedules ' B ' and

' D.' These are the schedules of goods on which there has been a tariff reduction. The total tariff reduction is $1,095,000, or about 124 cents per head upon the population of Canada, and if my estimate is correct it is about 3f per cent on the average. Now, is that going to seriously affect trade either with Great Britain or the United States? It cannot affect it with Great Britain because the duties are maintained at substantial amounts and Great Britain has one-third off that duty, which constitutes a decided preference. It cannot materially affect trade with the United States or imports from the United States because there is not enough reduction in any instance to allow American . manufacturers to compete with Canadian manufacturers. If we have today a duty of 30 per cent against the United States upon manufactured goods of any quality and it is reduced to 27 per cent, the increase of imports will he small at most because the reduction of duty has been small, and that argument applies to all the goods comprised in schedules ' B ' and * D.' What do sections ' B ' and ' D amount to? Last year all the goods enumerated in sections ' B ' and ' D ' imported into Canada amounted to $26,500,000. Of these we imported from the United States $23,196,000, and from Great Britain only $2,196,000. Our imports from Great Britain amounted to practically nothing, $2,196,000 out of $26,000,000 of goods included in these schedules. I maintain, and I think I can maintain it in the face of any argument, that there is every probability that next year and the year after, and the year after that we will have an annual increase in our purchases from Great Britain of the very goods mentioned in schedules ' B ' and ' D.' When you look at the scheduler of the goods that come in from Great Britain you will find they are made u.p nearly all of goods that sell on their own brand or patent. By reason of their inherent virtue they not only come into this country but in the face of a 40 per cent to 50 per cent duty they go into the United States and are sold there. The whole list comes to only $2,196,000. How is that made up? Biscuits and confectionery make up $522,000 in that list. Do you mean to say that one, or two, or three, or four cents duty will affect the sale in this country or in the United States of Huntley & Palmer's wares, made in Great Britain? Go into any large purveyor's store in New York like Park & Telford's, and see the magnificent display of Huntley & Palmer's biscuits and confectionery. They are there in the face of what? A duty of 40 per cent to 50 per cent. Is there any reason why they should not come into Canada in preference to any goods from the United States with one-third tariff advantage over the United States goods?
Take another large item, pickles, Crosse Mr. GUTHRIE.
& Blackwell, Lea & Perrin, Holbrooke, these are the names and brands that sell goods, and they sell them by reason of their inherent quality. They sell in the United States in the face of the highest kind of competition and of very stiff tariffs. Is there any reason to suppose that these goods will not come into Canada just as freely as before?
Then take cutlery, of which we import from Great Britain $223,854. People who know, or are supposed to know, tell me that English cutlery retains its place in the markets of Canada by reason of its brand, by reason of its name, its reputation and its inherent virtue. They tell me also that the cutlery from the United States never did have any large market in Canada, the chief competitor of British cutlery here being Germany, and Germany does not receive any advantage under this reciprocity arrangement with the United States. There is no reason to suppose that the cutlery imports from Great Britain will foe reduced one dollar if this arrangement is brought into force.	_
Imports of automobiles from Great Britain amount to $106,000. These are all controlled by patents and a man who wants an English motor car can get an English motor car, the question of dutv does not, as a rule, enter into the consideration.
Another item is musical instruments of which we import $118,000. They are sold largely on the reputation of the maker of the instrument. I think these are largely band instruments, and if English band instruments are better than American, and I believe they are, they will probably come in, in just as great quantifies or greater, because they still retain their one-third preference, and we will have far more purchasing power to buy musical instruments than we have had in the past.
I have gone over only a few items but if they are figured out they amount to almost three-quarters of our total imports under schedules ' B ' and ' D.' Will the hon. membeT for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) or any other member rise in his place and state as his considered judgment that the British manufacturers are going to be injured by schedules ' B ' and ' D.' Can they be injured? They will retain their position in regard to the tariff with their one-third preference. Nearly all goods mentioned in schedules ' B ' and ' D ' are sold by virtue of the reputation of the makers, by virtue of patents, trade marks, designs, &c. I think we have every reason to believe that a-s our prosperity grows we will import very much more of these same articles than we have ever imported in the past.
The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) grew very eloquent on the question and even went so far as to charge the Minister of Customs, not directly but indirectly,

