[Stage Direction]
Mr. OLIVER moved for leave to introduce a Bill (No. 194) to amend the Dominion Lands Act. He said: A Bill has been on the Order Paper for some time to amend the Dominion Lands Act, a minor amendment. After this Bill had been on the Order Paper, we found that it was desirable to make' other minor amendments, merely arising out of the fuller operation and further interpretation of the law. The other day, when the original Bill was called, I asked that it be withdrawn so that I might introduce the present Bill.
Motion agreed to, and Bill Tead the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 186) respecting the Joliette and Lake Manuan Colonization Railway Company.-Mr. Dubeau.
Bill (No. 187) respecting a patent of the Boiler Flue Cleaner and Supply Company, Limited.-Mr. Clarke (Essex).
Bill (No. 189) to amend the Juvenile Delinquents' Act, 1908.-Sir Allen Aylesworth.
Bill (No. 190) for the relief of Violet Jane Dakin.-Mr. McCarthy.
Bill (No. 191) for the relief of Hugh Samuel Bell.-Mr. Tolmie.
Bill (No. 192) to provide for increasing the capital stock of the Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Co.-Mr. Bickerdike.


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I desire to read an Ottawa dispatch which appeared in the Toronto * World ' of Friday morning last. The dispatch is as follows:
Ottawa, April 27 (Special).-The sensatioaal charges made by a Toronto newspaper against one of the ministers of the federal government Mr. FISHER.
at Ottawa was no surprise here. The facts of the case have been pretty well known for some time and it is expected that the matter will come up in parliament at an early date.
It is understood that Hon. Frank Oliver Is the minister against whom the charge is made. The story at Ottawa is that Mr. Oliver had an order in council passed on May 8, 1907, giving the Canadian Northern railway the power to select in Saskatchewan the whole of the land granted by the government to the Manitoba and Southeastern, which is the Canadian Northern in Manitoba, in 1890, in all 600,000 acres. In 1907, there were no lands left in Manitoba, it was alleged, and the company was given the right to select its lands in Saskatchewan.	,
In the same year, $50,000 was deposited from the Manhattan Bank of New York to the Imperial Bank at Edmonton in the name of Mr. Oliver. The exact date was October 3, 1907. About one year later, just before the general election of 1908, the sum of $19,000 was deposited from the Manhattan Bank in the name of Mr. Oliver at the Imperial Bank at Edmonton. It is known that he chequed out this money for campaign purposes.
It will be observed that without making a direct statement the dispatch- gives currency to two separate rumours or reports, one relating to a transaction affecting the land grant of the Manitoba Southeastern Railway Company, and the other relating to an account kept in my name in the Imperial Bank of Edmonton. No connection between the land transaction and the bank account is alleged or inferred in words, but there can be no doubt that the two paragraphs have been placed together for the purpose of creating an impression in the public mind that there is some connection -and an improper connection-between them.
So that there may be no misunderstanding of my position I desire to state without qualification that there is no foundation for such an insinuation. In regard to the land transaction mentioned, I desire to say that the action taken by the government was on my recommendation, and that I made the recommendation in pursuance of what I believed to be sound public policy and with due regard to the public interest, and that I received no money, or other consideration for having made that recommendation, or in any way in connection with it. Although no specific charge has been made, I desire that the fullest opportunity shall be given to lay such a charge. I would, therefore, respectfully ask that a special committee may be appointed to hear and inquire into any charge that may be made in connection with the transaction mentioned.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: Before going on with the orders of the day, I would like to ask the First Minister the name of the man who made the charge to him that has been

referred to by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) just now.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Mr. McGilli-cuddy.


Glenlyon Campbell: Another question I would like to ask is if the minister will lay on the table of the House all the correspondence with regard to this charge made by Mr. McGillicuddy ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I am just about to move for a committee desired by my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver), and the correspondence will be at the disposal of that committee.


Glenlyon Campbell: Another question I would like to ask-I presume I am in order. How many interviews had the First Minister with Mr. McGillicuddy, and what took place at those interviews?


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend is very inquisitive. I must tell him frankly that I do not remember how many interviews took place. In the article in the ' World ' the other day five or six interviews were mentioned, and the time of each interview was given-nineteen minutes, thirteen minutes, and so on. I have no recollection of them. My recollection is, just as I stated, that a certain charge had been made against one of my colleagues, and I said that it could be pressed against him.


Glenlyon Campbell: What was the nature of the charges preferred by Mr. McGillicuddy?


Wilfrid Laurier: I stated that the other day.
_ Mr. CAMPBELL. If that is so, I would like to ask the First Minister, has he made any inquiries as to the source from which those two amounts came, namely, $50 000 and $19,350?	*	'


Wilfrid Laurier: I stated the other day what had taken place, and my hon. friend will find it in 'Hansard.'


Glenlyon Campbell: I have read 'Hansard' very carefully.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Glenlyon Campbell: I am not going to make a speech. I would like to ask the First Minister if he has any idea for what purposes those sums were expended, and was such expenditure for political or personal purposes?


Wilfrid Laurier: I stated the other day, and I repeat to my hon. friend, that I had stated to Mr. McGillicuddy that I believed that friend and colleague was an honest man. and that I would presume
he was an honest man until he was proved guilty.


Glenlyon Campbell: I have asked a very simple question of the First Minister, and his reply to me is not a reply at all. I will prefer the question again so that he will understand it.


Mr SPEAKER.: I must remind the hon. member that there is a way of asking questions prescribed in the rules. It is only a matter of courtesy that a minister can be asked to answer a question at this stage.


Glenlyon Campbell: Mr. Speaker, you surely are not ruling me out of order for asking a legitimate question of the First Minister on a matter of very great public importance. I again ask the First Minister for what purposes were those sums expended, and was such expenditure for political or personal purposes. I think that is a legitimate question, and I would like an answer.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Under the rules of the House the hon. member must give two days' notice of such a question before a minister can be asked to answer.


Glenlyon Campbell: If the Tight hon. the-First Minister-[DOT]


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Order. The point cannot be discussed now.


Glenlyon Campbell: I am not going to discuss the point.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. gentleman is out of order.


Glenlyon Campbell: I wish to ask another question.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Glenlyon Campbell: Am I in order, Mr. Speaker?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. minister cannot be required to answer if notice is not given of the question.


Glenlyon Campbell: The question I wish to ask is a perfectly fair question, and I am absolutely within my rights or I would not be standing here. The question is, was the account spoken of, a trust account, and was it so designated? If so, what was the nature of the trust, and on whose behalf?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. member will have to give notice of his question.


Glenlyon Campbell: Well, I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I have a question which I would like to ask. Acting on the precedent of the Hodgins charges, does the First Minister propose any investigation in this matter?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Order. Government orders.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege upon the question raised by my hon. friend Mr. Oliver. I move:
That a special committee of five members be appointed to investigate the matter referred to this day by Mr. Oliver, a member of this House, and that the said committee be entrusted with full power to send for persons and papers, and report from time to time.
With regard to the form of motion, I would ask the Clerk to complete it wiih regard to examining witnesses under oath, and so on.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: The mption is in rather indefinite terms. What does the Prime Minister understand to be the scope *of the proposed investigation?


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand the scope of the investigation to be just what has been mentioned by the Minister of the Interior, that he is charged with having recommended an order in council whereby a certain quantity of lands supposed to be swamp lands were traded for other lands, and that in connection with the matteT the sum of $50,000 was paid to Mr. Oliver.


Robert Laird Borden: With regard to the form of the motion, perhaps it might stand over until to-morrow.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have no [DOT]objection.
Motion allowed to stand.



CANADIAN CURRENCY IN THE UNITED STATES.

Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: 

ST. PETER'S INDIAN RESERVE.

Mr. BRADBURY.: The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver), promised to give an answer to-day in regard to the production of the original documents in connection with St. Peter's Indian reserve.


Frank Oliver: I apologize to my hon. friend. I had some other matters on my mind, and I am unable to give an answer to-day, but I promise surely to give it tomorrow.



AYLWIN IRRIGATION GRANT.

Glenlyon Campbell: One month ago the Minister of the Interior promised to have brought down at the earliest (possible moment the papers with regard to the Aylwin Irrigation grant. I have not got them yet.


Frank Oliver: It will take a considerable time to transcribe the papers which are voluminous but the work is in progress and the return will be brought down without undue delay.


Glenlyon Campbell: When?


Frank Oliver: I may be able to answer to-morrow.



CENSUS TAKING.

Mr. FISHER.: I wish to say to the leader of the oposition, that the return which he asked for a few days ago, about the census taking in other parts of the world was laid on the table some three weeks ago.



INDIAN ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. OLIVER moved the third reading of Bill (No. 177) to amend the Indian Act.
He said:	This order was held over yesterday because of the absence of the member for Ste. Anne (Mr. Doherty). The hon. gentleman is not now present and if my hon. friend from North Toronto still wishes it held over I have no objection, but I think it would be perfectly safe to allow it to pass.
Mr. FOSTER.: Perhaps it would not be asking too much to let it remain over for another day as the hon. member (Mr. Doherty), is not present, and as I, too, have had other things on my mind I have not been able to look into it.
Order allowed to stand.



WAYS AND MEANS-THE FARMERS' BANK.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Ways and. Means.
["It may be betting according to what the hon. gentleman says, but if a man buys real estate and pays only a small proportion of the money because he is speculating, my hon. friend could equally well say he is betting. He is betting to a certain extent as to whether the value of the property will go up or down, but the words in this statute are not ' buy, sell or deal in.' If he deals in this in any way, it is not restricted to one sort of buying, selling ot dealing. Section 13 shows clearly that these men .are not to be limited to dealing in grain, they are going to manufacture everything the farmer uses. And so I suppose they may be asking for a duty on agricultural implements under one part of the section and that the duty be taken off under another. There is the inconsistency of the position that this gentleman gets into when he says that it only has reference to the products of the farm. These men are authorized by section 13 to make any blessed thing under Heaven that a farmer uses. They can manufacture anything in the world. The farmer uses nearly everything that is made that he does not produce himself, and under this section he is enabled to do everything besides farm. I agree with my hon. friend behind me that this Bill is not properly drawn, and ought to be amended in some way.\nProgress reported."]
Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX (South Simcoe).: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I desire to draw your attention again very briefly to the Farmers' Bank. In view of the previous discussion this session it will not be necessary for me to go very deeply into the matter, and I can confine myself to the records contained in certain returns that have been brought down to the House. The Farmers' Bank was incorporated in>
1904. I have nothing at all to say in reference to the incorporation of the bank originally. The Bank Act gives them a year in which to organize and get subscriptions, and as they failed to do that within the year they came back to parliament in 1905 and the Banking and Commerce Committee thought well to renew their charter for another year. They came back again in the spring of 1906 and again asked for an extension for another year and they were granted an extension of six months. I recognize that the Minister of Finance has a duty common to all members of the committee to scrutinize the legislation proposed, and I have no doubt he discharged that duty then. It 259
may be that the Minister of Finance, by reason, of his position has a greater obligation on him than an ordinary member of the committee, but I am not disposed to urge that view at present more than to say that, having regard to the failure of these people during two years to put themselves in a financial Position to transact business, the minister tells us he was reluctant to grant them an extension of time. That was significant only in that the mind of the Finance Minister being set in that direction at that time, we would apprehend that he would remain seized of that idea and that he would exercise even greater diligence and care, in scrutinizing the application of the bank for a certificate to do business. Further than that I have nothing to say at all with reference to the propriety or impropriety of incorporating this company. I am not aware that the Minister of Finance mentioned to the House when the Bill came before it finally the difficulties he felt in regard to the extension of time. I would- suppose that probably the minister, feeling that it was doubtful whether this company should be granted an extension of time, might have felt it incumbent on him to mention to the House the doubt in his mind. However, I will let that point go. 1 come, therefore, to deal with the question of granting the certificate and the first point I have to refer to in that connection is the letter of Mr. Leighton McCarthy, which was mailed to the minister on the 8th of October,! 1906, frt>m Toronto. I need not read that letter further than to say' that Mr. McCarthy assures the minister. that grave conditions have arisen requiring careful consideration by the Treasury Board before granting a certificate, and Mr. McCarthy asks that an opportunity be afforded him of discussing the matter with the minister and he mentions that he could come down to Ottawa at any time if the circumstances are urgent, but he would prefer not to come until the following week. That letter was not answered spontaneously, and it was followed on the 11th of October by a telegram from Mr. McCarthy, and that telegram was answered on the same date by the Finance Department. But the letter of the 11th of October to Mr. McCarthy from the department ignores his suggestion that he should be given a personal interview. It intimates that a personal interview is not desired and simply tells Mr. McCarthy to forward his representations and they will receive due consideration. In other words, so far as I can see, the Minister of Finance, to use the phrase of the Prime Minister, was not actuated by any great feeling of curiosity at that time.



We come then to the letter of the 19th October from Mr. McCarthy, an important letter. It says:
I beg to inclose the special endorsement upon a writ of summons in the High Court of Justice of Ontario, which will be issued by Wm. A Dixon and others. The names of about a dozen persons are given as plaintiffs.
This letter was sent to the hon. Minister of Finance in pursuance of what Mr. McCarthy said he wanted to do, namely, to call the attention of the department to certain irregularities and frauds in connection with the obtaining of stock subscriptions for the Farmers' Bank. In that letter Mr. McCarthy points out that this suit is not merely on behalf of those named, but also of other subscribers to shares who come in and join in it. He also goes on to say that not only the grounds alleged in the special endorsement, but other grounds which may be disclosed upon the examination of the alleged subscribers for shares will be furnished. Mr. McCarthy then proceeds to say:
I have received information that the alleged subscribers for shares paid a large sum of money in cash and have signed notes for other large sums of money, and that the persons professing to act in the name^ of the bank have transferred notes and received the proceeds, and that a deposit either has been made or will be made of the cash received and the proceeds of these notes, or a sufficient amount to make up $250,000.
Mr. McCarthy concludes by saying:
I would be pleased to go to Ottawa upon any appointment you may make for the further consideration of this matter.
This was the second offer from Mr. McCarthy to go to Ottawa and have a personal interview with the minister and disclose to him all the facts and circumstances which prompted Mr. McCarthy to say that the whole business had been initiated in fraud.
It is necessary that we should refer to some of the statements contained in the special endorsement upon the writ which Mr. McCarthy forwarded to the Minister of Finance. This special endorsement says:
That the subscriptions for shares which were procured from the plaintiffs and others were procured through fraud and misrepresentation.
I would like to call the attention of the minister to the fact that this endorsement is not confined to eight or ten, or a dozen names of parties who allege fraud, but it goes on to say that Dr. Stewart was represented as subscribing for shares to the amount of $10,000, whereas in fact he had not subscribed for any shares. That Major Beattie, represented by the inspectors to have consented to act as a director, had not sub-Mr. LENNOX.
scribed for any shares, and refused to be a director, and refused to allow his name to be used in anv way in connection with the bank; and that names of others were represented by the inspectors to have consented to act as directors who had not subscribed for any shares, or given any authority for any such publication. Then it goes on to say:
And the plaintiffs allege that the acts and proceedings of the provisional directors were illegal and irregular; that the agents and sol-licitors, professing to act under the name and authority of the provisional directors procured a large number of subscribers for shares, and received the sum of about $175,000 more or less on account thereof, and also procured promissory notes to be signed by persons who were subscribing for shares, and these persons were endeavouring to discount these notes for the purpose of meeting the $250,000 that had to be deposited with the government.
Then it goes on:
That persons professing to act under the authority of the provisional directors did unlawfully deduct large sums for alleged services and commissions and other purposes out of the moneys received by them.
And the plaintiffs further allege:
That the shares and the money and the promissory notes procured from them were procured through fraud, deceit and misrepresentation ; and that all money, promissory notes and other obligations received as aforesaid by all persons acting or professing to act in the name of and on behalf of the Farmers' Bank of Canada, or of the provisional directors, or any of them, are impressed with a trust in favour of all the subscribers for shares who may desire to come in and become parties to the action.
I read this special endorsement for the purpose of calling the attention of the Minister of Finance to this point, that whilst there were specific allegations with reference to twelve or thirteen who were beginning the proceedings, there were general allegations of fraud, misconduct, irregularities and disregard of the Bank Act as to the transactions generally of the Farmers' Bank and its representatives in obtaining the right to transact business.
It will be noted that Mr. McCarthy asks for an interview, and that his letter of the 19th October was not answered until the 23rd. And it is a significant fact that all through this correspondence, every letter that affected the Farmers' Bank, or Mr. Travers, was acted upon, and answered with an amazing degree of promptitude, whereas everything that interested the public was delayed or ignored.
Eeplying to this letter to Mr. McCarthy, of the 23rd October, 1906, the deputy minister said:
I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 19th inst. to Mr. Fielding's ad-

dress respecting the Farmers' Bank of Canada. When application is made by the Farmers' Bank to the Treasury Board for a .certificate to enable them to commence business, the representations contained in your letter with its. inclosure will be laid before the Board.
That was never done.


George Eulas Foster: Hear, hear.