with something like a breach of faith in a cablegram which he had sent to the Colonial office in Great Britain, setting forth that the proposed changes in the tariff between 'Canada and the United States would not interfere with the British preference. The statement made 'by Mr. Asquith, the Premier of Great Britain was :
The American-Canadian agreement had been carefully watched by the British Ambassador at Washington on behalf of British interests and he has been assured that, so far as British imports into Canada are concerned, the British preference would be scrupulously maintained.
I submit that that statement is true in substance and in fact, and I submit further that Mr. Bryce is perfectly satisfied on behalf of Great Britain with the arrangement that has been made. The official correspondence sets forth that Mr. Bryce was a party to it. Let me, in passing, read to the House a clipping which has been handed to me, taken from the Manchester ' Guardian,' a very influential paper published in Great Britain. It reads :
The whole policy of Mr. Bryce, the most successful British Ambassador at Washington in our generation, has been-if we may speak of an Ambassador's policy-directed towards drawing closer the bonds between Canada and the United States. He has been called the first Canadian Ambassador at Washington, and his policy has been in the best interests of Canada. But it has been governed primarily by British interests. Canada, in British world policy, is a gage of friendship between England and America. EnglancT gams a friend by every act that brings Canada into closer relations with the United States. There is no rivalry between England and the United States for the affections of Canada. She will best serve our policy by broadening the basis of her own prosperity and by a cordial policy of friendship with the United States.
Coming to the end of my argument on that point my statement is, and I am absolutely convinced in mv own mind that I am correct in what I state, that in no way, shape or form, in no way general or particular, are we interfering with British trade interests in Canada (by the proposals now before the Chair, and that if these negotiations when passed into law have any bearing whatever upon the status of British trade in Canada, it will be a beneficial _ effect, that our imports from Great Britain will not decrease ; there is no reason to make them decrease. As our prosperity increases, our imports from Great Britain will increase year after year. So that the action of the Minister of Financ -in sending his telegram, and the statement of the Premier of Great Britain founded on that telegram, were strictly in accordance with the facts.
Let me touch upon another of the more important points made by my hon. friend
from North Toronto. I do not know that I have ever heard in this House, during
an experience of eleven sessions, a more exaggerated statement of fact than was given to the House by one of its old members in the person of the hon. member for Nortli Toronto yesterday, when he referred to the effect of this treaty upon our natural resources and the inroads which were to be made upon them by American grabbers, American grafters and American millionaires. So far as I can see, the present proposal does not afford one shred of argument to support my hon. friend's noisy declaration in that respect. To dignify it, I might call it dogmatic assertion. It was more than that: it was deliberate exaggeration, because there is nothing in the proposed agreement to support it, and I will ask any hon. member opposite, as I would ask the hon. member for North Toronto if he were in his place, to stand up now and quote any statement on which that assertion was made.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If there was nothing of that nature in it, why did President Taft say the other day that one of the great virtues of it was that it opened up the forests of British North America to the United States?


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend either did not follow me or else he spoke too soon.
I say that there is nothing in this proposal to give the United States one whit of advantage in their access to our natural products that they have not had'during the last 50 years. We have not changed the status one iota. ITthe United States wanted our- lumber, our minerals, our fish, our wheat, or our live stock, all they had to do at any time during the last 50 years was to take off their tariff and come in and take them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then Mr. Taft must have been entirely wrong?


Hugh Guthrie: The hon. member for North Toronto must have known these facts, because he has told the public of Canada time and again that the United States could obtain all the access they desired to our natural resources by dropping their tariff, and so they could. Yet he spent yesterday a whole hour in a laboured argument to show that there was nothing standing in the way of Canada if this treaty came into force, but devastation of our natural resources, that they would be taken to the United States, there manufactured into the finished product, and then shipped back to Canada. How could they come back to Canada under this treaty? Where is there any reduction in the schedules that would permit them? One branch of his argument is just as unfounded as the other. The United States, if they want our lumber, our minerals, our Wheat, or our cattle, will come here and pay for them. We are

not asleep; we are the owners, the proprietors of these natural resources. If we see fit to dispose of them to the United States, it must be at a price and on conditions satisfactory to the private owner or the public of Canada. There is no opportunity given to them to raid our resources- nothing of the kind; and yet the hon. member for North Toronto so argued in this House, and was applauded by every member on the Conservative side. I do not care what President Taft may say in regard to this matter; I do not care what Senator Beveridge may say; and I do not think it is in very good taste for my hon. friend from North Toronto or my good friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) to be guided by what these gentlemen or the'newspapers of the United States have to say on this subject. Let them be guided rather by such papers as the Manchester * Guardian ', which I have quoted. But an effort has been made to bring into this debate all sorts of political entanglements in the United States. There is an effort to found the Conservative opposition to this measure upon the statements of President Taft or of the leader of the Democratic party in the United States Congress or of Senator Beveridge, or of the newspapers of one political creed or another. Surely we as Canadians can judge of this matter irrespective of what the people of the United States may have in their minds.
The statement which has been read here to-day as having been made yesterday in Congress by Mr. Clark has a queer bearing upon another incident which I might mention. Perhaps the greatest annexationist in the United States for many years past has been Speaker Cannon. In a speech which he addressed a few weeks ago to the Grand Army men, and which has been going through the press, he said he was looking forward to the day when Mexico and Canada would be annexed to the United States, and when the American flag would float over the whole of the North American continent, and yet he is the greatest opponent of this measure in the United States Congress to-day. Why should we be upset by any wind of political opinion that blows across the way? The only consideration that should guide us on this question is:	How is this measure as a
pure trade matter going to operate in Canada-will it be to our advantage or against our advantage?
Take another instance of what I consider to be the utter inconsistency of the hon. member for North Toronto on this matter. People sometimes in the heat of debate say things which they do not positively or actually mean; but when a man deliberately sits down and writes an article, copies and recopies it and corrects it, he is taken to mean what he has written. Now, the hon. member for North Toronto has dis-Mr. GUTHRIE.
tinctly said in print, in an elaborate composition in the ' Canadian Magazine ' for the month of December last, entitled, ' Reciprocity-why the United States wants it , by the Rt. Hon. George E. Foster-I suppose that was a Christmas present to the hon. gentleman-this is his own vigorous language:
No sane man will predict any large overflow of natural products from the United States Northward.
And yesterday he argued to a demonstration that market gardeners, fruit growers and pork men would be ruined by the natural products of the United States coming into Canada. I never heard a greater mass of contradiction and inconsistency in the space of a three or four hours' speech during my eleven years experience in the House of Commons.
Now, I am going to take issue with the hon. member for North Toronto on another point, and I think I know a little about this: that is, the question of the price of hogs and cattle as between the United States and Canada. When he made his plea for the pork men, he said that there was a steady supply of pork at a good price in Canada, and that only for a few weeks of the year was the price of pork at Buffalo any higher than in Canada. He makes the same plea with regard to cattle, but I challenge the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), and will let the Toronto ' Mail and Empire ' decide the issue -let him take the columns of that paper during the last five years.


An hon. MEMBER.: Not its editorials.


Hugh Guthrie: No its market reports, and let him compare Montreal and Toronto markets with Buffalo and Chicago, and he will find that the general average is higher, and markedly so, in Buffalo and Chicago during the last five year period. Now what is it we want? WTe want in my county the privilege of selling our cattle and hogs in Buffalo and other farm produce as well. You say:	What is the use, the Buffalo
market is lower. Well, if it is, are we hurt? We will then sell in the British market, and not touch Buffalo or Chicago. My hon. friend tells us that we have two markets now, the home market and the British; but when this arrangement comes into operation, we shall have three markets, and the one we have not got now, but which we want to get, is by far the largest. We will not send our products to Buffalo or Chicago unless we get better prices than we do at home or in the mother country. Our western people are not going to send any cattle to Chicago unless they can get better prices theTe than elsewhere. If they cannot, they will send them to eastern Canada or Great Britain. What is there unpatriotic or disloyal in that pro-

position? How do business men conduct their business? If the prices in Buffalo are good, they send their wares there; if not they send them elsewhere. Then why should not the government carry on the business of this country on business lines? Why should the government stay its hand at this juncture and deprive our people of one of the great opportunities of their lives?
My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) took a rather strange position with regard to the framing of a tariff. He said he did not believe in the way in which our tariff was altered or revised at present. He thought that the system was an improper one. Now the reason I refer to this is that this is a question of vital interest to our people. If my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, desires to place himself on record on this question, I think it well the people should know it. What he said is to be found on pages 3379 and 3380 of ' Hansard.' There he practically proposed that the framing or revision of the tariff should be taken away from this House and placed in the hands of a permanent tariff commission. I do not say, from the language he used, that he gave that as his concluded opinion, but he certainly declared that he thought that was the best method to be adopted. No doubt such a plan would meet the desires of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association; but if my hon. friend would adopt such a system, he would be reversing one of the cardinal principles of the British constitution, which is that the right to tax must remain with the peoples' representatives. The right was established many long years ago, and I have no doubt will survive to the end; but if the leader of the opposition desires to depart from that principle and appoint a permanent tariff commission to regulate our tariff, the sooner the people know it the better. I do not know what his proposal precisely is because he did not put it in very concrete form. He merely said it would be well if we established a permanent tariff commission in Canada, and I take it that means a delegation of the powers of this House to a tariff commission.
If he made any definite statement in regard to the proposed agreement at all, it will be found on page 3374 of ' Hansard.' These are his words:
Now in view of the statistics I have given, are we not moving along the line of material progress and development about as fast as we could expect to go or about as fast as it is desirable to go ?
And in this he was heartily applauded by hon. members opposite. Further on he said:
To use a well known expression, what we have we will hold in that regard. But the
proposals of this government if they mean anything at all, seem to me to mean a considerable departure from that path which we have pursued with so much success.


Richard Blain: Would my hon. friend read the whole sentence.


Hugh Guthrie: I thought I had.


Richard Blain: If the hon. gentleman would read further, he will find that it conveys an entirely different impression.


Hugh Guthrie: Well, at all events what the hon. gentleman said will be found on page 3374 of ' Hansard.' The point to which I wished to call special attention is conveyed in these words:
Are we not moving along the line of material progress and development about as fast as we could expect to go or about as fast as it is desriable to go ?


Richard Blain: Read the lines that follow.


Hugh Guthrie: I have no objection. He went on to say:
Are we not at the present time following a perfectly sure and safe path.
Is that the position taken by the leader of the opposition and the Conservative party. Are they reduced to this position: Let us leave well enough alone; we are doing well enough now. Have I not fairly stated the position taken by my ihon, friend, the leader of the opposition. He believes in the good old maxim:	What We
have, we will hold; but let well enough alone. I submit that with regard to trade and commerce that is neither a statesmanlike nor a proper position, nor is it one which the people will endorse. You cannot get a young country like ours, full of vigour, vitality and energy, to sit down and fold its arms and let well enough alone. Is there any period in the business life of any business man when he can conclude to sit down and let well enough alone? He can do this if he retires from business, but we are not retiring from business in Canada. We must keep moving. If we do not go forward, we shall be drifting backward. That is what was the real trouble with the Conservative government from 1890 to 1896. They flattered themselves that they were doing well enough, and were content to stand still, and I am inclined to think that they really believed what they said. I really think that they had convinced themselves of this, and no one was more eloquent on that point than the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). Session after session he pointed to the increase in our exports, which had leaped up some $66,000,000 in eighteen years, to the increase in our bank deposits, to the business disorders in the United States which we have escaped, and urged his audiences to let