Haughton Lennox: I noticed during the last discussion that it was alleged that probably that was not done. Well, I have here the means of proving absolutely that it was never done. You will note that Mr. McCarthy urged at least twice that he be granted an interview so that he might discuss the whole matter with the minister. As a member of parliament he had a duty to discharge, and he desired to have the minister seized of the whole situation both as regards his clients and the public generally, and the other subscribers to the shares. But for some reason the minister absolutely ignored the petition of one of his own supporters to have this matter investigated in the satisfactory way in which it might have been investigated, if this interview had been consented to. On October 23, Mr. Travers forwards the receipt for that $250,000 deposit, and on October 24, with that promptness which has characterized this branch of the case, the very day upon which it was received, the deputy minister writes acknowledging the receipt of the money and says:
I may say in this connection that opposition has been filed_ in this department to the granting of a certificate to your bank under section 11 of the Bank Act.



[Stage Direction]
For Deputy Minister of Finance.
On October 29, we have this amazing letter from Mr. Travers:
„	Toronto, October 29, 1906.
The Hon,
The Deputy Minister of Finance,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir,-Yours of the 24th, post-marked October 26, was received here on the 27th.
I was surprised to know that any one had filed an opposition against this bank being granted a certificate.
Would you kindly do me the favour of supplying me with a copy of the said objections, as I do not know up to the present moment wherein we have deviated in the slightest effect from the Bank Act.

[Stage Direction]
General Manager.
At that time, on October 29, when Mr. Travers wrote this letter and on October 30, when it was received in the Department of Finance, the department by perusal of the newspapers to which allusion has been made, possessed full and ample knowledge that that statement was absolutely false, and it is not unimportant that we should 2591
keep that point firmly in mind. The Finance Minister knew at that time, as I submit, that the statement of Mr. Travers that he was not aware of any irregularity or any charge that could possibly be made against him was not in accordance with the facts.
On October 30, 1906, a letter was addressed to Mr. Leighton G. McCarthy, as follows:
Ottawa, Oct. 31, 1906. Leighton G. McCarthy, Esq., K.C., M.P., Toronto, Ont.
Dear Sir,-Referring to your letter of the 19th instant, addressed to Mr. Fielding, on the subject of the Farmers' Bank of Canada and the issue of a certificate to that bank to commence business under section 15 of the Bank Act, I notice recently a reference in the newspapers for a judgment given by Judge Anglin in a suit relating to this matter. In view of the decision rendered, I shall be obliged if you will let me know if you still desire the protest contained in your letter to be brought before the Treasury Board upon an application of the Farmers' Bank for a certificate to be considered.

[Stage Direction]
For Deputy Minister of Finance.
That I venture to say is a somewhat remarkable letter. Why did the Deputy Minister write that letter at all? He says he has noticed something in the newspapers, and he, therefore, thinks it is right to ask Mr. McCarthy to withdraw the protest he had entered, and which Mr. McCarthy wanted to supplement by a viva voce interview with the minister. It is worth while to ascertain just what the position was in regard to the newspaper matter. Was the newspaper account one that would allay suspicion, and that would lead the Department of Finance to think that all was right or was it one to add to their suspicion, and give them additional reasons for not granting a certificate? I have taken pains to look into that question, and I find that the case came up in court on Saturday October 27, and the account of it appeared in the Toronto papers, on Monday, October 29. It would reach Ottawa on the evening of Monday, October 29. Again I call attention to the promptness with which the Department of Finance deals with anything that will help Travers to get through this charter. On October 29, items appeared in the Toronto papers. They are 'sensational items, covering several columns, they are not in the ordinary Osgoode Hall news. The account shows that general fraud was charged, that there was an affidavit by Mr. William Laidlaw, K.C., showing not only specific fraud as affecting his clients, hut a general system of fraud in the initiation of the bank. That is what is in the newspapers, and that is what Mr. Boville read. Then it is pointed out in the newspaper accounts that the matter is only tentatively dispos-
[Stage Direction]
ed of, that it will not be actually disposed of until the 1st of November, so that the Department is in a hurry as you see. And then, to make it more easy for the department, to call on Mr. McCarthy, as they do, to withdraw his protest against the issue of the certificate, there are such headlines as: Farmers' Bank avoids threatened windup. Plaintiffs bought out. Oath against oath, and things of this kind. I wondered when I read this letter why the Minister of Finance, having promised to lay this matter before the Treasury Board, was so solicitous to have Mr. McCarthy withdraw this charge. But one is more amazed to find that the very account that is referred to in that letter, and which is the only excuse for writing it, is of a nature to intensify the anxiety of the department to have a thorough and full investigation of this matter. They ask Mr. McCarthy if he still wishes to let the Treasury Board know of the pretty general allegations contained in his letter, and they suggest by their letter that he should not,press it, because of what they had read in the newspapers; and what they read in the newspapers must have been of the character published in the newspapers, and not of a character on which to base a letter of this kind. Mr. McCarthy was not satisfied, he knew that the suit was not settled. What happened was this, and it is set out in the newspapers: Mr. Lindsay got busy, he hied off into the county of Halton, got hold of the clients of Messrs. Laidlaw and McCarthy without the knowledge of these solicitors, bought them off, and came into court with affidavits that these people were settled with, and Mr. Kappelle, representing the plaintiffs' interests in court, objected. There was no' one present representing the general public interest at this proceeding as in the other proceedings in connection with this transaction. The judge said that in as much as it was stated. that the whole matter was settled there was no necessity to proceed further, but he would leave the matter for final decision until November 1. Mr. McCarthy does not altogether agree with the department's view.' He writes back:
Home Life Building, Victoria St.,
Toronto, November 1, 1906.
T. C. Boville, Esq.,
Acting Deputy Minister of Finance, Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-With reference to yours of the 31st ultimo, I will be in Ottawa on Monday or Tuesday of next week when I will do myself the pleasure of calling upon yo-u with reference to the subject matter of your letter.
LEIGHTON McCarthy.
This is another circumstance, I submit, to call the attention of the department to the fact that Mr. McCarthy does not regard Mr. LENNOX.
it as so simple a matter that he could write back and say ' Yes.' Then, on November 2, Mr. McCarthy writes in this way. And I call your attention to, the fact, Mr. Speaker, that this is not the complete withdrawal that the department has asked Mr. McCarthy for. It is a qualified withdrawal, as much as to say, ' my clients are now safe, and, so far as they are concerned, I have no further protest to make; but you know what I said, about the other; it is up to you to do what you like.'
George Eulas Foster: Is there anything to show that he saw the minister in the meantime?


Haughton Lennox: Not a syllable. He never did see the minister, so far as we know from anything that has transpired. You see he has it on his mind that he would like to have an interview with the minister; and even after this call-off-your-dog letter from the department, he again says: I would like to go down. Here is the letter to the minister to which I have referred:
Toronto, November 2, 1906. Honourable W. S. Fielding,
Minister of Finance,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-Referring to my letters of the 8th and 9fh inst.

That is an error. It should be 8th and 19th ult.
-with reference to the application for a certificate made on behalf of the Farmers' Bank, I am advised by those who are instructing me that the claims made by them in the action, brought have been settled by their subscriptions being taken up by some parties interested in the bank and refunding the money paid by the individuals or returning the notes which had been given. The objections which I made on their behalf to the issue of the certificates are therefore withdrawn. Would yon mind, therefore, returning to me the papers which I forwarded to you?
Mark you, there is this important item of information, not only conveyed by the newspapers to the department, but conveyed personally to the Minister of Finance by this letter of Mr. McCarthy, that the persons interested in the bank had been compelled to take over the subscriptions to relieve these parties who had brought the suit, to buy them off and give them up their notes. The newspapers show, further, that they had been compelled to guarantee them against the double liability to which they otherwise would have been subject. So the matter stood on the third of November, when this letter would arrive.
Now, I want to pause here for a moment that we may see what the situation was at that time and of what circumstances the minister had undoubted knowledge on that day. I submit that in the letter of Mr. McCarthy's withdrawal and by the ac-

counts contained in the newspapers there is a full, a sufficient and complete acknowledgment by the persons interested in promoting the Farmers' Bank, that all the allegations contained in Mr. McCarthy's particulars of claim, as forwarded to the minister, so far as these parties are concerned, were absolutely true. There are some other outstanding features that I shoud refer to as having been before the minister on the third of November. The first is, that, having regard to the fact that this matter was up in court before Travers wrote his letter of the 29th of October, the minister had specific and clear information on the 3rd of November that Travers' letter of the 29th of October, saying that he knew of nothing wrong, was absolutely a.falsehood. That is one item in reference to Travers. The second item is, that the winding up proceedings had been averted by a compromise, and by a surreptitious buying off of the plaintiffs behind the backs of their solicitors effected through Lindsay and Travers, the Travers who afterwards secured the confidence of the minister. Travers was charged in these proceedings, as reported in the Toronto newspapers, to which Mr. Boville refers, with fraud, with gross dishonesty, and with an evasion of the Bank Act, the charge being made by so eminent a K.C. as William Laidlaw, on oath in court. In that statement of fraud others than the plaintiffs-Robert Noble, Dr. Stewart, Major Beattie, and others -were all affected by the frauds; and notwithstanding the settlement of the suit, all the facts as affecting them remained on record on oath at Osgoode Hall, undisposed of, as the minister knew. That a large proportion of the $250,000 was obtained by discount of notes, as the minister, on the 3rd of November, well knew. That moneys actually collected had been wrongfully, and contrary to the Bank Act, unlawfully diverted to the payment of commission and other improper purposes, and charges by the agents and solicitors of the bank, as the minister knew, and that the agents and solicitors of the bank were acting irregularly, dishonestly, and contrary to the Bank Act, as was alleged on oath, as the minister also /'knew. All these circumstances, as I submit, existed on the 3rd of November, to the knowledge of the minister, and were, as I submit, important circumstances to make him hesitate-yes, to make him hesitate even to the extent of refusing-to grant the charter even if nothing more had been shown.
But it does not stop there. I said a few moments ago that the statements that Mr. McCarthy asked to have laid before the Treasury Board were never laid before the Treasury Board. I have proof in the letter of 7th November, 1906, in which Mr. Boville says, addressing Mr. McCarthy:
Referring to your letter of tlie 2nd instant, in the matter of an application of the Farmers' Bank of Canada for a certificate to commence business, I beg to inclose herewith the papers forwarded with your letter of the 19tli October.
Returned on the 7th of November, or some weeks before the application of the Farmers' Bank was made. So we have this point absolutely clear,-these papers were not submitted to the Deputy Minister of Justice, and were not submitted to the Treasury Board. Well, what happened? The funniest thing of all happened. The Deputy Minister, having notified this gemlike character Travers of a difficulty-for he says, ' opposition is offered '-on the 24th of October, is dreadfully afraid he might attempt to explain and create greater difficulty. So having got rid of the evidence of Mr. McCarthy laid before the Minister of Finance, and having refused the repeated offers of Mr. McCarthy to go and discuss the whole matter with the Minister of Finance, on the 7th of November, the verv day on which the papers were returned to Mr. McCarthy, Mr. Boville says the coast is clear-not in those words, but in a more definite form. He does it promptly; he says:
W. R. Travers, Esq.,
General Manager,
The Farmers' Bank of Canada, Toronto, Ont.
Dear Sir,-Referring to my letter to you of the 2nd inst., inclosing copy of a letter addressed to Mr. Fielding by Mr. Leighton McCarthy by way of a protest to the granting of a certificate to your bank to commence business, I beg to state that I am advised by Mr. McCarthy that the objections which he made to the issue of a certificate have been withdrawn.
That is not true. Mr. McCarthy had made a series of objections on behalf of his clients, and so far as his clients were concerned, those charges were withdrawn because these people had been bought off. But what I point out is this: Why in the name of common sense, why in the name of the rights of the people, has the Department of Finance to go out of its way to say:	Don't answer that letter, don't take
any chances, or complicate matters? We have got rid of the McCarthy letter, don't say anything. It is like Alphonse and Gaston. ' Don't commit yourself, my dear Alphonse,' says the Minister of Finance. ' I certainly will not, my dear Gaston,' replies innocent Mr. Travers. Well, that brings the record down to the application. The application was forwarded on the 27th of November, inclosed in a letter from Mr. Travers. It reached here on the 28th of November. We begin to do something then, there is no delay after that. On the 29th Mr. Travers is

here, and these papers are here before him. There is his application, there is his affidavit and his declaration verifying it. I need only read two clauses of that declaration, the fourth and the fifth, and these are the two clauses upon which the Department of Finance rely when they are trying to satisfy the Bankers' Association later on:
4.	On the 23rd day of October, 1906 (says Travers in his declaration), there had been actually bona fide subscribed 5,757 shares of the capital stock of the Farmers' Bank of Canada, and I have had personal knowledge of the applications and subscriptions, and each and all of the said subscriptions is and are on the printed form of application-a copy of which is now produced and marked Exhibit C to this my declaration, and that the said subscriptions appeared on the stock books of the said bank, and that a sum beyond $250,000 thereof in cash has been actually paid in by the subscribers of the same.
5.	Now shown to me and marked Exhibit D to this my declaration is a list of the subscribers to the capital stock of the said bank correctely setting forth as to each subscription the name of the subscriber, his address, the number of shares subscribed for by him, the amount of such shares and the amount paid in thereon. Each of the said subscriptions is a bona fide subscription to the capital stock of the said bank.
That is the statement made on oath by Mr. Travers, and filed with the department. It will be admitted surely that if, to the knowledge of the minister, that declaration was in any substantial matter untrue, it stamped Mr. Travers in such a way that his testimony ought not to be received. What will vou say, Mr. Speaker, when I tell you that in that very application, attached to it as exhibit D referred to in the clauses I have just read, in that very list of subscribers are the names of the men who were plaintiffs in that 'suit, and whose names, it was admitted on oath, were every one of them obtained by fraud ? Let me read the names :
John McLeod, Milton, Out., 1 share, $100, $50 paid; John Sproat, Mansewood, Ont., 100 shares, $10,000, $1,000 paid; Geo. Gastle, Milton, Ont., 10 shares, $1,000, $1,000 paid; Ein-lay McCallum, Milton. Ont., 10 shares, $1,000. $1,000 paid; W. A. Dixon, Milton, Ont., 50 shares, $5,000,	$500 paid; James Murray,
of subscribers, are the names of the men Mansewood, Ont., 10 shares, $1,000, $300 paid; John Stewart, Milton, Out., 10 shares $1,000, $100 paid; Geo. Denoon, Milton, Ont., 20 shares, $2,000, $2,000 paid; Robert Hume, Milton, Ont., 10 shares, $1,000, $100 paid; William McLean, Milton, Ont., 5 shares, $500, $50 paid: Wm. Harris, Milton, Ont., 5 shares, $500, $500 paid.
Yet there had been a suit of which the Minister of Finance and his Deputy Minister had complete knowledge, all of record in their own office, and brought to their knowledge by the newspapers, showing that | as regards those eleven names, there was Mr. LENNOX.
enacted an organized system of fraud. There had been a refund, and these parties had been guaranteed and had been bought off, as the ' Globe ' and ' Mail ' and other Toronto newspapers, alleged. Yet their names are here as bona fide subscribers. They had given promissory notes, and the money had been refunded, and they had been bought up and silenced, and the fraud was compromised, the felony was compounded by those parties who subsequently came to the Minister of Finance to get this certificate. The next step I need not spend any time upon. The minister forwards a file of the papers to the Deputy Minister of Justice, and the Deputy Minister of Justice says:
As regards the statements of Wm. R. Travers, they are sufficient if they are accepted.
And he leaves it in that way. But even if the Deputy Minister of Justice has made a mistake in this matter, he was not much to blame, because he was not furnished with material upon which to found a judgment upon the merits. I am glad that it is not pretended that the minister submitted anything more to the Deputy Minister of Justice than the mere question as to whether the form of the document as a legal document was sufficient for the purpose. Now wre began to have things done promptly again after a considerable lack of promptness. Mr. Travers' application came on the 28th of November ; Mr. Travers was here on the 29th November. On the 30th of November we have a letter from Mr. Fielding to Mr. Travers. After referring to his inability to see Mr. Travers the day before, the minister says:
There is a phase of the matter which I should like to bring to your notice so that you may consider it at once. It has been represented to ns that in some previous instances where an application was in all respects apparently regular, there was actanlly an evasion of the intention of the Bank Act in relation to the paid-up capital. We have been told that in some cases the subscribers did not actually pay in cash but gave notes to the provisional directors which were used to raise the money. On account of information of this kind, which had reached ns in relation to a previous case, we deem it proper to scan very closely every application for a certificate which comes to ns. I shall be glad to have an assurance that nothing of the kind has taken place in relation to the subscriptions for the Farmers' Bank, but that the amount set forth in the application as having been paid up have in every case been bona fide cash payments.
Alphonse and Gaston come in again. Why did not the Finance Minister talk to this man in a business way? If a man goes into a bank, and they find that he has been guilty of misrepresentation and fraud, and he applies for a loan, the bank manager meets him and says; ' I want this matter

cleared up before you can do any business with us; if you show that you are an honest man, we will deal with you; if you cannot show that, you will not have any business dealings with us.5 The Minister of Finance, however, was very polite and inoffensive to Mr. Travers in referring _ to what had been done in some other case, imaginary or real, as much as to say: 'You must not imagine for a moment that we think there was anything wrong in your case, but because there was something wrong in another case, we want to be exceedingly careful, and I shall be glad to have an assurance from you that all is right." What did the Minister of Finance mean by 'an insurance5 in that case? Mr. Travers had made a solemn declaration which in law has all the force and effect of an oath rendering him liable to the penalties of perjury. When the minister dictated that letter, did he mean anything or was it a sham? I will not for one moment believe that he meant a sham; no one knows the Minister of Finance would be mean enough to suggest that. He meant what he said-he meant:	'I want some assurance; I want
something better than your declaration; I want some proof that this matter is square and bona fide. I have your declaration; I have your letter of the 29th of October; I know that that letter was false; I have your declaration of the 27th of November; I know that it bears on its face the absolute refutation of its truth; and_I want some assurance.5 And what happens? The minister meant well; no doubt he did. But smooth Mr. Travers came to the minister, and the minister cross-examined him, he says; and what was the result? The result was nothing. After having determined to have an assurance, which meant some other evidence beyond the evidence of a man whom the records had convicted as being unreliable, he had an interview with that man, and, whether by the persuasion of Mr. Travers or by the persuasion of Mr. Calvert, perhaps the guarantee of Mr. Calvert that Mr. Travers was a superior class of man, and, therefore, eminently reliable, notwithstanding the fact that he had sent a false letter, notwithstanding the fact that he had made a false declaration which was on file in the department at that time, in some way which I cannot understand, which I am not bound to explain, the Minister of Finance decided to let this matter go through-a matter which I believe will be one of continued regret to the House, and the country, and, I have no doubt, to do the minister justice, a matter of regret to him also. Therefore, what we find is this, that instead of having any assurance from Mr. Travers, we have_ merely his verbal statement to the Minister of Finance, followed by this letter merely for the purpose of record:
Ottawa, November 30, 1906.