well enough alone. But a* a matter of fact we were not progressing at all, but were actually going backwards, and that is what we would do if we were to adopt the policy advocated by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. And I ask any one to note this-and it is the proudest, grandest fact, I think, in connection with the present administration-that from 1896, from the day whereon they took power, you can go to the record of any department, you can open any blue-book we have, and you will see, year by year, during the whole fourteen years, without a single halt in any year, forward-forward-forward ! And the reason for that is that they were not content to say, we are going fast enough; we will let well enough alone, content with the old maxim, ' What we have we'll hold.' That is a good maxim, it is a Liberal maxim; but we add, 'We will get more if possible.' And this is one instance in which we are endeavouring to hold our own and get more.
Now, I must say a word about the effect of the proposal upon what is, perhaps, the largest branch of the subject, so far as Canada is concerned, and that is the export trade of this country. Up to this time I have discussed the effect only on our trade with Great Britain, the effect on our imports from Great Britain and the United States. Now, what about our exports? I believe that, without exaggeration, the exports of Canada to the United States, if. this proposal is adopted, will increase by leaps and bounds. I agree with what has been said by others, and dnferentially stated hy my hon. friend opposite, that the great increase will be in what we may call natural products-I do not mean natural resources; I mean the products of the farm chiefly. I note that we only sold to the United States last year $113,000,000 worth of goods, but I note, also, that we bought from them $223,000,000 worth. And that, according to my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster)-and I will not say it is my opinion-constitutes an adverse balance of trade, which, in the end, has to be met through the banks with cash. My hon. friend from North Toronto has had an annual complaint against this government, an annual criticism of its policy. Whereas trade conditions with the United Kingdom weTe satisfactory-we sold them more than we purchased from them, the balance of trade, he said, was in favour of Canada- he argued, and pages in ' Hansard ' will show the argument, that our trade with the United States has been absolutely unsatisfactory; in fact, he said the condition of things had become startling, that we were only selling them a small quantity as compared with the goods which we were purchasing from them, and ultimately this balance would have to he settled. He discussed it as an adverse balance of trade, Mr. GUTHRIE.
and, from his point of view, I must say, he discussed it very ably. It is a vexed question, it is about as intricate and difficult a problem as any that I know of, and I do not feel able to cope with the argument of my hon. friend in regard to the adverse balance of trade. But I think the present proposal should cause a genial smile, ' the smile that won't come off,' to illumine his countenance, because he must see, if his statement in the House is correct, that the balance of trade as between Canada and the United States will now shortly be in favour of Canada. Speaking in this House, in March, 1908, the hon. gentleman gave a statement of the goods exported and imported as between Canada and the United States, which statement appears at page 5273 of ' Hansard ' of that year, and shows:
Ten years Conservative rule, adverse balance of trade of $167,841,393.
Ten years of Liberal rule, an adverse balance of trade of $384,950,596.
Then he proceeds:
In 12 months ending June 30. 1907, the imports from United States were $206,715,914, the exports to the United States, $82,194,661, and the adverse balance of trade reached the enormous sum of $124,521,253.
Now I think that is a somewhat startling showing. This adverse balance of trade has to be met, it has to be met every month, every three months, every year. You cannot run credit for that adverse balance of trade, it has to be adjusted through the banks and through the business of the country. Now let me point out that in this statement I have simply taken the exports of home products, because I wanted to show the exact relation of trade as regards the export of Canada's own produce, to the foreign produce we were importing. Now if you deduct the foreign produce also exported to the United States in that period of ten years, it amounts to $30,000,000. Subtracting that, taking both the home and foreign products, the adverse balance of trade against us in those ten years, with the United States, was $552,000,000.
That would be an average of $52,000,000 a year of an adverse balance. Turning to page 5277, we find the hon. gentleman saying:
Now, what I think about the balance of trade is this: That the balance of trade in the 6rst place must be settled presently. It is not as if I could go to my friend here and borrow $100 from him and give him a note for three years and pay him interest. These international balances are not arranged in that way. They have to be adjusted every month, every three months, every six months at the longest and they are so adjusted, and the banks are the mechanism which we use for that adjustment. That is the first point I make. We have got to pay our balances: we cannot run credit from year to year on them. Now, they can only be paid either in goods or in gold, and whichever it is it is our export trade which in the final analy-

sis has to pay our bills and we have nothing else to pay them with. Well, so far as trade and navigation figures go you may call that a trade balance if you like. That is the visible trade of the country. You might so far as that goes balance one by the other, or be in debt, or have a profit. But it may be said: That is not all that is coming and going between the countries; there are invisible exports and imports. And that is true. But yet it is absolutely true that in the end even the actual international balance has got to be settled by exports from the country that owes and it can be paid in no other way.
There is hope, and I think a splendid hope, that the result of the present proposal, if carried into effect, will be to adjust that adverse balance of trade. There is no doubt, in the opinion of my hon. friend from North Toronto, in the opinion of any member of this House, I think, that Canada, under this arrangement, is going to sell a tremendous quantity of goods to the United States, a tremendous quantity of our natural products. And if I may take the written statement of my hon. friend from North Toronto upon the question: * No sane man will predict any large overflow of natural products from the United States northward.' The balance will be in our favour. And I add to that, we need not fear an increase of imnorts of American manufactured goods; there is nothing to warrant the idea that we will have more than we have now. The reductions in the tariff on these goods have been so small that there is no encouragement for more importations, and gradually our manufacturing establishments are assuming-larger and larger proportions, and are able to produce more and more goods and at lower prices, so that with the reasonable tariff which is still retained under schedules ' B ' and ' D,' there is not the slightest reason for believing that there will be any increase in United States manufactured goods coming into Canada, Trade will go from the north southward. I, in my county, look to a heavy increase in the exportation of cattle, sheep, lambs, poultry and the like. In my county, and in the counties surrounding, we looked to the old barley crop, which, prior to the McKinley tariff of 1901, was a vastly paying crop in the province of Ontario. Barley, which used to bring 85 cents a bushel, latterly brought [DOT]only 55 cents. Barley, I believe, this week in Toronto brings 60 cents, and in Buffalo 90 cents. Barley, no doubt, will be a large and profitable crop in the province of Ontario if this proposed arrangement should take effect.
I cannot say so much in regard to wheat. The wheat that is grown in my county is largely used for local milling purposes, and for the purpose of feeding stock. I am not familiar with the movement of wheat as between Canada and the United States, so I prefer to leave that question
to ,be settled by those who are familiar with it. I do say this, however, that so far as I have .been able to examine the matter-.and I have looked into it with some care-I cannot see any reason why we should expect any very great increase in the price of wheat for exportation to the United States. There may be ta reason, and there may be an increased price, but I am not able exactly to find out how it will come about. I do think, however, that the time is coming, the time indeed is almost at hand, when the United States will not be exporting wheat. The time is coming, indeed the time I believe is at hand, when tlie United States will not export cattle. By the end of the present year, it is said, there will be no exported oattle from the United States ; and if the figures I have seen are correct, the time is .almost at hand when there will be no wheat exported from the United States. I think there is a great chance of the wheat growers of the west obtaining in the markets of the United States an advantage which penha-ps they do not enjoy now, as the price of wheat is still regulated in the British market. I have taken trouble to look up some facts in regard to wheat, chiefly having reference to a statement made in the address of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition.