The Hon.  W. S.@: Fielding,
In reply to your letter of the 30th of November, I have to say that in the case of the Farmers5 Bank of Canada the provisional directors did not raise the money in the way mentioned by you.
What does that mean? It certainly does not meet the letter which the Minister of Finance wrote; and if the cross-examination was no more successful than was the letter elicited afterwards, the tender conscience of Mr. Travers was not very much hurt. The Minister of Finance, when he wrote the letter of the 30th of November, meant what he said. He realized that with the evidences of dishonesty which were spread out upon the record in his own office, he could not and dare not accept the statement of Mr. Travers, and he writes to him for further assurance; but, by some means, I know not what-some means which are very much to be regretted -honest, so far as the Minister of Finance is concerned, I have no doubt at all, but by some unfortunate circumstance, the matter was allowed to go through, notwithstanding the determination of the minister a few hours before that it could not go through without further evidence. That is the most charitable construction I can put upon it. Now, on the same 30th of November, the order in council was made; on the same 30th of November the certificate of the order in council was issued; on the- same 30th of November the certificate was transmitted to Mr. Travers, addressed to Toronto, but handed to him here;' on the same 30th of November the balance of the deposit, $245,000, was handed over to Mr. Travers; pretty prompt action, with this fortunate circumstance, that if it had been availed of, the Minister of Finance could have prevented the payment of that cheque if he had thought fit to do so. What have we on the 30th of November? We have the letter of the Minister of Finance to Mr. Travers; we have the interview of Mr. Travers with the Minister of Finance; we have the letter of Mr. Travers to the Minister of Finance; we have the order in council made upon the matter-all being carefully submitted to the Treasury Board;_we have the certificate issued by the officials of the department; we have the cheque handed over, and the certificate handed over, and the whole matter closed-seven distinct transactions all in one busy day, the 30th of November, when it is urgent that this matter should be closed. This pretty nearly ends the chapter of incidents. We have also on that day the receipt for the cheque from Mr. Travers. On the 30th of November-dated the same day, and possibly here the same day; it could not have reached the Minister of Finance or else he would not do as he did-we have a letter

of the 30th November [DOT]written by Mr. E. S. Clouston, president of the Canadian Bankers Association, an institution acting under the Bank Act, a branch, so to speak, of the administration of public affairs in Canada; we have a letter from him showing that the representations of Mr. Travers were false. I read that letter:


CANADIAN BANKERS' ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED 1900.
[Stage Direction]
Montreal, November 30, 1906.
*Farmers' Bank of Canada.
T. C. Boville, Esq.,
Deputy Minister of Finance,
Ottawa.
.,Pear, In connection with the application of the Farmers' Bank of Canada for the usual certificate from the Treasury Board, I have reason to believe that the money lodged, or to be lodged, at Ottawa as stock subecrip-anAStwnn0ti be regarded as paid-up capital, ? 1f,rge Proportion of the amount necessary to the obtaining of a certificate is a loan made upon the promise of its payment when returned by your department.
Permit me to request that, if only for the protection of the public, the Treasury Board will exercise its right to refuse to issue a certificate if it thinks best so to do, until a thorough investigation has been made into the circumstances stated herein.

[Stage Direction]
President.
And I may state to you, Mr. Speaker, so as to have it on record, that this statement turns out to be absolutely true-at least $20,000 was. borrowed, independently of the amounts that were borrowed on promissory notes, to make up the deposit with the government. Now, Sir, -what should the Finance Minister have done? I say in the	first	place that	he shouldhave refused	the	certificate	and	thatit never should have been issued. The next point I have to make is that even though through improvidence or mistake this certificate was issued in good faith, it was still the duty of the Minister of Finance to see that the result should not be prejudicial to	the	public. I	will	notquibble as to the question of cancellation, I will not argue as to the question of a royal commission.	Notwithstanding	the
fact that a royal commission did issue in the insurance case on less grounds than existed here and without consulting parliament-, and under the same Act that would have to be invoked in this case, I do not need to argue upon that point. I say that when on 'the 30th November or the 1st December at latest, the knowledge came to the Finance Minister that he had been deceived, it became the duty of the minister, beyond question, to see that the public should not be defrauded. Can there be any doubt about it? The cheque was not paid; Mr. Travers was a needy man, Mr. Travers was a criminal, the 1 Mr. LENNOX.
Minister of Finance knew it on the 1st December if he did not know it before, and a criminal is a coward the world over, and the minister had only to telegraph Mr. Travers to come to Ottawa, and he would have come by the first train. And criminal as he was to the knowledge of the minister on the 1st December if not before, the minister had him at his feet, and could have shaken him as a mastiff shakes a terrier, and he could have made him disgorge that cheque in less time than I take to tell you, -and he could have made him give up that certificate rather -than be landed behind the bars. That was the duty of the minister. I was going to call to your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the peculiar promptness with which everything that facilitated the action of Mr. Travers transpired. I do not want to insinuate for a moment-and I want it to be distinctly understood that in What I say this afternoon I do not make any charge of want of good faith against the minister-but it is a circumstance unfortunate in itself that this fatal rapidity occurred in this particular case when there was every reason fo-r delay, and investigation. There ought to have been such an investigation as would inevitably have prevented the happening of this disaster which will ruin a large number of people in the province of Ontario. Therefore, without imputing to the Minister of Finance any wilful wrong or misconduct or want of good faith, I do think that the Minister of Finance, as a public man in his public capacity, does deserve the censure of this House and of the people of Canada through this House, for the great wrong that has been inflicted upon a large number of deserving people throughout title province of Ontario; many of whom cannot afford the enormous loss entailed upon them. I say so because the minister was warned time and again. The minister is a clever man, we all recognize that- sometimes we think he ought to put it to better account-but he is a clever, astute man, and a warning to such a man ought to have had some effect. He was warned by his own opinion about the matter; he was warned when these men came back a second time for the renewal of their charter, because, as he tells us himself, he realized that having hawked their stock about for two years unsuccessfully, they were not the best class of men to go into the banking business. That should have made him more cautious about investigating before granting the certificate. He was warned by previous cases -as to which he writes to Mr. Travers; he was warned by Travers' letter of the 29th October, which from his own knowledge of the circumstances was false; he was -warned many times by the hon. member for Halton-and when I say that I do not choose to believe the member for

Halton in preference to the Minister of Finance except upon the broad principle that having faith in both of them as being anxious to tell what is right, I recognize that the member for Halton has fewer charges upon his memory than has the Minister of Finance and also that he is speaking of a fact positive, and the Minister of Finance is only speaking of a matter of recollection. I will say nothing about the warning of Mr. Osier, M.P. for Toronto, because that is in dispute. He was warned by Mr. McCarthy's letters of the 8th and 19th October, and he refused the offers that Mr. McCarthy made to have a personal interview. He was warned by the legal documents explicit, full and direct as to general misconduct, evasion of the Bank Act, and dishonesty, as disclosed in the legal documents forwarded by Mr. McCarthy. He was warned by the newspapers which contained a full account of the fraud by which these Halton farmers had been rohbed, and he was warned by the qualified and cautious withdrawal of Mr. McCarthy which was as much as to say: You do as you like, but I want to have it understood that I only withdraw so far as my clients are concerned. And, the Minister of Finance was warned, in a way that I cannot understand his ignoring, by the conclusive falsehoods stamped upon the face of the declaration and application which Mr. Travers filed in his department
This being the case, reluctant as I am to men on both sides. Had the shareholders
not met and constituted a board of direcsay anything in anv degree harsh as regards the Minister of Finance, having great regard for him as a public man, yet realiz-inz as I do that he failed to discharge the duty which he owed parliament in connection with the Farmers' Bank, I beg to move:
That all the words after the word ' that ' in the proposed motion he omitted and the following substituted therefor:-
This House regrets that in permitting the Farmers' Bank of Canada to commence and to continue business, the Minister of Finance and the Treasury Board failed to exercise such proper care and to take such reasonable precautions as were necessary to prevent evasion of the law and to protect the public interest.
William Stevens Fielding: There is one passage in the speech of the hon. gentleman's in which I can most heartily agree. It is that in which he said it is deeply to be regretted that the Farmers' Bank was allowed to he organized. Most heartily do I concur in that regret. The occasion is one of these, however, in which it is so much easier to be wise in a later stage than at the beginning. Looking at the matter to-day in the light of recent events, in the light, of the failure of the bank, in the light of all the facts that are now known, one naturally comes to the
conclusion that the whole transaction was-most regrettable. It is, however, very difficult to-day to bring a fair judgment to bear upon an event which was not judged in the light of to-day, but which had to be judged in the light of things as they stood some four years ago.
We had a very full discussion of this subject a short time ago, and so far as I can see my hon. friend has not brought forward any point which was not fully gone into in that discussion. At all events I cannot undertake to add anything to the information before the House, and therefore I do not intend to occupy the attention of the House except very briefly. The granting of this certificate to the hank was no doubt a matter of importance, but I do not think it had exactly the importance which my hon. friend seems to attach to it. But for the granting of the certificate, he said, this bank would not have been organized. That is true, but the same thing may be said regarding many other stages in the Bank's affairs.	1 ^a' I '
farmers not subscribed for stock, the hank would not have been organized. Had application not been made for a charter, it would not have been organized. Had the charter not been approved by the Committee on Banking and Commerce, it could not have been organized. Nor would it ^ave been organized had the charter not been approved in this House by hon. gentletors, and had the board of directors not taken all the initial steps required by the Bank Act, the organization of the bank could not have been completed. If any one of these steps had not been taken the bank certainly would not have been organized, because it required each and every one of them to give it a legal standing.
There are several stages in the organizing of a bank, the first of which is the granting of a charter. My hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) has alluded to that as if the_ government, and the Minister of Finance in particular were speciallv responsible for the granting of this charter. On reflection, I think he will admit that that is not a fair argument at all. There is a parliamentary sense in which the government have to do with all legislation, but we know that as a matter of fact, in the management of private Bills, the government do not usually interfere. For instance there was a Bill last session in regard to which a number of members of the government happened to unite in its support, and we were told that we were interfering with the privileges of members, and that the government should not interfere in a private Bill. So that the idea that the government had anything in particular to do with the granting of the charter to this bank is an entire-

ly mistaken one. I was a member of the Banking and Commerce Committee. I do not recollect whether my hon. friend was or not.


Haughton Lennox: I was not. I may say to the hon. minister that I did not address myself at all to the incorporation of the bank, and I agree in all "he has said in that connection.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend repeatedly referred to the granting of the charter. He did not dwell on it, I admit, but he said sufficient to imply that in the granting of this charter in the beginning some wrong was done. As a matter of fact that Bill came before the Banking and Commerce Committee like any other private Bill. A charter was granted, then an extension was given, and later on another extension. I was in this position. Mv hon. friend has represented that for some mysterious reason I was particularly anxious and zealous in having this bank organized, and give Mr. Travers a chance to go into business. Well, those who know anything about the course I took in the Banking and Commerce Committee know that my position was the very reverse. I do not remember the first extension, but I know that I was decidedly unfriendly to the- second.- I was not unfriendly because I thought there was anything wrong or suspected anything crooked, but simply because I regretted to find a number of farmers undertaking to organize a bank. I was afraid that there were going into a business for which they were not well fitted, and that it might not be a success. I had, however, no reason to suspect anything wrong. When, therefore, the second extension was asked I opposed it. The committee, however, consented to give the six months extension, and that was not the fault of the government or the opposition. I could not say what particular view any member on either side took on that occasion, but I do remember my own, and I know that the committee came to the conclusion that a six months extension should be given. All the members of the committee who gave them that extension are equally responsible with those on this side of the House. When the measure came to the House I do not remember anything particular about it. It travelled the usual course of a private Bill, and all members of the House, irrespective of party who allowed that private Bill to become law, are -equally responsible for the granting of the -charter.
Now, we come to the question of the certificate. My hon. friend has dwelt upon the letters of Mr. McCarthy. What the record shows is that Mr. McCarthy wrote a letter filing objections to the granting of the certificate, aind he was informed that application for the granting of the Mr. FIELDING
certificate had not yet been received, but that when the application for the granting of the certificate should come in then his representation would receive consideration and the papers *would be submitted to the Treasury Board. The -application did come in, but Mr. McCarthy wrote a letter, which is on the record and which my hon. friend read, withdrawing the statements he had made. It is not an unusual thing in the organization of a company to find some shareholders who become discontented and wish to withdraw. Mr. McCarthy, representing -some of the -shareholders, filed a protest; a little later he withdrew the protest, and asked that the papers be sent back to him. That is the whole story of that matter. My hon. friend said that Mr. McCarthy was very anxious to come to Ottawa and discuss the matter, but we would not let him. The hon. gentleman knows enough of M>r. McCarthy to know that if he wanted to come to Ottawa to see a minister, whether of the present cabinet or any other, Mr. McCarthy would come and see that minister. As a matter of fact, while intimating his willingness to come when necessary, Mr. McCarthy, so far as my recollection goes, did hot come to Ottawa. Later on, Mr. McCarthy having withdrawn his objection, proceedings went on towards the granting of the certificate. On a certain date, November 30, the certificate was granted. My -hon. friend-thinks there was a remarkable and undue haste in the events of that day. Now, once it was decided, whether wisely or unwisely may be a matter of debate, that that -certificate should be granted, it would become a mere matter of procedure in the department, and I am certainly far from complaining of my deputy for expediting it. I am of the opinion that once a decision on any point is reached, it is the duty of the officials to carry out that decision as promptly as possible, and if in that instance the deputy minister expedited the transaction I should not see in it anything to suspect; I should, on the contrary, be disposed to commend that official for having -carried out as promptly as possible a matter which had been decided by the proper authorities. My hon. friend tried to read into M-r. Boville's letters something mysterious; he implied that Mr. Boville was trying to prevent Mr. McCarthy from coming here. I do not complain of my hon. friend- suggesting all sorts of faults on the part of the minister-although he was very kind in his personal references to myself-for after all that is in the game of public affairs;
I do think, however, he should not be ungenerous enough to suggest, or imply, -that the deputy minister, who is not responsible, I am responsible, in the writing of

these letters, whether as to the dates or to the terms, had any other purpose than to do his duty as a public official.


Haughton Lennox: In whatever I said with reference to Mr. Boville, I regarded him as identical with the minister.


William Stevens Fielding: I am responsible.
Mr. LENNOX-and therefore the minister becomes responsible.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend knows that while a minister is responsible, matters of this sort have very largely to be carried out by his officials. That does not relieve him of responsibility, I am responsible, all through; but my hon. friend will see that if there was a conspiracy in this matter not only must I have been a conspirator, but Mr. Boville must have been one also. I shall not quarrel with him if he puts me in that light, but I want him to spare Mr. Boville who is a good official and merely wanted to do his duty.
It has been said that certain allegations were made against the organization of the bank and that they were withdrawn. Then, we have filed an affidavit of Travers and the next day, after we had agreed to grant the certificate, we received a letter from Sir Edward Clouston, President of the Bankers' Association. It has been clearly shown that that letter .reached us after the decision-had -been reached; after the certificate had been delivered to Travers, or at all events had been issued, and I presume it was delivered to Travers. All that that letter contained was a statement of Sir Edward that he had reason to believe that notes were given. Against that we have the affidavit, the sworn statement of Mr. Travers, and Mr. Travers at that time was a reputable man. I want the House to take note of that carefully; it is of the utmost importance. Even if it had been an open question, which it was not, as the certificate had been given and the question was closed, we had then on the one side, the statement of Sir Edward that he had reason to believe that notes were given, and on the other side the sworn affidavit of Travers that the matter was in proper shape, that the money had been paid in cash, and that the conditions of the Bank Act had been complied with. It is easy to-day to treat Travers as a criminal and to say his testimony was worth nothing, but when Travers made that affidavit he was a man of good standing and good repute in the eyes of the world and we had no right to regard him as otherwise. My hon. friend has stated that Travers was at that time a criminal, that he was known to be a criminal, that it had been shown by the public papers
in the city of Toronto that Travers was at that time a criminal. We all know in the light of later events that Travers has been convicted and sent to the penitentiary, but it is not correct to say that at that time he was a criminal; he was a man in good standing. We were bound to treat him as such, bound to pay respect to his affidavit, just as we would to the affidavit of any man of Tepute.


Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds).: Were there not eleven names on the affidavit that had been withdrawn?


William Stevens Fielding: I cannot from memory deal with that particular aspect of the question. But there remained the fact that he had given his sworn affidavit that the money was up in cash. That was the essential feature of the whole thing, and his affidavit at that time was just as good as the statement or affidavit of any one else, better than the mere statement of any other gentleman, no matter how eminent, who merely said he had reason to believe. I think'it is of the utmost importance in judging of this matter to bear in mind the fact that Travers was at that time a man of good repute. It is the_ essence of the whole question. As I said, it is difficult now, when Travers is a convicted criminal, to see the transaction in the proper light. My hon. friend says that Travers is not only a criminal now, but was a criminal then, ~ and was-known- to be so from the published statements in the Toronto papers.


George Eulas Foster: The minister said in his former speech that he had no knowledge at all of Travers. Had the minister taken any step3 to ascertain, from persons who could give him information, Mr. Travers' standing, financial and otherwise?


William Stevens Fielding: No, I made no such special inquiry. I want to show that my view of Travers' good standing must have been the view which prevailed among a good many other men, possibly better qualified than I to judge of it. Travers organized his bank in the city of Toronto. Travers obtained the co-operation of well known, reputable citizens. Mr. Travers was associated with these gentlemen who joined him in the responsibility of the bank. Is it conceivable that, if he was a criminal, these gentlemen of repute in the province of Ontario would have associated themselves with him and made him manager of the bank? Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) think that conceivable? I will give him a further point. Mr. Travers, down to the day of the failure of the bank, was regarded by the government of Ontario as a reputable man, for they entrusted him ' with a considerable sum of the public

funds of the province of Ontario. If the government of Ontario, down to a few months ago, at the very time when the bank failed, regarded him as a man of repute, surely, I could not be regarded as mistaken when he came to me if, in the absence of anything to the contrary, I treated him as a man of repute.


Mr. BLAIN.: May I be permitted a question? How did the government of Ontario entrust Mr. Travers with their money?


William Stevens Fielding: I see it stated in a public return of liabilities that the province of Ontario had $25,000 in the Farmers' Bank. That is all I know about it.


Richard Blain: Deposited in one of the
branches?


William Stevens Fielding: That makes no difference; it was entrusted to the bank of which Mr. Travers was^ manager, and if he were known as a criminal-not only now, but at that time-is it conceivable that the government of Ontario would have deposited $25,000 in the bank of which he was manager? I am not finding fault with the government of Ontario. I am supposing that what they did, was done, as they believed it, in the public interest. I have no purpose in referring to it except to show that in all these transactions we must regard Mr. Travers as, at that time, a man of repute.
Now, the irregularity of the proceedings was in regard to the taking of notes. I do not wish to minimize that. I quite say that if we had known at that time what we learned later we would have refused the certificate. But there is a misunderstanding abroad as to the results of that. It should be understood that, as I am informed-speaking of what is recorded in the press-nearly all these notes were paid. If there was irregularity at the time the certificate was obtained the notes were paid; the bank had the capital; no man in the province of Ontario has suffered a loss, so far as I know, of a single dollar by reason of the fact that notes were signed instead of putting up cash. The notes were converted, as I understand it, into cash. If that is not the case, I shall be glad to be corrected.


Mr. SPEOULE.: I understand the minister to say that he was not aware that they were paying their subscribed stock by notes. But did not Mr. McCarthy draw attention to that fact when he stated, in speaking of his clients, that they had been handed back their notes?


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. McCarthy had filed objections, but those objections were withdrawn.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But he made the statement of which I speak.
Mr. FIELDING


William Stevens Fielding: He objected to the is-sue_ of the certificate. Later he said:	I
desire to withdraw my objection; send me back the papers. And the papers were sent back. I merely want to put the case as it stood


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But there was a clear statement in Mr. McCarthy's letter that notes had been signed..


William Stevens Fielding: But, against that, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) will see that that apparently was settled. The form in which the matter stood at all events, "was that Mr. McCarthy withdrew his objections. And later we have the statement of Mr. Travers on oath that he had his money put up in cash. That was the evidence on which we issued the certificate. Say, if you like, that it was insufficient. In looking back on it now I may say that had I known more I would have looked into the matter more carefully. We can all be wise in the later years. But at that time we had every reason to believe that Mr. Travers was acting in good faith and


Mr. LANCASTEE.: Does not the minister know that the statement on which he says he relied was disputed ? It was stated by Travers that Mr. McCarthy had alleged the opposite. True, Mr. McCarthy withdrew his formal objections, but that, surely, did not remove from the minister's mind the knowledge of the fact.


William Stevens Fielding: I understood that Mr. McCarthy's withdrawing put that matter out of the question. Whether it was wise or unwise that is the way it struck me. Eeference has been made once or twice to a former member of this House, Mr. Calvert. I wish to say that any hon. gentleman who associates the name of Mr. Calvert with the issue of that certificate does Mr. Calvert an injustice. So little effect did it have on my mind that until I was reminded of it, I did not remember that Mr. Calvert had introduced Mr. Travers to me. But Mr. Calvert, in his conversation, never exchanged a word with respect to the issue of the certificate. He confined himself to the introduction of Mr. Travers-and even the introduction was not necessary, because, of course, no man needs an introduction to a minister when he comes to Ottawa on public business. But 1 think it only fair to say that I am not conscious that Mr. Calvert ever spoke a word to me concerning the issue of the certificate. So, whatever else is said it is not fair to blame that gentleman, who .is not now in parliament, but holds an important public position. My hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) wishes to convey the impression-I do not say unfairly, because the spirit of his remarks was very fair-that

throughout this transaction there was a desire on the part of the Finance Department to expedite the matter of issuing the certificate. That was the very opposite to my own mind in the matter. If I erred in this matter, I erred from the fact that I feared that I was perhaps going to do injustice to the farmers who wanted the certificate. I did regret at an early stage that they were going into the business. I should have rejoiced could I have found satisfactory reasons to refuse this certificate. But I found that we had precisely the same evidence before us as had been before us in other cases. And I asked myself:	What right have I to say that the
farmers shall be refused a certificate when, they come to us with the same information and the same evidence as had been furnished in other cases? Cases could be shown, one at all events, in which a certificate was granted without an affidavit at all; I do not say wrongly granted, I am sure it was done in good faith. We have to be governed largely by precedent in these things. If we had refused that certificate and if, in consequence, the bank had been wound up, involving a veTy serious loss to shareholders who 'had put their money into it and had incurred the expense of organization, I know what would have followed. These good farmers would have turned round and said:	Mr. Fielding -was ready
enoirgh to grant certificates to other banks, but this was a farmers' bank, we were small men, poor people.; -we-wanted a charter, and we complied with the law and did everything that others had been required to do, yet v/e were refused. I ask hen. gentlemen opposite, would not that have been the position? I do not pretend to say, looking over this matter, that there is nothing to regret. I do deeply regret it. All I ask is that the gentlemen who consider this subject 'will endeavour to look at it, not in the light of to-day, but in the iight of events as they existed at that time, four and a-half years ago. I ask them to remember the standing of Mr. Travers, to remember that he placed before me all the evidence which any other applicant for a bank certificate usually gave. If the matter is looked at in that light, I think it will be seen that there is no real cause to complain of what was done.


Mr. W. S. MIDDLEBRO (North Grey).: I do not intend to say more than a few words on the subject, as the matter was so thoroughly discussed on a former occasion and lias been so well covered to-day by my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox). I think the matter comes down to a question of whether the facts known at the time justified the issue cf a certificate. Nor do I wish to find fault with the minister on
account of his intentions; I think his in tentions were good.
We have the question whether or not the Minister of Finance, aedng as the trustee of the people of Canada, exercised the ordinary and usual precaution that a trustee under similar circumstances would exercise, and if he did that, I am prepared to say he has discharged his duties in that regard. In forming a conclusion as (to [DOT] whether he did exercise proper care, we have to find out what was in his mind at the time, because a man is only guilty of an offence according to the knowledge he has in his mind at the time. The Finance. Minister admits that he opposed the incorporation of the bank, and he did that because he thought that to incorporate a Farmers' Bank, a bank of that name might lead unsuspecting farmers to banking trans-* actions with which they were unfamiliar.
He was opposed to that idea, and when the charter came to be renewed the second time, he would not grant an extension further than six months. I want to point out that the Act granting the extension for six months was passed on the 26th of June, in the year in which the certificate was granted. So that would be prominently in the mind of the Minister of Finance five months afterwards when he granted the certificate. The first point I want to touch upon as giving the minister some evidence of the transactions which were going on in connection with the organization of this
bank, is the statement made bv the hon_________
member for Halton (Mr. Henderson). I am of course arguing on a question of memory between the Minister of Finance and the hon. member for Halton. The Minister of Finance says that be has a distinct recollection that nothing was said to him by the member for Halton as to this bank having received some notes in part payment of subscriptions, and that these notes were being discounted for the purposfe of raising money to be deposited with the Receiver General. In the first place, I would think that as the Minister of Finanefe i3 a very busy man, and as this was a matter which particularly interested the member for Halton, a matter particularly within his own knowledge and affecting his constituents, the presumption is in favour of the memory of the hon. member for Halton as being correct. The member for Halton says himself that he had seen the notes in question which had been given in part payment for subscriptions, he had seen these in the hands of the solicitor, when he says he spoke to the Minister of Finance about if. The Minister of Finance on the other hand says that the member for Halton never spoke to him with reference to it. He admits there were certain conversations between the member for Halton and himself, and that these

conversations were confined exclusively to the question of the charter or tire organization of the bank. They were, therefore, according to the memory of the minister, confined to that aspect of the case and to what took place in the Banking and Commerce Committee, I presume, where the matter was discussed. Now, if that is the case, how could we consider that to be a private matter? The minister complains of the member for Halton for divulging a private matter.


William Stevens Fielding: No, I did not complain. I said I had no fault to find with the member for Halton.


William Sora Middlebro: I am merely speaking as to the minister's recollection.


William Stevens Fielding: I did not complain of the member for Halton for divulging a private matter, I made no complaint against him on that point.


William Sora Middlebro: Nevertheless the Finance Minister says that the conversations were of such a character as would justify him in characterizing them as private conversations. Is that not right?


William Stevens Fielding: Except as that would imply any reflection on the member for Halton in repeating them.


William Sora Middlebro: My point is that as a matter of recollection, if the conversation between the member for Halton and the Minister of Finance were confined exclusively to what took place in the Banking and Commerce Committee regarding the organization of this bank, that would not be private conversation; therefore when he says that what took place he regarded as private conversation corroborates the belief that what was in the mind of the Minister of Finance was something else, and was not the question of organization of this hank when it was discussed in the Banking and Commerce Committee.


William Stevens Fielding: I said that arose out of my opposition in the Banking and Commerce Committee.


William Sora Middlebro: I think that very fact alone shows that what the member for Halton told the Minister of Finance was something that did not take place in the Banking and Commerce Committee, but was something which the minister might think was of a private nature. The member for Halton says that it was a fact that he had seen the notes given in part payment for subscription of stock in this bank, and that he went to the Minister of Finance and told him this, that he was troubled about the matter, and wished the minister to take some action with regard to it That is the way the matter stands be-Mr. MIDDLEBRO
tween the Minister of Finance and the member for Halton.
Well, that is the second item of which the Minister of Finance should have taken note. Now I come to the third. A member cf this House in whom no doubt the Minister of Finance has absolute confidence, that is, Mr. McCarthy, writes to the Minister of Finance on the 8th of October, and he says to the minister:	I am acting for
a number of people who are alleged to have subscribed for stock in the Farmers' Bank, and I say their stock has been obtained from them by fraud, I say that notes have been taken from these clients of mine by fraud in payment of their stock, and I want * you to do nothing until this matter is thoroughly investigated. Then Mr. McCarthy follows that up by another letter, and this makes the strong point in the whole case against the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance has admitted to me in answer to a question I put to him in the House when he v'as making his statement:


William Sora Middlebro: In view of the letter written by Mr. McCarthy on the 19th of October, in which he stated that he had brought action on behalf of certain persons, and of the persons who were subscribers to the funds of the bank, does not the minister consider that that was sufficient warrant, notwithstanding the faot that Mr. McCarthy on their behalf subsequently withdrew his objection, for believing that there was irregularity?


William Stevens Fielding: If we had had no later information, I think my hon. friend's criticism would be just, but after that we did receive the solemn declaration of Travers.
Now let us see' what the further letter from Mr. McCarthy says, bearing in mind what the Finance Minister has admitted, that he thought the first letter would have justified him in refusing the certificate. The first letter says there has been fraud of the various kinds mentioned in the letter, and of the various kinds mentioned in the writ, that men had been put on there as directors who were not diiectors, that they had taken notes instead of cash, and they v. ere discounting those notes and putting the proceeds of those notes into the Department of the Receiver General Now the minister says that if that were true he would be justified in withholding the certificate. Mr. McCarthy writes back and 'says:
I am advised by those who are instructing me that the claims made by them in the action _ brought have been settled by their subscriptions being taken up by some parties interested in the bank, and refunding the money paid by the individuals, or returning the notes which had been given.
So in what the minister characterizes as a withdrawal by Mr. McCarthy, there is

the positive assertion by him that notes were given in payment of stock, and that is illegal according to law. Now, I would iike to ask the Finance Minister by what process of reasoning can he characterize that as a withdrawal which places on record the fact that there was an infringement of the Act? I would characterize that as nothing more or less than a confirmation of what had been alleged in the former letter; and I , say further, that when Mr. McCarthy made this accusation that certain things had been done, and when the government was told of the return of these securities and notes, it was the most complete proof that the parties had been guilty of the charges Mr. McCarthy had laid against them. Under these circumstances, I do not see how the Minister of Finance could possibly have granted this certificate. Upon that evidence alone the Minister of Finance or his department or his officials did not exercise that ordinary reasonable care and diligence which we expect from ordinary men; but, when they are acting in a judiciary or public character we have a right to exoect from them a much greater degree of care and diligence. The courts of this country, upon the question being put to them on that evidence alone, whether the Minister of Finance had exercised that ordinary care and prudence which should be exercised by a trustee would say that he had not, and he would be liable as a trustee or executor for the consequences of that act. But we have more than that. We have the evidence that the Deputy Minister knew, according to a report in a Toronto newspaper, of what had taken place in the court at Toronto; we have the evidence of Mr. Laidlaw, an eminent K. C. of Toronto, who swears in an affidavit that the endorsements sent by Mr. McCarthy were true. That affidavit has been ignored for the affidavit of Mr. Travers; the statements of Mr. McCarthy have been ignored for the statements of Mr. Travers; the judgment of the court in Toronto has been ignored for the statements of Mr. Travers; and the recollection of my hon. friend from Halton has been ignored for the statements of Mr. Travers. All these matters which had come to the Minister of Finance have been ignored in favour of Mr Travers. I would like to ask the minister this question:	Was he putting a hypothetical case
to Mr. Travers when he said to him: ' It has come to our knowledge that in some cases notes have been given instead of cash for payments of subscriptions'; or was he putting an actual case?


William Stevens Fielding: I will answer my hon. friend. I had heard gossip in banking circles regarding the organization of a previous bank. I had no information beyond the whispers that went around among
banking men as to the manner in which a certain bank had been organized.


William Sora Middlebro: I do not know that
I would be justified in asking the minister the name of the bank?


William Stevens Fielding: I would not care to give that.


William Sora Middlebro: It seems to me that it makes it all the harder for the Finance Minister to get away from blame in the present case if he had another instance within his own knowledge.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not say I had any knowledge of it. I had heard gossip of that kind in banking circles


William Sora Middlebro: The minister had heard gossip that another bank had either attempted to do or had done what this bank did. If it had attempted to do the same thing, he must have headed it off, and made it comply with the law. If it had done it, he had the greater reason for looking more deeply into this case before granting a certificate. I would like to point this out to the Minister of Finance. In answer to a question of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), he said this:
There was some gossip in hanking circles concerning the Farmers' Bank of which we 'became aware. I do not see how we can take cognizance of that. There was gossip abroad [DOT]concerning the Farmers' Bank, I was well aware of it.