Haughton Lennox: As the hon. gentleman is apparently going to another subject, I have been waiting to direct his attention, to a point on which he started to speak, and left it. He directed us to pages 3379 and 3380 ' Hansard,' containing the speech of the leader -of-the-opposition, and I understood him to say that he proposed . to deal with it. But inadvertently, I suppose, he immediately turned to page 3374, and dealt with what was there, taking tw >
disjointed sentences and dealing witn them. The hon. gentleman, however, did not take up what I understood he intended to take up when he gave us pages 3379 and 3380 dealing with the policy of the opposition. The hon. gentleman told us beforehand that he intended to refer to the policy laid down by the leader of the opposition in reference to the framing of our tariff.


Hugh Guthrie: I thought I said all I intended to say, which was that the statement as set out in the ' Hansard,' and as I heard it in the House in regard to a permanent tariff commission, came to me as a great surprise, and I did not consider from the language the leader of the opposition used, that that was his matured and fixed idea, and I hoped it was not. but that if it w.as his settled opinion and his policy, the sooner the country came to know about it the better, because it was a reversal of the foundation of the British constitution.


Haughton Lennox: This is the point to which I wish to call tlhe hon. gentleman's atten-
3C55

tion. I understood -when he referred to the policy of the loader of the opposition, and gave the pages containing his speech he proposed to do the leader -of the opposition the justice of reading them. Now he did not do so. I understood his object was to show specifically and exactly what the leader of the opposition said.


Hugh Guthrie: The leader of the opposition was not in his place at the 'time T mentioned it. I referred to the pages mentioned by the hon. member for -Simcoe, but that was in regard to the policy of letting things alpne.


Haughton Lennox: No, my hon. friend is wrong about that. The hon. gentleman first referred to -pages 3379 -and 3380.


Hugh Guthrie: That is in regard to a tariff commission ; I said all I intended to say on that. I was discussing -the question, of wheat, and chiefly in reference to a remark made by the leader of the opposition in the course of his speech to the effect that if Canadians were not particular we would find that foreign countries like the Argentine Republic would send their products to Great Britain, and I was under the impression that they send a large quantity of their natural products there now. Great Britain is not disposed to he over particular as to where she purchases those products, and there is no benefit to her to buv from Canada rather than in Argentina. So I looked up the reports, and I found in the library a volume published annually known as the '-Statesman's YearBook ' for 1910. And here I wish to remark, that in looking through the volume I saw that some vandal has cut out 15 or 20 pages of the -most valuable information in it. I mention this, for one reason because I have -noticed the same thing in regard to other statistical works. It ought to he brought to the attention of those having care of the library, that mutilation-" of this kind should not be allowed, an! that anybody who does mutilate -a volume should -be deprived of the privileges of the library. However, I found the report that I required, and I find in the ' Statesman's Year-Book ' for 1910, that wheat imported into Great Britain during 1909 from all parts of the British Empire amounted to 69,000,000 bushels. The figures given in the volume are given in hundred weights, 60 pounds to the bushel -and 100 pounds to the 100 weight. I find that the total imports of wheat into Great Britain for 1909 were 163,000,000 bushels. I thought it rather strange to see a published interview with the Hon. Robert Rogers within the last three or four days, I think after he left Ottawa, in a Minneapolis newspaper, in which he expressed himself as opposed to the present trade arrangement, and said that if this arrangement were negatived, in a very Mr. LENNOX.
short time, I think he said next year, Canada would be exporting to Great Britain
200.000.	000 bushels of wheat. I think, on the face of it, that statement is ridiculous, because all that Great Britain takes from the whole world is 163,000,000 bushels. It is interesting to know where she gets her wheat. Have we interfered with Argentina in that respect? Why, Great Britain takes more wheat from the Argentine Republic than from any other quarter of the globe. From the Argentine Republic in 1909 she took 33,000,000 bushels ; from Russia, poor distressed, protected Russia, 30,000,000 bushels ; from Canada, 27,500,000 ; from the United States, 24,000,000 ; from India,
24.000.	000, and the balance is made up of wheat- from Chili, Australia, Lower Egypt, and all other quarters of the world. I wont -give the statistics in regard to flour, though the member for North Toronto did give them, and probably they are correct. Now, what is the -position with regard to wheat in the United States? I looked up the statistical year-book of the United States for 1910, and here let me say that the statistical information -prepared by the United States government is far in advance of that prepared in Canada ; it is in a more convenient form. I have the greatest difficulty in finding the information I require in our -blue-nooks, and I think it would be a good thing if our government sent a deputation to Washington for the purpose of learning a -better method of preparing statistics.
However, in the United States Statistical Year-book, I find that the greatest year of production was 1892, when they produced
748.000.	000 bushels. The exportation that year was 235,000,000 bushels to all places in the world. That is nine years before the next item that I give. The wheat produced in 1909 was 664,000,000 bushels, there was consumed in the United States 550,000,000 bushels, and there was exported
114.000.	000 bushels. But, take the year 1908, and you will find that in that year they exported 163,000,000 bushels-not 114,-000,000-and that they consumed only 490,000,000 bushels, whereas the following year they consumed 550,000,000 bushels, and so the ratio of consumption is increasing, while exportation is decreasing. It has been said by such men as Jas. J. Hill, in fact, I think the President of the United States-anyway by competent authority- that- it is only a question of time when the exportation of wheat from the United States will stop. Then, I take the question of cattle. My statement with -regard to cattle is hardly as precise. In some cases numbers are given and in some cases values are given. I find that in England, in 1909, there was received from all sources 321,000 head of cattle; no value given. In the United States Statistical Year-book for 1910 I find that in 1900 the United States ex*

ported 397,000 head of cattle, and that in 1909 they exported only 207,000 head, a decrease of almost 45 per cent. The value of cattle exported in 1900 was $30,000,000, and in 1909 $18,000,000. But I have it from pretty fair authority that during the present year-that is 1911-there will be no cattle exported from the United States.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: May I ask the hon. gentleman if he has taken into account the amount of chilled meat they are exporting


Hugh Guthrie: No, I have only taken into account the export of live cattle. I also have this to say with regard to the cattle trade and the export of cattle finished in my county, that during last fall and summer fine export steers weighing 1,400 pounds were shipped to Toronto for export to Liverpool, but on account of the better price being paid in Chicago they were reshipped from Toronto back to Chicago. This has not been in a single case, but in many cases, and, as my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture reminds me, they were shipped to Chicago in spite of the duty. I believe that in all western Ontario we will ship a tremendous amount of live stock to the United States if this proposal succeeds. It will be more convenient to ship to Buffalo than to Liverpool. The freight rates will be less, and I believe that on the average the price will be higher-I do not say to any great extent higher-'but on ia 1,400 pound beast, if only one cent a pound, that is $14 to -the farmer, and that, is a most, important increase in price to him. I believeTHat the price of mutton and lamb is higher in Buffalo on the average than in Toronto, and Buffalo is the market for lambs for the southwestern portion of Ontario. They now pay a duty of 75 cents on lambs, and of $1.50 on sheep. I believe the farmer will get a better price and have a better market for sheep and lambs if this tariff change takes place. Turnips we ship in large quantities. Turnips are a paying crop in our countv, because we feed and ship a great quantity of them. The regulations which the United States have been enforcing at the border have interfered with a profitable trade in that product. Turnips now pay a duty of 25 per cent or something of the kind, .but it is not only the rate of duty but also the regulations o:f which we complain. A turnip shipper told me that turnips which ihe has bought for 10 and 12 cents a bushel are revalued at the border at as high as 18 and 20 cents, and that he has lost on the transaction because of such re-valuation. The United States have some system by which they regulate what they believe to be the actual value of any article. These drawbacks to trade, I understand, aie to be removed, or it is the intention of both parties that they will
be removed. Potatoes, which, likewise, are very largely produced in my county, and in counties similarly situated, are placed on the free list. VVe will ship a tremendous quantity of such articles, and of poultry, butter and barley large quantifies will be shipped to the United States, which we do net ship there now.
I mention these facts to show that the balance of trade is going from the north to the south, and that there will not be a great quantity of trade coming from the south to the north if this arrangement is carried out as it stands before the House to-day. I do not know sufficient about the case of the fruit growers to discuss it intelligently. But I hear on the one hand the cry that if this trade arrangement goes into force the cost of living will 'be increased. and I hear, on the other hand, the cry that the cost of fruit to the grower will be lowered, the cost of vegetables to the grower will be lowered, and that the price of meat and bacon and beef products will be lowered-so the packers' association tell the people of Canada. I will give my own best judgment in regard to that question. I am as convinced as I can be of anything that the great farming community of this country, representing sixty per cent of our population, is going to be very materially benefited. The farmers are going to make money, they are going to make a lot of money, and year after year they will make more money as long as this arrangement lasts.
What about- the people who live in the villages, towns and cities? It would be illogical to declare that there would be an increase in the price of farming commodities and no increase in the price of living. What I sav with regard to that is that there is not going to be anything like any immediate jump, there is going to be a fair increase in value, and there will be a steady value, there will ibe no fluctuation between this country and that country, as there will toe no tariff between them. There will be a fair increase of value, and where you have a general prosperity and increased receipts by the great bulk of the people of this country, it will be in the nature of a national prosperity, and every man, woman and child in the land must feel the result of it. I believe that it will be a tremendous advantage to the people of the northwest, the people of the prairie provinces, if this trade arrangement is put in force. It will increase the rapidity with which that great country is being settled up. What would be the effect on the manufacturing industries of Ontario if we had one million more farmers in the northwest raising wheat and cattle? That is the true policy of the east and west, and I wish to be understood as not to say one single word against the development of our own manufacturing industries.