William Stevens Fielding: Not as respecting the notes. I had not heard that.


William Sora Middlebro: What was the gossip about? .


William Stevens Fielding: The banking fraternity generally, looked on the organization of the Farmers' Bank with suspicion, and there was constant talk about it before they got their charter.


William Sora Middlebro: I adduce that as one more reason why the minister should have hesitated about granting the certificate. The gossip of the banking fraternity, I suppose means the Bankers' Association?


William Stevens Fielding: Not the Bankers' Association, but bankers whom I met. The bankers looked on the organization of the Farmers' Bank as doubtful, as I did myself.


William Sora Middlebro: I can only say that the more information the minister gives me about the rumours concerning the Farmers' Bank, it seems to me all the more reasonable why he should have been more careful in granting the certificate. The Act says in effect that the only two parties to be satisfied are the Finance Minister and the Treasury Board. That is not a ques-

lion of law. It is only a question of the satisfaction of the Finance Minister and the Treasury Board that all the details of the Act have, been complied with that would justify him in granting a certificate. He applied to the Minister of Justice for his opinion. As to what did he want his opinion? As to whether or not the evidence was sufficient to justify him in granting the certificate? If he wanted to get his own opinion corroborated by the Minister of Justice, the only way in which he could get an honest corroboration was to submit to the Minister of Justice all the facts that he himself was possessed of. Now, I ask the Minister of Finance if he said to the Minister of Justice: I have a complaint from Mr. McCarthy to the effect that these subscriptions were obtained by fraud, that some men subscribed for $1,000 stock, and when they came to investigate they found that they were down for $10,000; I have information from Mr. McCarthy that a great many of those who are down for subscriptions did not sign the stock book at all, and that a certain member of parliament whose name wras put down as a director had' never consented; we have the judgment of the court at Toronto, which practically confirms all these allegations, because these men got judgment against the Farmers' Bank, and got back their money and their notes; I have the evidence of Mr. William Laidlaw, K.O., in an affidavit in which he swears that all these things are true. If the Minister of Finance had submitted all these facts to the Minister of Justice, together with the single affidavit of Mr. Travers, does he think that the Minister of Justice would have written back saying: You are quite justified on the evidence you have submitted in granting the certificate. I venture to say that he would not. All that the Minister of Justice did say was:	If you are
satisfied with the evidence, you are justified in granting the certificate. So that the matter came hack to the judgment of the Minister of Finance himself whether or not he would he justified in granting the certificate. And all this evidence is not what has been discovered since, but is from information which the Finance Minister indisputably had in his possession at the time he granted the certificate, which is not only a certificate that the bank has been properly organized, but is practically a certificate of character to Mr. Travers, because it is a refutation of all the charges made against him, and an intimation to the innocent people of this country that he is all right, that he has complied with the laws of the Dominion of Canada, and that they are perfectly justified in placing their money in the Farmers' Bank of Canada. That is what it amounts to. The Minister of Finance says that because the govern-Mr. MIDDLEBEO.
ment of Ontario happened to have a small deposit of $25,000 in the Farmers' Bank, they were satisfied with Mr. Travers. But the answer to that is this. The Ontario government knew that before a bank could get a charter it had to comply with the Dominion Act, and, therefore, they assumed that the Minister of Finance had carried out the Act.


William Stevens Fielding: I did not think they had so much faith in me.


William Sora Middlebro: They had until this question of the Farmers' Bank came up. It was because of the action of the Minister of Finance in allowing the bank to be organized, and in giving them a certificate, and in starting them out to work that the Ontario government made that deposit. I venture to say that had the minister placed in possession of the Ontario government all the facts he had before him when he issued that certificate the Ontario government would never have put a dollar in the Farmers' Bank of Canada.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. member (Mr. Lennox) said it was published in the Toronto newspapers.


William Sora Middlebro: If the Minister of Finance had told them that Mr. McCarthy had sent this warning that all the allegations contained in the special endorsement had been sworn to by Mr. Laidlaw; if he had told them that the Canadian Bankers' Association had said the certificate was obtained by fraud, does he suppose for a minute that the Ontario government, or anybody else would have entrusted any money to that bank? It was because these irregularities were silenced by the Minister of Finance that the public had confidence in that bank. Apart altogether from the question of intention, the Minister of Finance was not justified in issuing this certificate, and in issuing it under the circumstances he did not exercise ordinary care and prudence which as the holder of a public trust he -was called on to exercise, and I think, therefore, the minister is open to the censure of this House.


Mr. DAVID HENDERSON (Halton).: I would not have spoken on this occasion were it not for the manner in which my name has become associated with opposition to the granting of this certificate, and I shall crave the indulgence of the House while I endeavour to make my^ connection with this matter plain. I desire to read wo letters, one from the Minister of Finance to Mr. Travers, dated 30th November, and the other the reply from Mr. Travers to that letter, of the same date, and I shall explain why I wish to put these letters on 'Hansard'. The first letter reads:

Minister of Finance, Canada,
Ottawa, November 30, 1906. W. E. Travers, Esq.,
General Manager of the Farmers' Bank, of Canada,
Eussell House, Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-I regret that owing to pressing engagements yesterday, arising out of the budget, I was unable to meet you to consider your application for the issue of a certificate to authorize the Farmers' Bank of Canada to commence business. I shall be glad to see you to-day, at my office, at any time before one o'clock if you can call. Or 1 might be able to see you later, between four and five, at the House of Commons, if that will be more convenient.
There is a phase of the matter which I should like to bring to your notice so that you may consider it at once. It has been represented to us that in some previous instances where an application was in all respects apparently regular, there was actually an evasion of the intention of the Bank Act in relation to the paid-up capital. We have been told that in some cases the subscribers did not actually pay in cash but gave notes to the provisional directors which were used to raise the money. On account of information of this kind, which has reached us in relation to a previous case, we deem it proper to scan very closely every application for a certificate which comes to us. I shall be glad to have an assurance that nothing of the kind has taken place'in relation to the subscriptions for the Farmers' Bank, but that the amounts set forth in the application as having been paid up have in every case been bona fide cash payments.


W. S. FIELDING,
[Stage Direction]
Minister of Finance.
The Teply to that is as follows:
Ottawa, November 30, 1906. The Hon. W. S. Fielding,
Minister of Finance, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,-In reply to your letter of the 30th of November, I have to say that in the case of the Farmers' Bank of Canada, the provisional directors did not raise the money in the way mentioned by you. You will find the statement put in by me absolutely correct as to the amount of stock subscribed and the amount paid up.

[Stage Direction]
General Manager, Farmers' Bank of Canada.
I now desire to say that I never saw that letter or a copy of it until the return asked for by the hon. member for North Toronto was brought down, but I knew what it contained, and it was known in the county of Halton that such a letter was in existence, and what its purport was. Since our former debate on the Farmers' Bank I have had communications orally and in writing with some of my constituents, and my attention has been called to the fact by different parties, that I had communicated the particulars of my interview to these persons. It is a notorious fact that in the county of Halton to-day 260
there are people who knew the nature of that letter a considerable time ago; one man has known it for a portion of a year, and another man has known it for several years. Now, where did they get that information? They did not get it from the Finance Department, I did not get it from the Finance Department. I got it from the Minister of Finance himself, and I communicated the nature of that letter to people of my county who were interested in the Farmers' Bank, and I got it in the way I have already described in this House. When the Minister of Finance and myself met, the minister communicated to me the fact that he had asked Mr. Travers to write him a letter along the line that is indicated here I assumed, when he told me that, that it was to see whether my previous statement was verified or not with reference to the notes I had seen in the hands of the solicitor. I mention this circumstance, not that it is absolute evidence, but the peculiarity of it is that it was known to men who read what the Minister of Finance said, and that I said that this letter existed, and the very nature of its contents was known. I do not know how much stronger evidence I could get to verify the statement I made at that time. I want to say here with reference to the three interviews I had with the Minister of Finance that in no case did one of these interviews last more than two or three minutes. I do not believe the second interview extended over a minute or a minute and a half, and only the few words that I have mentioned were spoken. The first interview, when I told the minister of these notes, did not extend beyond three minutes, and the later interview very possibly was about the same length of time. But I want to say this now because I had not the opportunity of putting it before the House in the former debate. I want to say now-and I say it with the utmost certainty of its being correct-that not a thing was mentioned at any of those interviews relating to the incorporation of the bank, so that the Minister of Finance must have referred to one set of interviews, and I to another. I am positive that nothing was said regarding the incorporating of the bank at any one of^ these three interviews. I went to the minister for one purpose only. The bank had been incorporated months before. I think the charter had been passed through this House six or seven months before. Consequently it was not a matter of interest to me at that time how the charter was granted, or who supported it, or who opposed it.
That was a question which did not require to be raised at all and which certainly was not in my mind. The only question in nay mind was whether proper proceedings had been taken with regard to
[Stage Direction]


®ie <xrganiz.ati)on of tihe )bank and tile j granting of the certificate. I went to the Finance Minister with that matter alone in my mind and gave him the information I had. I did not say to him: I warn you. The hon. minister is too intelligent a man for me to say anything of the kind to him. All I did was state the facts which should have been sufficient. The minister knew his duty and it was not for me to point out that duty to him or to say I had come	to	warn him.	In
none of these three interviews did we discuss anything in connection with the granting of this charter, so that the only conclusion I can come to-and I have thought over the matter very carefully- is that the minister has in his mind one set of interviews and I have in my mind another set. As I have said already, I am more than justified by the letter written by Mr. Travers to the Minister of Finance, and which the Minister of Finance knew about four and a half years ago.
I had never seen the files of the minister nor did I know that saich a letter was on them. The only source of information I had was the minister himself who told me the letter had been written.
I have nothing more to say on this question. The facts have been laid before the House by the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox), and the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro), and it would be unwise for me to undertake to discuss what may be called a legal question. I am glad to have had the ooportun-ity of making the statement I have made, and I make it with every confidence that it may lead to a solution of what apparently is a difference of recollection in the mind of the Finance Minister and myself.
Mr. H. H. MILLER (South Grey).: In referring to the action of the hon. the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), my hon. friend from North Grey (Mr. Middlebro), used these words: ' He would not grant more than six months extension,' implying that the Minister of Finance went to the meeting of the Banking and Commerce Committee, when the extension -of the life of the charter for a year was granted and granted a renewal, not for the year which had been asked for, but for not more than six months. That does not place the Minister of Finance in the true light. The hon. minister was very emphatically opposed to granting any extension whatever. The committee, however, contrary to his wish and advice, insisted upon giving a renewal or extension. When the Minister of Finance could not prevail on the committee to grant no extension at all, he succeeded in getting the extension limited to six months.
Mr. HENDERSON


Richard Blain: Was there a vote in the committee?
Mr. MILLER; No, buSfc it was very apparent that the majority, were favourable to granting an extension. Let me isay that this is not by any means the only instance in which members of the committee have voted against the advice of the Finance Minister.
Mr.' BLAIN. I asked if there was a vote taken in the committee, because the hon. gentleman said that the committee voted the extension.


Henry Horton Miller: I do not think I used the word ' voted.' What I said was that the committee insisted on giving an extension. My hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson), will admit that this was not an exceptional case, but that in many other instances the committee has gone against the advice of the Minister of Finance. The responsibility, therefore, for that extension is wholly upon the committee which acted against the advice of the Minister of Finance.
My hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson), says that he has had conversations with the Finance Minister, and there is a dispute between them regarding what took place. No one will doubt the good faith or the word of either the Minister of Finance or the hon. member for Halton, but the hon. member for Halton says to-day: ' I admit that I did not warn the Minister of Finance, nothing that I said could be construed as a warning.'


David Henderson: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Miller), should not put words into my mouth which I did not utter. I did not say in so many words to the minister:
' I warn you.' I did not do this because I consider the Minister of Finance too intelligent a man to be talked to in that fashion.


Henry Horton Miller: Then when my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson), says that he did not warn the Minister of Finance, he means that he did not use the word ' warn ' but did warn him all the same. Well, I would refer my hon. friend to what he said on the 15th of March last. He was then asked why he had not put his remarks in writing so that there could not be any dispute. He said: ' I did not, because once before I got Into trouble. I put my remarks in writing and they were made public by a member of the government and were made public with the intention to do me injury.' The Minister of Finance asked him, how could I injure you in this connection? Even if I did wish to injure you, how could I have done it? And the hon. member for Halton said:
Y

It might have been insinuated that I had made an attempt to wreck the bank.
If the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) who was, as the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) has said, personally interested, as he had constituents concerning whose interests he was 'troubled,' had evidence that indicated to him that there was danger to those gentlemen of his acquaintance, and had been willing as a member of parliament and a man to take some risk, even the risk of ' being accused by some one of a willingness to wreck the bank,' had gone further, had made known all the information he had possessed, had argued the case, he would perhaps have accomplished more than could be accomplished in the half-hearted manner in which he spoke. He desired evidently that the Minister of Finance should take a great deal more responsibility in this case than he was willing to take.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why should he not?


Henry Horton Miller: There is no reason why he should. Of course the Minister of Finance has a certain amount of responsibility resting on him because he is Minister of Finance.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The whole responsibility.


Henry Horton Miller: Not the whole responsibility. The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) had a responsibility as the member for that constituency, having constituents interested, equal to the responsibility of the Minister of Finance. It has been said that Mr. McCarthy wrote a letter to the minister in which he said that notes had been given for certain stock subscriptions and further that certain subscriptions had been raised from the amounts for which they were really given to larger amounts. What, after all, did that amount to, and how would any other hon. gentleman have been influenced by that statement? Notes had been given for certain stock subscriptions, undoubtedly. There was nothing morally wrong in that, although there may have been, and there was something technically wrong; but if the farmers who had subscribed for stock had taken the same notes to any other bank and discounted them and taken the money to pay for stock, there would have been nothing either morally or technically wrong. The pavment by notes is something that might have been done through perfect ignorance and I have no doubt it was done through ignorance on the part of the men who gave the notes and of the men who took them. Nots have been given in payment of insurance premiums, given in good faith, and accepted in good faith by the agents, but payment of 260J
the policies has been refused in such cases because the premiums were improperly paid. It has been said that subscriptions were raised. That, of course, was a fraud. If a man subscribed $2,000 worth of stock, and his subscription was increased to $10,000, that would be a fraud, but a fraud on the part of what person? Of Travers necessarily? These subscriptions were taken by agents soliciting subscriptions and getting a certain commission for obtaining them. If they obtained subscriptions for $1,000 and raised them to $10,000 the fraud was theirs, not Travers', and it was not an indication to the Minister of Finance that there was anything wrong in connection with those responsible for the control of the bank or for the obtaining of a license to do business. It was well known that Mr. McCarthy was acting as solicitor for dissatisfied stockholders. He had, I suppose, advised these stockholders that, having given their notes, which was technically illegal, they could get out of their subscriptions, and they used that means of getting out of 'subscriptions which they were then beginning to fear would not be a profitable investment. The member for Halton pointed out to them that they were incurring not only a liability for their present subscriptions, but also a double liability; with this knowledge they used that technical means of evading their subscriptions or getting back their money. It was well known that Mr. McCarthy was acting 'for dissatisfied subscribers. I suppose all of those who were dissatisfied at that time became Mr. McCarthy's clients and were made parties to the action.


Haughton Lennox: He said otherwise in his information.


Henry Horton Miller: I am not sure Mr. McCarthy said there were others.


Haughton Lennox: In his protest to the minister he alleged that he had then certain clients and that many others had been defrauded on the same lines.


Henry Horton Miller: I think the writ issued was issued on behalf of those named and of others and of those who might choose to come in and be made parties to the action.


Haughton Lennox: And mentioned some others.


Henry Horton Miller: Mr. McCarthy sends
evidence to the Minister of Finance that whether the fraud had been committed by the_ agents who were soliciting stock subscriptions or by any one else, the dissatisfied subscribers had been satisfied, and that their money or notes had been handed back. The point made by the hon. member

for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) that Travers' affidavit, when he filed it with a list of shareholders, was a false affidavit, because the names of some of Mr. McCarthy's clients appeared as stockholders, although a few days before Mr. McCarthy had stated that they had parted with and sold their stock, is not wedl taken. There is no evidence of untruth in that affidavit. Only a few days elapsed between the time of Mr. McCarthy's letter and of Travers' affidavit. Travers could only make that affidavit by taking his list of shareholders from the stock list as recorded in the books of the bank, and a dozen others might have been shareholders whose names would not appear because they had recently purchased stock from other parties for consideration, and the transfers had not been completed in the books of the company. Even although Mr. Travers had known of such transfers he could not say in his affidavit that these people were shareholders; the shareholders for the time were the men whose names were properly entered as shareholders in the bank's stock lists, who had not yet completed the assignment or transfer of their stock on the books.	One hon.
member to-day said that the granting of a license was equal to a guarantee by the government, and was evidence that the Farmers' Bank was a proper and safe place in which to deposit money. It would be just as logical to say that if the Minister of Agriculture issued a patent on a certain device which was claimed to be able to do certain things, that would be a guarantee by the minister to the people that they might invest their money in the p'urchase of that device, and that he guaranteed by giving the patent that it would do the work claimed for it. I think this is altogether an unfair attack that does no credit to the gentlemen who make it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: You are not the judge.


Henry Horton Miller: Hon. gentlemen will judge for themselves, but let me tell hon. gentlemen how other people judge of the attack made on the Minister of Finance. Some little time ago I received a letter from the constituency of an hon.member opposite who had made such an attack. This letter was from a very respectable gentleman who had occupied a very high municipal position, and he said:
I have never voted other than a Conservative vote in my life, but after reading the attack made by our member on Mr. Fielding, for whom I have the greatest possible respect and for whom the country has the greatest possible respect, I will never again vote for the gentlemen who made that attack.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Name, name.


Henry Horton Miller: 


Henry Horton Miller: No; I do not want to make hon. gentlemen on the othe'r side feel too bad, and one of them would feel very bad if I were to publish the name. But, while it is unfair to the Minister of Finance for hon. gentlemen to make these attacks, yet they are doing neither themselves nor their party any good when they make them.


Richard Blain: I think my hon. friend (Mr. Miller) should furnish the name of
the gentleman to	whom he has referred.
House divided	on amendment (Mr
Lennox).
 YEAS: Messieurs.	
Ames,	Lennox,
Armstrong,	Macdonell,
Arthurs,	McCall,
Barker,	McCarthy,
Barnard,	Magrath,
Blain,	M'eighen,
Borden (Halifax).	Middlebro,
Broder,	Nantel,
Burrell,	Northrup,
Campbell,	Paquet,
Chisholm (Huron),	Perley,
Cowan,	Reid (Grenville),
Crosby,	Roche,
Crocket,	Schaffner,
Crothers,	Sexsmitli,
Currie (Simcoe),	Sharpe (Lisgar),
Daniel,	s Sharpe (Ontario),
Donnelly,	Smyth,
Edwards,	Sproule.
Elson,	Stanfield,
Foster,	Staples, Taylor (Leeds),
Fraser,	
Gilbert,	Tavlor (New
Goodeve,	Westminster),
Haggart (Lanark),	Thoburn,
Haggart (Winnipe;	;), Thornton,
Henderson,	Wallace,
Herron,	White (Renfrew),
Jameson,	Wilcox,
Kidd,	Wilson (Lennox and
Lake,	Addington' and
Lalor,	Wright.-63.
Lancaster,
 NAYS: Messieurs.	
Allard,	McIntyre,
Allen,	McKenzie,
Aylesworth (Sir Allen),McMillan,
Bdland,	Marcile (Bagot),
Brodeur,	Martin (Montreal,
Bureau,	Ste. Mary's)
Carvell,	Martin (Regina),
Champagne,	Martin	(Wellington),
Chisholm (Antigonish),Meigs,
Chisholm (Inverness), Michaud,
Clark (Red Deer), Clarke (Essex), Congdon,
Currie (Prince Edward),
Demers,
Devlin,
Doug! as,
Miller, Molloy, Murphy, Nesbitt, Neely, Oliver, Papineau, Pardee,

Dubeau,
Ecrement,
Fisher,
Fortier,
Fowke,
Gauvreau,
German,
Gervais,
Girard,
Gladu,
Graham,
Guthrie,
Hedging,
Hunt,
King,
Knowles,
Kyte,
Lanetot (Laprairie-Napierville), Lanetot (Richelieu),
Parent,
Paterson,
Pickup,
Proulx,
Prowse,
Pugsley,
Rankin,
Reid (Restigouche), Richards,
Rivet,
Robb.
Ross (Middlesex), Ross (Rimouski), Roy (Montmagny), Rutan,
Savoie,
Sealey,
Seguin,
Sinclair,
Smith (Middlesex),
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),Smith (Nanaimo),
Law. LeBlanc, Loggie, Lovell,
Sperry, Templeman, Tobin,
Todd,
Low,	Tureotte (Nicolet),
Macdonald,	Turgeon,
MacNutt,	Turriff,
McAllister,	Verville,
McCoig,	Warburton and
McColl,	White (Victoria,
McCraney,	Alta.)-97.
McGiverin, PAIRS: Messieurs.	
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Borden (Sir F.),	Porter,
Lemieux,	Doherty,
Stratton,	Gordon (Nipissing)
Harris, [DOT]	Beattie,
Talbot,	Owen,
Brown.	Lortie,
Bickerdike,	Hughes,
Geoffrion,	Monk,
Harty,	Osier,
Cash,	Boyce,
Chew,	Clare,
Conmee,	Worthington,
Gordon (Kent),	Bristol,
Black,	Marshall,
Emmerson,	Forget, .
McLean (Huron),	Lewis.
Tolmie,	Maddin,
Schell,	Price,
Smith (Stormont),	Stewart,
Wilson (Laval),	Blondin,
Beauparlant,	Best,
McLean (Sunbury)	, Rhodes,
Lafortune,	Bradbury,
Tur eotte (Quebec).	Russell.
Amendment negatived.	
At six o'clock,	House took recess.
After Recess.	
House resumed	at eight o'clock.


NEW ONTARIO AND QUEBEC RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 170) to incorporate the New Ontario and Quebec Railway Company.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: I have an amendment to that Bill, of which notice has been given. The hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Gordon) is in charge of the Bill, and he is not present. It might not be fair to go on in his absence.


Mr. GRAHAM.: I do not know much about the Bill myself, but we postponed it two nights in succession on account of the absence of the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster).


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I want to be fair with the hon. member for Nipissing.


George Perry Graham: Well, let it stand.
Progress reported.


TORONTO HARBOUR COMMISSION.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 175) to amend and consolidate the Acts relating to the harbour of Toronto.
On section 16,
Mr. PUGSLEY.: I do not like that section. It gives the corporation power to regulate and control all land and property on the water-front. Is it intended to give the Board of Harbour Commissioners the right to say how any man's property on the water-front of Toronto shall be developed? There is another objection; it is that the Crown is the owner of a considerable area of property on the harbour front, and I do not think this Bill should give the Harbour Commissioners the right to say how that property should be developed. I cannot think that it is the intentioin to make the provision as broad as that. This would compel a man who wanted to improve his wharf property that he owns himself, to go to the Harbour Commissioners and get their consent as to how he shall develop that property. It would also prevent the Crown from developing some fifty acres of land that has been reclaimed in the harbour of Toronto in connection with the recent operations for the construction of the western entrance; property which, if developed would be very valuable, and if it could not be developed, would be of very little value. When the draft Bill was submitted to me, and when I objected to certain provisions which were in the Bill for the transference, by virtue of this proposed Act, to the Harbour Commissioners of Crown property, I did not understand that by agreeing to strike out that provision the Harbour Commissioners should still retain control over the Crown property and be able to say in what manner the Crown should develop it. Of course, my remarks apply as well to private property as to Crown property, but I speak in particular for Crown property. The Crown owns 50 acres of land fronting on Toronto harbour.


Mr. MACDONELL (Toronto).: The point which the hon. the Minister of Public Works has just mentioned was fully discussed and considered by the committee, when the Bill was before the committee, and also by the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) both prior to the Bill coming before the committee, and after it was before the committee. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries was present at the meeting during the entire session when this Bill was being considered, and the point was then taken that is now taken by the Minister of Public Works. If the Minister of Public Works will refer to subsection 2 of section 21 he will see that the subsection says that:
No by-law shall have force or effect until confirmed by the Governor in Council and published in the 'Canada Gazette/
The words which the chairman has just read, and which amend section 16 now, were added for the express purpose of making it emphatic and plain that all the bylaws which are referred to in section 16 have to be confirmed bv the Governor in Council under subsection 2 of section 21. When we come to that it will be seen that that subsection requires that these by-laws shall toe confirmed by the Governor in Council and published in the 'Canada Gazette.'


William Pugsley: It is all very well to say that the by-laws shall be confirmed, but, suppose the commission did not choose to make any by-laws in reference to the development of this Crown property; the Crown could not develop its property at all without getting the consent of the Harbour Commissioners. I do not suggest for a moment that that section was framed with the view of preventing development, but I happen to know that the commissioners would like to get hold of the Crown property, and, although I do not suggest that they would desire to do so, if they could prevent the Crown from developing this property either by leasing it, or making other disposition of it, as we might think in the public interest, it certainly would deteriorate very much the value of the property. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is not here, and certainly I would think that before this clause should pass he should have an opportunity of expressing his views upon it. This land I speak of was developed, not by the Department of Marine and Fisheries, but by the department over which I preside, and I would hesitate very much indeed, before I would give to the commissioners the power to control our development of that property. Perhaps this clause might stand and we can go on with the others.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Quite so; let it stand.


William Pugsley: 


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Clause 16 stands for further consideration.
Progress reported.


GRAIN GROWERS' GRAIN COMPANY, LIMITED.
[Stage Direction]
' House again in committee on Bill (No. 171) to incorporate the Grain Growers' Grain Company, Limited.-Mr. Rutan.
On section 13-authorized objects for purposes of the company,
Mr. GERVAIS.: Before the committee proceeds with the examination of this clause there are a few remarks that I wish to make. I think the title of the Bill is rather misleading.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: What is the title of the Bill?	~


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: The Bill is entitled: ' An Act to incorporate the Grain Growers' Grain Company, Limited.' If the committee looks at sections 14 and 15 of the Bill it will find that grain growing is the least of the occupations that is being sought to be pursued by this incorporation. I beg leave to be allowed to read a few lines of sections 14 and 15 to show that the promoters of this Bill should have called themselves, not ' The Grain Growers' Grain Company, Limited,' but the 'The General Promoters and Schemers' Company, Limited.'


George Perry Graham: Prove that.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: Well, I will prove it by reading a few lines from section 14.
14. For the objects and purposes set forth in section 13 of this Act, the Company may-
(a)	manufacture, buy, sell, deal in and deal with timber, lumber, hardware, bricks, stone, tiles, wood products of all kinds, building material of every description, and all kinds of merchandise and supplies;
(b)	manufacture, develop, transmit, distribute and use pneumatic, hydraulic, electric or other power or force for any purpose for which the same may be used, and manufacture, buy, sell and deal in all machinery, implements and material necessary for the manufacture, development, transmission and distribution of pneumatic, hydraulic, electric or other force: Provided, however, that any distribution or transmission of power or force bevond the lands of the company shall be subject to local and municipal regulations in that behalf.
That reminds me of some Bills that have been rejected in former years by the Private Bills Committee.
(c)	purchase, acquire, develop, operate, hold, dispose of, or otherwise turn to account timber lands, timber licenses, coal lands, quarries, water-powers, and other lands for the purposes of the company;
(d)	subscribe for, purchase or otherwise acquire, and hold, sell or otherwise dispose of

the shares, bonds, debentures or other securities of any bank, or of any printing or publishing company, but in the case of a bank to no greater extent than one-fourth of the capital stock of such bank;
(e)	purchase or otherwise acquire, build, operate and charter ships, barges, vessels or other means of transporting passengers and cargo by water;
(f)	enter into any arrangement with any authorities, municipal, local or otherwise, that may seem conducive to the company's objects, or any of them, and obtain from any such authority any rights, privileges and concessions which the company may think it desirable to obtain, and carry out, exercise and comply with any such arrangements, rights, privileges and concessions;
I think possibly the company could acquire Indian reserves under this.
(g)	acquire or undertake the whole or any part of the business, property and liabilities of any person or company carrying on any business which the company is authorized to carry on or possessed of property suitable for the purposes of the company;
(h)	apply for, purchase or otherwise acquire, any patents, licenses, concessions and the like, conferring any exclusive or non-exclusive, or limited rights to use, or any secret or other information as to, any invention which may seem capable of being used for any of the purposes of the company, or the acquisition of which may seem calculated directly or indirectly to benefit the company, and use, exercise, develop or grant licenses in respect of, or otherwise turn to account, the property, rights or information so acquired;
And so it goes on for two pages.


An hon. MEMBER.: Is there anything forgotten?


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: Not very much; they are empowered to do lots of other things. Take paragraph (i) for example:
(i)	construct, improve, maintain, work, manage, carry out or control any roads, ways, tramways, branches or sidings on lands owned or controlled by the company, bridges, reservoirs, water-courses, wharfs, manufactories, warehouses, elevators, electric works, shops, stores, office buildings, and other works and conveniences, and contribute to, subsidize, or otherwise assist or take part in, the construction, improvement, maintenance, working, management, carrying out or control thereof.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: They have everything but the parliament buildings.


George Perry Graham: Section (j) is the most useful, they can lend money under it.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: They can do banking by issuing little notes payable to bearer, by receiving deposits, and by lending and borrowing money either by way of mortgage or upon their own paper. It seems to me I repeat, that the company should not be called 'The Grain Growers' Co., Limited,'
but the 'General Promoters and Schemers Co., Limited.'


Haughton Lennox: Unlimited.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: Yes.


Mr. TURRIFF.: The Bill is all right.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: It is not all right. It is against the sound parliamentary Tule of the British parliament to grant charters right and left of that kind, because such a charter tends to create all kinds of conflicts with individuals and with ether companies.


Mr. BICKERDIKE.: Can they do banking?


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: Oh, yes; they have power to do a banking business.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has this Bill been before the Banking and Commerce Committee?


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: It was referred to the Miscellaneous Private Bills Committee.


Haughton Lennox: That was because it covers everything?


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: Under the circumstances the consideration of this Bill should be postponed to enable hon. gentlemen to study it and to come to an opinion about the propriety of giving all these extraordinary powers which are sought for by would-be or so-called farmers.


John Gillanders Turriff: There is nothing in this Bill that the company could not get by letters patent any day of the week; there is nothing in the Bill that other companies have not got. The powers asked for are simply for the purpose of the undertaking, and in farming nowadays you have not only the growing of the grain and of farm products, but you have to deal with the disposal of these products. I see no reason on earth why my hon. friend (Mr. Gervais) should want to prevent this Bill going through. He got his Bill through a year ago to incorporate the Retailers' Association, and that same association has been dead against anything that sounds like cooperation in any shape or form. Why should not the farmers, if they desire it, have a company for the disposal to the best advantage of the products they themselves raise? The Bill is fair and reasonable, the name of the Bill is all right, and there is no reason why the committee should not pass it. It was submitted to the Private Bills Committee, and there was an amendment distinctly debarring the company from going into the business of banking in any shape or form.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I move that the committee rise and report progress, and then the House can send the Bill to the Banking and Commerce Committee.
823!)


Mr. RUTAN.: There is no reason for that. The Bill has already been before a special committee of the Senate, and also before the Private Bills Committee of this House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We have more than once sent Bills to more than two committees.


William Windfield Rutan: The section that refers to banking only allows them to hold a small amount of stock in a bank, and they have no desire to do a banking business. The association cannot hold more than the minority stock in any bank.


William Pugsley: While it is true that possibly all the powers contained in this Bill are granted under the Companies Act in letters patent, in this case the difficulty to my mind arises by reason of the name of the company which is called the Grain Growers' Grain Company, Limited. You will observe that the intention is that the shareholders shall be farmers, or their wives and children, or the lessees of farms, and one might naturally assume that the business of the company was limited to dealing in grain. It seems to me objectionable that a company whose name indicates it was formed for a specific purpose, should be given such general powers as are contained in section 14 of this Bill. If the title were of a general nature so that any one taking stock in the company would suppose it were dealing in various kinds of business, that might be different. As my hon. friend from St. James division (Mr. Gervais) says, this section is very broad. True, the company is limited to dealing in these lines of business for the purpose of carrying out the objects mentioned in section 13, but, as a matter of fact, that section does not limit its operations. One can hardly see any line of business in which this company cannot engage, and one can hardly see how the developing of electricity, purchasing timber lands, acquiring water-powers, dealing in lumber, hardware, bricks, stone, tiles and all kinds of merchandise and supplies can be necessary to carry on the business of farming. Section 14 has to do with a line of business entirely different in character from that provided in section 13. I would think that this is a Bill-following out what we did in the case of the Bill incorporating Revillon Freres-which should be sent to the Banking and Commerce Committee.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Clause D authorizes the company to purchase, or otherwise acquire and sell, bonds, debentures, or other securities of any bank or any printing or publishing company. The company may also acquire ships and electric powers and sell Mr. SPROULE.
electricity without coming under the Railway Act. It may acquire and develop water-powers, and do all these things I have mentioned without being bound by any of the safeguards we usually attach to corporations seeking charters from us. It seems to me plain that this Bill should go to the Banking and Commerce Committee.


William Sora Middlebro: Is there any business transaction which this company has not power to do under this Bill?


John Gillanders Turriff: I cannot see any object in sending this Bill back to the Banking and Commerce Committee.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was never there.


John Gillanders Turriff: I can not see any object in sending it to that committee, because in the Private Bills Committee, an amendment was inserted distinctly prohibiting this company from doing a banking business.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: Where is that amendment?