One reason I have for appreciating this trade arrangement in particular is that our commissioners, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Customs, have scrupulously avoided anything in that arrangement which could be an injury to any section of our manufacturing industries in the Dominion of Canada as far as I am aware. I wish to see them enjoy a fair amount of protection. I am not an out-and-out free trader; in fact, I disagiee with the principles of free trade as expressed in this House unless we have the broad world to trade freely with. I believe W'e must have some kind of protection in Ontario.


Richard Blain: Why not for the farmers as well as others?


Hugh Guthrie: If the farmers were to come here and cry out for it that might be a very good reason for granting it, but they seem to desire it the other way around.


Mr. LANCASTER.: If the hon. gentleman had been here last week he would have seen 800 of the most intelligent farmers crying out for protection and presenting very strong arguments for it.


Hugh Guthrie: The fruit growers?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Yes, and vegetable growers.


Hugh Guthrie: Well, that is a subject I am not competent to discuss. I do not know that I had better venture upon that subject because I do not know anything about it. I am talking about conditions as I find them. I have no quarrel with any industry because I believe that if we adopt a measure that will promote the general prosperity you help the manufacturing and every other interest in Canada. I am not supported very largely by the proprietors of factories in Guelph. I am sorry I am not, I have tried to support them, tout the fact is I am not. In Guelph we have a very large industry manufacturing all grades of hardware. We have another large factory manufacturing sewing machines and cream separators. We have a carpet factory making Brussels and other high grade carpets. We have a large pipe industry making iron pipe and employing 200 or 300 men. We have the Bell Organ and Piano Company, we have an axle works, two stove foundries and many other important manufacturing concerns. I am sorry they do not yield me much support at election time, and I think they should. However, I want to support them if I can and so long as our tariff, kept down to a revenue basis, affords enough protection to protect them I am satisfied with that feature of the tariff. I am not a high protectionist; I think high protection in Canada would be a ridiculous proposal, hut for the last five or ten years Guelph's shipments Mr. GUTHRIE.
have gone where? To the Northwest. Where have they gone from Toronto and other cities in Ontario and Quebec? They are finding their best market in the Northwest to-day. Give them a million more prosperous farmers out there with a convenient market, increase their purchasing power, and you will increase their demands and then if you maintain a revenue tariff with sufficient incidental protection you will increase the industry in every manufacturing establishment in Canada. You will increase the price of wages, you will increase the demand for labour. Make the great bulk of the people of this country prosperous on their farms and the cry of ' back to the land,' will have some effect, and a large number of people who are today coming into the towns and cities who are not mechanics or artisans will go back to the land where they can make a reasonable profit for their labour. You create a demand in that way in the labour market.
I believe in a thorough examination of the
immigration that is coming into Canada._I
congratulate my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior and the branch of his department that has charge of immigration jn the efficiency of that service at present. We have a better class of people coming in, more suited to conditions in this country. We have a carefully selected immigration coming in, and I believe that the figures this year will run to about one half million people, nearly all for the ^Northwest. Place these on the farms, make them comfortable, and increase their purchasing power and you solve the problem of the cost of living. Give an artisan in my city an opportunity of earning $2 or $2.50 more per week, and he is more than repaid for any extra cost of living that may be engendered by the farmer receiving more for his produce. In the ease of the individual, the proportion of increase is very small. An additional fourteen dollars on a beast to the farmer means but one or two cents extra on a piece of steak to the customer in the city. Let the clerk have a chance to get a better salary. On what does the ordinary merchant in a country or village store depend? On the prosperity of the surrounding farmers. We have it in Guelph, they have it in other towns the same way, our great commerce is between the townships and the city, between the villages and the city. Give these farmers more money to spend, and the merchants in town will make more. They can pay more salaries to tiheir clerks if the farmers of the country enjoy a greater power of purchasing. They wdll want more home made goods and more British goods, and it is on that principle I argue that the purchasing power will be increased and imports from Great Britain will be increased and not decreased-and the preference will be a real preference.

I take no stock whatever in the cry that we are going t-o ruin the Taiilroads; the railroads have always been able to take care of themselves. I take no stock in the cry that we will frighten British capital. I believe the hon. member from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) yesterday based 75 per cent of his argument on the declaration or letter written by Mr. Blake in 1891 upon a proposal radically different from the one now before this House. That was a policy of unrestricted reciprocity or commercial union; this is a proposal for <a very limited trade agreement. The one was to be in the shape of a definite binding treaty, this is in the shape of a treaty which we or the United States can set aside at will, which will remain in force only so long as it proves mutually beneficial. The arguments of Mr. Blake, for whom I have the highest respect, do not pertain to the question now under consideration in this committee, although they might have pertained and probably did pertain, to the question under discussion at the time Mr. Blake wrote his letter. But what about the railroads? Who says the railways of Canada have any fear of this? Who has the right to say so? Who has heard from them in regard to the subject? Have any railroads pronounced upon the question? The only railroad man who has pronounced upon it is Sir Donald Mann of the Canadian Northern. It was rumored in one paper that Sir William Mackenzie had said something but this was promptly denied by Sir William. But Sir Donald Mann is quite clear in his statement^ which Js_ published in a very respectable financial paper in Canada called the ' Financial Post ' in the issue of February 4. Sir Donald Mann there says:
The products of the farm, of the sea and of the mine are entitled to especial consideration. Nor should the lumbermen be overlooked. Timber is a crop which ripens, and should be reaped. If it is not, it deteriorates. He who cuts down one ripe tree and plants one or more in its place is a producer of wealth.
If we have seven or eight millions of people in Canada, with a free market for the producer, and to that number we add the 95 millions of the United States, we are assisting the most important industries in Canada.
Next in importance to the producer comes the manufacturer and it is the duty of the government to provide increased market facilities for both. The United States has ceased to export cattle, and may soon cease to export wheat. The balance between production and consumption is drawing nearer adjustment. If ^ it were possible to prevent grain from going south, without injury to the producer,
I would say avoid a treaty or other reciprocal arrangement, but it is beyond our power to hold our wheat within British territory. The United States can remove the tariff whenever it suits her convenience so to do, without consulting us.
With regard to the export of wheat, Canada
will have her own lines of railway across the continent as well as ships upon the 6ea. This will enable them to take grain for export from the producer to the consumer, without any division of rates, and, in the same way, manufactured goods as return cargoes from the producer to the consumer in the west. On the other hand, going south through the United States, wheat for export would have to pass over three or four lines of railways, and thence by independent vessels to European markets. This through rate, which is necessarily low, would be divided among three or four transportation companies, making it impossible to compete with Canadian through lines. Depend upon it Canadian ralways handling natural products of the west for export will retain the traffic on their own tracks and in their own vessels to destination.
Personally I would prefer to have a preference between the United Kingdom and the Dominion, and between the Dominion and other colonies. This preference should be increased from time to time until, say in 25 years, the cost of production would reach a common point throughout the empire. Then we would be able to have free trade within the empire, and protection against the nonBritish nations.
That is a very strong statement and it is the only authoritative announcement by any important railroad man I have seen. Why then raise that cry about railroads? The railroads are not afraid of it. What are the Canadian Pacific railway doing. They have completed their lines to Chicago and Duluth, owning now the Wisconsin Central through the United States and the Sault line to Duluth. What are the Canadian Northern doing? At this moment They are completing their line from Winnipeg to Duluth and by the first of August that line will be in operation and it will be carrying grain in September. The railroads are not afraid of it. Who is afraid of it? I do not know that the Manufacturers^ Association have made any pronouncement upon the subject. I do not think they have. They probably will oppose it on the ground that they have opposed almost everything that emanates from this government in regard to tariffs.
Then, what is their real objection ? I think the weakest objection I have heard, and one which it is almost useless to discuss, is that a good trade agreement between Canada and the United States, which will be beneficial to this country- and if it is not, , we will abrogate it-and which will be beneficial to the United States-and if it is not, they will abrogate it-will lead in some way to a commercial or political union between the two countries. Some people say-I do not think they are very brave in the idea-that it is the entering of the wedge, that it is the beginning of the end. Well, I cannot see ;n a trade measure anything of the kind. There is nothing to support such an idea There has been no experience, so far as I


Samuel Hughes: What is the date of the letter ?


Hugh Guthrie: March, 1849. Lord Elgin said:
There has been a vast deal of talk about annexation, as is unfortunately always the case when there is anything to agitate the public mind. A great deal of this talk is, however, bravado, and a great deal the mere product of thoughtlessness. Undoubtedly it is in some quarters the utterances of very serious conviction; and if England will not make the sacrifices which are absolutely necessary to put the colonists here in as good a position commercially as the citizens of the States-in order to which free navigation and reciprocal trade with the States are indispensable-if not only the organs of the league, but those of the government and of the Peel party, are always writing as if it were an admitted fact that colonies, and more especially Canada, are a burden, to be endured only because they cannot be got rid of, the end may lie nearer than we wot of.
In November of the same year Lord Elgin wrote to Lord Grey:
But if things remain at their present footing in this respect, there is nothing before us Mr. GUTHRIE.
but violent agitation, ending in convulsion or annexation. And I much fear that no measure but the establishment of reciprocal trade between Canada and the States, or the imposition of a duty on the produce of the States when imported into England, will remove it.
Now, that was the cause of the disturbance at that time.


Samuel Hughes: Does the hon. gentleman say that was the cause of the agitation ?


Hugh Guthrie: I take the word of Lord Elgin for what I said, because I was not in being at that time, and I am only stating the fact as written by a Governor General of this country.


Mr. CURRIE (Simcoe).: What is meant by free navigation as the alternative to reciprocity ?


Hugh Guthrie: It says free navigation and reciprocal trade.


Morley Currie: Does he not mean that the navigation laws should be abrogated there ?


Hugh Guthrie: The hour of adjournment is so near, that I cannot continue this discussion longer. I have heard no substantial reason advanced against this proposal, which will bear investigation. Every interest of Canada, is guarded. It gives us three markets, instead of two. Every interest of Great Britain is guarded. If a day comes when Great Britain is able to enter into better arrangements with the colonies and to bring us all together, our hands are free. If we become a greater and more prosperous people, if we become a richer people, we shall be all the stronger as a British nation and a part of the British Empire, and we shall never, with my consent, be other than a part of the British Empire. But why mix this matter up with questions affecting our political relations? The whole and sole question foT us is, have we made a good bargain? As for me and the part of the country which I represent, this proposal will be welcomed as one of the most progressive acts of a government which for 14 years has shown nothing but progress, development and success in Canada.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock, House adjourned.

Thursday, February 16, 1911.