John Gillanders Turriff: It was passed by the Private Bills Committee, and must be in the hands of the Chairman. All the powers asked for are only asked in connection with the business of the company. This Grain Growers' Company is at present dealing in grain and other products of the farm which the members of the company raise on their farms; and if the farmers who established "this company wish to go into different lines of goods that they need in conducting their farming operations, why should they not be allowed to do so? Why is this Grain Growers' Company not as much entitled to these powers as any other company which asks for a charter? If it has a great many powers, the chances are it will not use one out of ten, but what harm (can 'there he in giving it these powers? It is not right-that thi,s company, representing some 30,000 farmers, should not have power to take over business as it sees fit.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Do they want to become a monopoly?


John Gillanders Turriff: No, although they have handled more grain in the past year or two than any other grain company doing business in Winnipeg, and they have handled it to the advantage of the farmers.


Per Cent.   . ..@: They can do business without this Bill.


John Gillanders Turriff: They think they require this Bill, and why not give them what they want? Have they not as good a right as any other combination of men?

Mr, LANCASTER. What combination has ever asked for a Bill like that?


John Gillanders Turriff: Then have been lots of Bills passed this and other sessions giving just as large powers.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Not one.


John Gillanders Turriff: There have been lots
ments in the press within the last four weeks of a company getting a charter by letters patent which confers greater powers than this company asks for. Is there any reason why this company should not get the powers it asks for? To send the Bill back to the Banking and Commerce Committee would be practically to kill it, because it is altogether unlikely that we would be able to get a quorum at that committee again this session. In any event there is a clause which prohibits the company from doing a banking business.


Arthur Meighen: I understood the Minister of Public Works to say that this Bill conferred no greater powers than would, under the Companies Act. If that is the under the operation of the law, be granted case, I do not think that this is the proper time or the proper committee to discuss whether or not these powers should be limited. The Companies Act should be amended, if any change is to take place, because this company is entitled to as much rights as any other. Why did these people not apply in the ordinary course under the Companies Act and secure a charter?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend will find a great many charters granted by this parliament which might have been obtained under the Companies Act.


Arthur Meighen: If a Bill containing these powers can be secured under the Companies Act and the government has no discretionary powers to. limit charters, it seems to me that the Companies Act is merely a farce, and we might just as well empower this company to do everything, and put all companies on the same footing. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff), says he has seen wider powers granted. I am at loss to understand how any wider powers could be granted'.


William Pugsley: A friend of mine once read a charter granted under the English Companies Act; it specified a great many powers and then it said: And generally to acquire gain by all lawful means.


Arthur Meighen: That would be a very brief translation of this Bill. My point is that if the House stands under the assurance of the government that these powers would, in the ordinary course, pass without any exercise of discretion on the part
of the Secretary of State and his department, then we certainly would have no ground to oppose this Bill.


William Pugsley: I do not say it would under a name like this which seems to have the appearance of limiting the objects.


Arthur Meighen: That is to say the Secretary of State and his department, by whom these charters are granted, under the Companies' Act, never refuse the powers at all, no matter how wide they are, they pass automatically.


William Pugsley: I did not say that.


Arthur Meighen: Then it will need to be explained what wider powers can be granted than are granted in this Bill. I know that in our province if one applies for powers as wide as this, that application passes under review through the proper department at Winnipeg, and those powers are curtailed. There is a discretionary power in that department and it is exercised very frequently. I understand the Minister of Public Works to take the position that no greater powers are granted here than would in ordinary course be granted under the Companies' Act, but that the only restriction is that the title may be deemed a misnomer. With the latter part of his remarks I quite agree, and I cannot see any justification for granting this charter under the name of the Grain Growers' Company. There would be ten names just as appropriate, perhaps 50, and it will undoubtedly lead to the sale of shares under a misapprehension. I cannot see much restriction even in the clause referring to the sale of shares. Any one is allowed to purchase a share who owns a farm. That means any one who owns land whether it is farmed or not, or anybody who has land leased, or the wife or child of any such person. Who can be said to be beyond that pale? Very few of our population, and if any one is beyond the pale, and the company need the money, all they have to do is to pass an amendment by a two-thirds majority. The restriction, to my mind, will serve rather an ill than a good purpose. It would seem to me to be better to make it general. While these powers are granted the public should be protected and a more appropriate name should be given. Undoubtedly shares will be purchased under a misapprehension, particularly in view of the fact that we already have a company under the same name under the provincial incorporation with much more restricted powers; and the general apprehension will be that the new company are restricted in the same way, and if the same name is continued shares will be bought under a misconception of the real state of affairs. I would object to the name even under the assur-

once of the government, and if the assurance is to stand I would say it is time the Companies' Act was reviewed.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: I would again ask if this Bill will enable the company to deal in options?


William Pugsley: Certainly not.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: If it does, I would object because the Grain Growers' Grain Company solicit subscriptions all over the country, from farmers and men who do not pretend to be business men or to look very closely into these transactions, and these men may be led into great difficulties and possible loss if this company is permitted to deal in options; were it not for the company soliciting these subscriptions I would not care whether they dealt in options or not. If the Minister of Public Works says this will not permit them to deal in options, I have nothing further to say, but if it does permit them I would like to see an amendment made.


William Pugsley: I do not know much about options in grain, but I have read about dealing in options on stock, and I understand that is usually known as stock gambling.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Exactly.


William Pugsley: That is not buying property, and this is limited to buying property.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Under section 14, subsection (a) the Bill goes further. It covers any kind of dealing.
For the objects and purposes set forth in section 13 of this Act, the Company mayfa) manufacture, buy, sell, deal in and deal with timber, lumber, hardware, bricks, stone, tiles, wood products of all kinds, building material of every description, and all kinds of merchandise and supplies.
What is to prevent them buying any sort of option?


William Pugsley: As I understand when a man buys an option he does not buy the material of any kind.


George Taylor: My hon. friend could go to any broker to-morrow and buy 100,000 bushels of wheat to be delivered on June 1st, and pay 3 cents a bushel down on it. Then if the price goes down he has to make his 3 cents good.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It is 'buy or deal' in it.


William Pugsley: He does not buy the wheat.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: He deals in it.


William Pugsley: No, he makes a bet, he gambles on the prospect of it going up or down. That is prohibited by the statute, Mr. MEIGHEN.
and this company cannot do it any more than any individual could legally do it, and if this company attempted to do it, it would be acting outside of its charter, and could be restrained by any stockholder from using its money for betting purposes, for that is all it is. A man bets with a broker that grain will rise or fall, and it is distinctly understood by the broker that he is not to deliver the 'grain, there is no actual bona fide purchase. If the price goes down he pays, a forfeit to the broker, and if it goes up the broker pays a forfeit to him.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It may be betting according to what the hon. gentleman says, but if a man buys real estate and pays only a small proportion of the money because he is speculating, my hon. friend could equally well say he is betting. He is betting to a certain extent as to whether the value of the property will go up or down, but the words in this statute are not ' buy, sell or deal in.' If he deals in this in any way, it is not restricted to one sort of buying, selling ot dealing. Section 13 shows clearly that these men .are not to be limited to dealing in grain, they are going to manufacture everything the farmer uses. And so I suppose they may be asking for a duty on agricultural implements under one part of the section and that the duty be taken off under another. There is the inconsistency of the position that this gentleman gets into when he says that it only has reference to the products of the farm. These men are authorized by section 13 to make any blessed thing under Heaven that a farmer uses. They can manufacture anything in the world. The farmer uses nearly everything that is made that he does not produce himself, and under this section he is enabled to do everything besides farm. I agree with my hon. friend behind me that this Bill is not properly drawn, and ought to be amended in some way.
Progress reported.



WAYS AND MEANS-RECIPROCAL TRADE AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED STATES.

[Stage Direction]
House again went into Committee of Ways and Means.
['take this false step and we may shatter with one stroke all the work of confederation.\nWhen the old treaty was repealed, we were poor in skilled labour, banking capital, in agricultural and in manufactures. To-day we are rich in them all.\nThe repeal of that treaty threw us upon ourselves and we were roused to action. When the United States, in 1866, flung our poverty in our faces and told us our only choice was annexation or starvation, we refused to accept either, and have proven to the world that we can captain our own ship of state. Let us be friends with our friends to the south, but let us run our own affairs.\nMr. STANFIELD moved that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.\nOn motion of Mr. Stanfield, committee rose and reported progress.\nOn motion of Mr. Fisher, House adjourned at 1.02 a.m., Wednesday.', 'Wednesday, May 3, 1911.']
George Taylor: Mr. Chairman, on the 26th of January the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) brought down a reciprocity agreement made by himself and the hon. the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) with the approval of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). There was a commission of two sent down to Washington to deal with the Americans. I fancy the Prime Minis-

ter -was the principal, and that the Minister of Finance agreed with him. It made little difference whether the Minister of Customs did or not. But, I think that while we are discussing this matter, we, on this side of the House, have a right to have these three hon. gentlemen sitting in their places and I ask the minister in charge, whoever he may be-I do not know whether it is the hon. the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley), or the hon. the Minister of Inland Kevenue (Mr. Templeman)


William Pugsley: Both.


George Taylor: Or the hon. the Minister of Labour (Mr. King), but I think it is his duty to inform these gentlemen that we want them present. I propose to ask them some questions, and it is their duty to be here. I ask now the minister in charge of the House to send for these hon. gentlemen.


Mr. KING.: I have already sent word to the Prime Minister to let him know that the hon. gentleman is speaking.


John Dowsley Reid: Is the Minister of Labour in charge of the House?


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend will proceed they will come in no doubt very shortly.


George Taylor: I think it is due when a gentleman is discussing this question, that these ministers who made this bargain should be present. So far as I am concerned I insist upon it. It is the right of gentlemen speaking to have these gentlemen present.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Question.


George Taylor: Does the minister tell me that it is not my right or duty to ask these gentlemen to be present?


William Pugsley: I would be veTy sorry to say that to my hon. friend. I understand that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance will not be able to be present this evening, but I will send and find out. Perhaps my hon. friend will proceed, and I will send for him in the meantime.


George Taylor: I am dealing more particularly with the Minister of Customs, and I do not like to say behind his back what I want to say to his face. I have some very pointed questions to put to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, but, if the Minister of Finance is not to be present I shall not insist upon it so far as he is concerned.


William Pugsley: I am sure that my hon. friend the Minister of Customs will not mind if my hon. friend does speak behind Tiis back. It will be reported to him.


George Taylor: I want him here to answer some questions.


Mr. CARVELL.: Carried.


George Taylor: The hon. member (Mr. Carvell) is not running this institution. The opposition have some rights here although the Minister of Finance said that we had not. But, we are going to insist upon our rights, and we are going to see that these rights are granted to us. These ministers are a little slow in coming, but I will say this that on the 26th of January, when the hon. the Minister of Finance laid his proposition on the table my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) and other hon. members on this side of the House asked for information, and they have been continuing to ask for it ever since. That information has never been given to us. We have not received anything worthy of the name of information from any of these hon. gentlemen and particularly from the delegates who went to Washington. On the 6th of April my hon. friend from Grenville (Mr. Reid) made a speech and he furnished the House with valuable statistics that are now on record and are available not only to the members of the opposition, but to members of the government who never had the information before and who did not have it when they went to Washington. After the hon. member for Grenville had made an able speech and had placed these statistics on ' Hansard ' the hon. the Minister of Customs rose in his place and here is what he said:
I think perhaps it would he just as well to put a little appendix to the statement that will appear at length.
The minister added his appendix to the speech of my hon. friend from Grenville. The late, lamented Sir John A. Macdonald told me and a number of others at one time that no matter how busy he was with the affairs of state he always spent a part of every day talking with his little invalid daughter. Every person knows that Sir John had an invalid daughter and no matter how busy he was he always put in a portion of his time every day in conversation with her. He said that one day he was talking with her and she asked: Papa, why do they call you a minister; you do not preach and you do not pray very much? Sir John said: My dear, there are two kinds of ministers; there are ministers of the Gospel and ministers of State. She said: What is the difference between a minister of State and a minister of the Gospel? He said: My dear, it is the duty of a minister of the Gospel to preach and pray and to tell people how to live so that when they die they will go to Heaven. His daughter said: Then, I suppose it is the duty of the

minister of State to teach them how to go to the other place.


William Pugsley: What did Sir John say to that?


George Taylor: I think that the ministers that are occupying these positions to-day are doing it to a very large extent. The Minister of Customs would fill both bills. He pretends to be a minister of State and I understand that he preaches and prays on the Sabbath and directs people to the good place. That reminds me of another story. I live opposite the Thousand Islands, and, some twenty-five or thirty years ago, the different religious denominations established parks there. The Methodists selected a place on Wesley Island and they called it Wesley Park. The Presbyterians selected another place farther down and called it Westminster Park and the Baptists selected another place and called it Round Island Park. The ministers of these different denominations used to meet at these resorts during the summer time. At Round Island Park two Baptist ministers with an oarsman went out one day to have a fish. After being out a short while they got a fish and began disputing about the species to which it belonged. One of them asserted that it was an overgrown sun-fish and the other said that it was a moon fish. Being unable to agree they referred it to the oarsman, and the oarsman who had a nazal twang, like most of the Americans, said:	'Waal, now, down
here we call it a Baptist fish. One of the ministers said: Why do you call that a Baptist fish? Well, he says, it is one of those kind that turns bad so quick after coming out of water. I think my hon. friend the Minister of Customs represents that kind of a fish very much, because, although he may preach and pray on Sunday, judging from the speech I am going to read out of the ' Hansard,' I think any one reading or hearing that speech must come to the conclusion that he was not very careful as to the statements he made. I propose now performing a surgical operation upon the minister's appendix, and after I get through dissecting it, I think he will be sorry that he ever added an appendix to the speech of the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid). Any one who listened to that speech or read it must come to the conclusion that the hon. gentlemen was suffering from appendicitis or a malady of some sort. Let me read a little:


Mr. PATERSON.: I think, perhaps, it would he just as well to put a little appendix to the statement that will appear at length. I have no objection to it, in fact, I am rather pleased it has gone in. I was going to ask the hon. member what his object is in putting this in.	.	.
Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds)


Mr. BARKER.: If the hon. gentleman is pleased that they have gone in we need not waste time in discussing it.


William Paterson: The hon. gentleman attaches importance to it. What I want to point out is that he has placed on ' Hansard ' these tables that have taken a very long time to read. His object, I believe, is that this committee may come to an understanding as to the wisdom of this arrangement that has been made. Therefore, it is valuable for that reason. He stated very positively that my colleague and myself went it blind in Washington, we had no figures, and did not know where we were. He said that time and again, and the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) said it last night. You have beep listening for an hour or two to figures that he says are absolutely necessary to get at a proper understanding of this matter. My colleague (Mr. Fielding), and myself, had this in our possession all the time, all the information for all the years, and yet we are told we have gone it blind. We had it, we had it all. More than that, let me remind these gentlemen who complain that we did not have it, that on the day this session opened, I believe before the address was presented to His Excellency, every one of these hon. gentlemen opposite had these figures in his possession.


John Dowsley Reid: Where?


William Paterson: In your desk.


John Dowsley Reid: No.


William Paterson: But here they are, they were taken out of this blue-book which I hold in my hand, taken out of this exactly.
Now there is a statement made by one of these gentlemen that the Prime Minister sent down to Washington to make a bargain with these sharp Yankees. Is that statement correct? I challenge the Minister of Customs or the Prime Minister, I will contribute $100 to any charitable institution in Brantford if that statement is correct. But I will prove that it is not correct. Now here are the statistics the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid) put on record, and if the Minister of Customs or the Prime Minister can produce a blue-book with these figures in it I will send $100 to any charitable institution in the city of Brantford. Here are the satistics:	The first
statement the member for Grenville put on ' Hansard ' was a statement showing ' The quantity and value of the under-mentioned articles entered for consumption in Canada, by countries, during the fiscal years from 1905 to 1910, inclusive.' Then he goes on and reads them: Butter from Great Britain, Australia, Newfoundland, New Zealand, Norway, France, Italy, Turkey and the United States. Can the! Prime Minister or the Minister of Customs produce a blue-book that was presented to every member of this House at the opening of the session, containing these statistics? I defy them to do so. There is my proposition. Let him produce the blue-book, and I will make a present to any charitable institution he

names. That is the first statement. Then he goes on giving other countries, for all kinds of produce, potatoes, cheese, eggs, bacon, and gives the details for each one from 1905 to 1910. When we get through with that, there is another table ' Exports of Danish produce from Denmark, year ended December 31, 1909.' I have another $100 to give to any charitable institution the Minister of Customs will name if he will produce a blue-book that he presented to the members of the House with that information in. Those statistics were compiled by my hon. friend, and the Minister of Customs had the audacity to get up and say that every member of the House was furnished with them. No wonder I compared him to the gentleman that is teaching the people the road to go to the bad place when he dies. Then the hon. gentleman goes further and says:


John Dowsley Reid: That is only one year.


William Paterson: One year, yes, but we had a knowledge of all the years when we were in Washington. That was the very information these gentlemen have a-sked for, that they have been cavilling for, they had it on their desks all the time.
He repeats it again. That is that beautiful appendix he was sending out to the people of this country. I will read further:


Samuel Barker: No.
Mr, PATERSON. The reason I want to put in this appendix is that this goes to the hon. gentleman's constituents with his remarks.
Knowing that the ' Hansard ' will go into his constituency, he wanted to have the appendix added to it to show the people what a statesman he was; and no one expects a statesman, or any other minister, of this country, would get up in his place and make statements that are not in accordance with the facts. Every statement he mude from beginning to end of his speech is not in accordance with the facts.


John Dowsley Reid: Then why did it take several days to prepare it?


William Paterson: That is what I am coming to. When this goes to the hon. gentleman's constituents with his remarks, and they read my remarks, they will understand that five years ago he had the returns for 1905 which were printed at great expense, and of which three copies were given to him. In 1906, as soon as parliament opened, he had three copies given to him. So in 1907, so in 1903, so in 1909, so in 1910. What I want to bring to the attention of those who read his remarks, especially his own constituents, is the fact that he had these figures in his possession.
He did not have them, never had them,, neither did any other hon. gentleman have them until the hon. member for Grenville produced them and read them here in the
House. Yet the Minister of Customs will get up and make this kind of a statement.


Mr. PARDEE.: Don't get excited.


George Taylor: I intend to give my hon. friend enough to make him ashamed of it; if he has any conscience at all he would be ashamed to support a minister that would get up and make such statements in the House.
They will say: You have had these figures for five years to study for yourself; when we sent you to parliament, we did not send you there to sit down and do nothing but play around. Why did you not look these things up? They have been printed for you and given to you. I want to say that in the hearing of the constituents of all the hon. gentlemen who are opposite.


Mr. HUGHES.: That voice will nearly reach them.	,


William Paterson: That voice has been played on just the same as the biscuits have.
That is nice talk for a minister of the Crown.
I wi*h it was loud enough to reach the ears of all, that they might understand the utter absurdity of the position these hon. gentlemen take, and that their constituents who send them here-and these -hon. gentlemen are paid just as much as the minister of the Crown is paid as a member of parliament, and just as much bound to do the work of parliament as is a minister of the Crown-might see that these hon. gentlemen have absolutely neglected their duty and have confessed ignorance with reference to figures that have been given them year by year.
There he repeats it again. Tho'se figures I have quoted have never been given year by year, no one has given the exports of the foreign countries. I have a table of every foreign country that is admitted as a favoured'nation. My hon. friend from Grenville gave them all, and placed them all on ' Hansard.'
As to the information you have been clamouring for, you have had it here; you had it all the time. And we had it when we were in Washington making this bargain. Suppose that you had been there, what would you have done ?


Samuel Hughes: I rise to a point of order.


William Paterson: I have a right to
spfuilr


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes) has a right to state his point of order.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. minister (Mr. Paterson) has been making reflections upon you, Sir, accusing you of ignorance


Mr. TALBOT.: Is that the point of order?


Samuel Hughes: If the hon. minister is not referring to you, Sir, but to the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid), he should speak of him as the hon. member for Grenville and not address him directly as 'yon.'


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The point of order is well taken, and I think it is well

that it should, he taken. The habit has grown up of addressing members directly in the second person, which is wrong. A member of parliament should be referred to in the third person, and the Speaker or Chairman addressed.


William Paterson: I was not aware that I had, perhaps, in the warmth of debate, overlooked that point.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Paterson) will understand that, in speaking as I did, I had reference to a habit that .has grown up rather than to his individual infraction of .the rule.


William Paterson: It is one of the wisest rules that a deliberate assembly can adopt, for it tends to avoid anything like personal feeling. I was not aware that I had made the mistake, but having made it, I am sorry.
This is the gentleman we sent down to Washington to deal with these shrewd, sharp Yankees to make a bargain, and who did not know when he made a blunder here in the House, and the Speaker had to correct him.
I was pointing out that hon. gentlemen opposite, as well as hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, are sent to understand and discuss public questions. Under the rules of the House they are provided with information of which it is supposed they will make use. But when we find hon. gentlemen with that information in their possession, some of it in their possession for years, and yet saying that they cannot discuss a public question intelligently because they have not the information, what are we to think? I was going to say that those hon. gentlemen might remember another rule of the House-also a good one. I would remind them that a minister of the Crown is also a member of parliament. He is no better and professes to be no better, or of any higher standing, than any other member. But he is of equal standing with those in this House who oppose him. It is the duty of a minister, when asked a question, to give a courteous answer; that is becoming in a deliberative assembly of gentlemen. But it must not be lost sight of that it is equally incumbent upon every member of the House, in propounding questions to a minister, to propound them as to one who has equal rights with themselves and is equally entitled to courtesy.
What answer did the Minister of Customs give to hon. gentlemen on this side of the House? The member for Algoma rose and said:	* May I ask the Minister of
Customs a question?' and he answered: ' No.' And the member for Quebec (Mr. Price) very politely asked if he might ask the minister a question, and the minister said:	'No, sit down,' in that loud voice
he has got. I ask him to compare his conduct with the lecture he is addressing to members on this side of the House. I have so many things to say that I will not be able to read all I intended to read, and I do not want to occupy more than two or three hours of the time of the House, but Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds)
I want to refer to another statement made by the Minister of Customs


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman is referring to a previous debate. The particular speech he is now referring to was ruled out of order by me because the Minister of Customs was at the wrong time referring to the resolution now before the Chair. When we are now discussing this resolution, necessarily a quotation from that speech would not be in order. That particular debate which the hon. member is quoting was ruled out of order.


George Taylor: Why, my dear friend


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


George Taylor: Mr. Chairman, the speech here was delivered by the Minister of Customs on this question, and no other question has been before the House since, and I certainly have the right to discuss what the Minister of Customs referred to.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I will hear the hon. gentleman's argument on the point of order.


George Taylor: My point of order is that I am not referring to a previous debate. The closing paragraph of the Minister of Custom's speech was ruled out of order, but not his whole speech. I am about to refer to the statement made by the Minister of Customs as to what happened at Washington showing why this pact should be put through. I want to obey the rules of the House, and it certainly is my right to quote from * Hansard ' what the Minister of Customs ' said:


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: To be in order in quoting a previous debate it must be a previous debate on the same question that is before the Chair. The question before the Chair at the present time is that this resolution be adopted; the question when the Minister of Customs was addressing the House on that occasion was that the House do go into Committee of Ways and Means, and the Minister of Customs in discussing his resolution on that motion was ruled out of order.


George Taylor: With the Speaker in the Chair?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: With the Chairman in the Chair as Speaker, and I am now applying the same rule with the reverse conditions. If the hon. gentleman can show me that the previous debate was in committee on the question, he will have the right to quote.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Minister of Customs on that occasion was ruled out of order because he was dealing with the very reciprocity resolution that we have now before us, and do you not think, Mr. Chairman, that when we are on the resolution my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) is quite in order in referring to what the Minister of. Customs said. The minister was ruled out of order because he was speaking on the subject now before us, and not on the subject then under consideration.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: When the Minister of Customs was ruled out of order the Speaker was in the Chair, and. it so happened at the moment that I was the Speaker. The motion was to go into Committee of Ways and Means, and I ruled the speech of the hon. Minister of Customs out of order because his speech was discussing a resolution that lay before the committee. Having ruled that speech of the Minister of Customs out of order for that reason, now that we are in committee I cannot consider that this is a continuation of that debate.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose the Minister of Finance referred to these subjects in his Budget speech on a motion to go into supply, would it not be quite in order for an hon. member to quote what reference the Minister of Finance might make to this reciprocity arrangement? The Minister of Customs was ruled out of order because he was anticipating a subject that was on the Order Paper, and now that we have reached that subject on the Order Paper, surely the hon. member (Mr. Taylor) can refer to what the Minister of Customs said.


John Dowsley Reid: And the remarks of the Minister of Customs which were ruled out of order were with reference to this very subject which we are now discussing. The amendment was moved, as I understand it, simply for more information, about this very same question. So, to my mind, it is practically the same debate. Do I understand, Mr. Chairman, that you take the ground that, simply because the House divided on the main motion at that time, this is not part of the same debate? With all respect to your judgment, it seems to me it is the same debate.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Reid, Grenville), realize that when a motion is made to go into committee on a certain resolution, the resolution being already before the committee, it is not in order to discuss that resolution to go into committee? That I believe to be the rule of the House, and that is the rule I apply to this case. Having done so, I do not see how I can do otherwise than consider that a previous debate. Having refused the Minister of
Customs the Tight to continue his remarks on the matter beflore the committee I think I am carrying out the same rule, dealing with reversed conditions.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But on what ground did you rule the Minister of Customs out of order? It was because he was attempting to deal with a motion that was already on the Order Paper; his remarks applied to a motion which we had not reached, but which was on the paper. We were not then in Committee of Ways and Means, but we are now in Committee of Ways and Means. That is, the Minister of Customs was ruled out because he w'as attempting to anticipate a motion, and it seems to me that for that very reason, remarks made on this motion now would be proper, because we have reached the motion.


George Taylor: The Minister of Customs spoke so long that his remarks covered ten columns of ' Hansard '-and all dealing with the questions now before the House, the question of reciprocity- before he was called to order. And you were in the chair at the time, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me that it was all part of this debate, and I shall certainly have to appeal from your ruling. I was reading part of your speech this part of the speech from page 7032 of * Hansard '


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor, Leeds), will please not endeavour to proceed with the speech.


George Taylor: I am only going to refer to these items:


Mr. BOYCE.: Will the hon. gentleman allow me a question?


William Paterson: Oh, no. What did we do with the malt business, if you want a common sample of it ? ? They had a duty on malt and they said that they wanted their interest guarded. What was done? We left our malt duty on just as it was in the tariff. The American duty was about two and a half times as high as ours and we had the American government reduce their duty to our duty. So, it was with respect to other questions when they came up. We knew this, yet these hon. gentlemen say that we went it blind. They have the information now; let us see all that would happen if these eggs and cheese and butter should be allowed in. Of eggs 750,456 dozen came iuto this country. This is going to ruin the farmers! If you multiply the dozens by twelve that gives you 9,000,000 of eggs.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


George Taylor: I just read this quotation wiith reference to eggs and butter, and I will ask yon if it is not part of this reciprocity question.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I think it will not be necessary for the hon. gentle-

man (Mr. Taylor, Leeds), to do that. I have no desire to do injustice to the hon. member or to unduly curtail his remarks. But I am equally bound to see that no injustice is done to the Minister of Customs. This particular point of order is one that is a little unusual and my course not as clear as I have found it sometimes. Still, having ruled the Minister of Customs out of order as referring to a matter which he had no right to discuss at that ti-me, I must, in duty to the rules of the House, and my own position, state that the hon. gentleman is not at liberty to discuss that question which was ruled out of order on that occasion.


John Dowsley Reid: I suppose that it could be done with the consent of the House. The Minister of Customs is here. Does he object to having his speech discussed?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The consent of the House may be obtained by the appeal from my decision, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor, Leeds) spoke of


George Taylor: I wish to obey the rules of the House. I appeal to the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). The Minister of Customs made a speech in answer to my hon. friend from Grenville (Mr. Reid), on a motion to go into Committee of Ways and Means. The Minister of Customs wanted to add an appendix to my hon. frienjd's speech, and did add some 9 or 10 columns. Some person then called, ' order,' and the Speaker ruled that we had not got into committee-but the Minister of Customs had spoken about 10 columns, as I have said. I want to make a few references to that appendix that he added to the speech of the hon. member for Grenville. And now, you, Mr. Chairman-perhaps properly, but I do not think so, for I do not think that this is a past debate, but simply a continuation of the debate-rule me out of order. I have only a little more to say in reference to the Minister of Customs' appendix.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


George Taylor: That is the title he gave it. And I appeal to the Prime Minister if I should not be allowed to continue my speech.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend (Mr. Taylor, Leeds), has shown the mo-st earnest intentions, when, as he tells us, he wants to perform a surgical operation on my colleague, the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson), but I think he will not find it unfair if we follow the rules of the House. They were applied against Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER
i
the Minister of Customs, and I think it not unfair that they should be applied to the hon. member for Leeds. I think that under the circumstances he would be performing what is the duty of every member of the House if he sustains the Chair, except when he thinks the Chair is absolutely wrong.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the particular reason why the speech cannot be referred to?


Wilfrid Laurier: The decision has been given by the Chairman.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I have no objection to repeat.. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor), was quoting and discussing a speech made by the Minister of Customs on a previous occasion. This speech of the Minister of Customs was made on a motion to go into Committee of Ways and Means after an amendment by the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Perley), had been disposed of. After the minister had proceeded some distance-a considerable distance-and had discussed the figures quoted by the hon. member for Grenville, and was proceeding to discuss the matter that is now before this committee, I being in the Chair, called him to order and ruled him out of order, on the ground that he was then, on a motion to go into Committee of Ways and Means, discussing a matter that was already in possession of and before that committee. That ruling was not objected to. Now, while in committee on this resolution the hon. member for Leeds is quoting that speech. My judgment is that I must apply the same rule to him that I applied to the Minister of Customs, and rule that the speech of the Minister of Customs is not a portion of this debate, it having been ruled out of order as not having connection with the debate. For that reason, I think the hon. member for Leeds is not in order in quoting or referring to that speech.


Robert Laird Borden: There seems to be a little confusion, if I may be pardoned for saying so, between the two reasons assigned. It might be objected that the reference is to a past debate and, therefore, was out of order, but I have never known the rule as to a past debate to be carried to that extent in my experience. The debate was upon the very question which Are are now discussing in committee, and it is perfectly well known and understood that the various discussions upon different stages of a Bill are all one debate. An analogy might be drawn between such a case and this case in which, after the House has

resolved itself into Committee of Ways and Means, reference is sought to be made to the debate on the motion to go into Ways and Means. That is one point. The other point is absolutely distinct. It is involved in the circumstance that the minister himself was ruled out of order. I do not think that that is a good reason for not allowing a reference to the portion of the speech which was delivered before the minister was declared out of order. If the Minister of Customs was permitted to go on to the extent of twelve columns, of ' Hansard ' in making an argument in favour of these proposals, it would seem remarkable if that portion of his speech, which he did utter before any point of order was raised, and which could have been referred to had it been made in committee, cannot now be referred to because the hon. minister in the end was stopped. It would be a great advantage to an hon. member to go on to the extent of twelve columns of ' Hansard ' before being ruled out of order, and then have no one allowed to answer his argument. My hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) is simply making reference to the argument which the Minister of Customs used to the extent of twelve pages of ' Hansard ' before any question of order was raised. Surely it would be outside the ordinary bounds of fairness that twelve columns of ' Hansard ' should be employed by an hon. member of this House and no answer to that. argument permitted.


Wilfrid Laurier: In answer to my hon. friend, I think I can appeal to his sense of fairness that the ruling is perfectly fair. The question of course is a technical one, and very often technical rules are not easily intelligible, but they are the best that could be devised for the conduct of an assembly such as this. My hon. friend says, and his point has some force, that the Minister of Customs was allowed to proceed some twelve columns in ' Hansard ' before he was called to order, and that, if the ruling of the Chairman be held good, the opposition would then have no opportunity to answer. But the opposition might have taken the point of order immediately; and if they did not, the blame is not on the government or any body else, but only on themselves. Very often a speech which is out of order is allowed to proceed for some considerable length before it is challenged. That was the case here.


George Taylor: No, it was not challenged.


Wilfrid Laurier: It was challenged by Mr. Speaker himself. The opp<-sition made no objection, but they might have objected at the very start. The attention of hon. gentlemen opposite was not 261
called to it, but the Speaker noted the point and stopped the minister from going further. The result is the House cannot take that speech into consideration because it was out of order, and the minister was not allowed to complete it.


George Taylor: He was through practically when called to order, and had begun to flounder.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is the opinion of my hon. friend, and perhaps my hon. colleague might have the same opinion of his remarks.


Mr TAYLOR (Leeds).: I ask for a ruling on the point. I have been here twenty-nine years, and never knew of a case of this kind before. There have been many cases in which speeches were made on the motion to go into Supply or Ways and Means, anr references to these speeches have never been challenged. I ask the Chairman to show me the rule.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: It is a well known rule that a previous debate may not be referred to.


George Taylor: This was not a previous debate.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I have decided that it was and the hon. gentleman is at liberty to appeal from my ruling. In many cases the chairman will not interfere, but takes the spirit and feeling of the House. In the present instance I might possibly have accepted the feeling of the House, but for the fact that the remarks referred were declared out of order. The speech of the Minister of Customs having been stopped by the application of the rule, I feel I would be open to a charge of injustice if I did not apply the same rule in this case.


Mr. PORTER.: Is it not a fact that the remarks of the Minister of Customs remain in ' Hansard ' as part of the record, and part of the debate upon reciprocity? There is no rule I am aware of by which the remarks of hon. members upon any question may be expunged from the record. It stands there to-day as part of the record. Any body reading the record of the debate upon the question of reciprocity would be obliged to read that in connection with the other in order to have the whole debate. That being so, and there being no process by which it can be expunged from the record, does it not appeal to one as being only fair that so long as it remains there any hon. gentleman discussing that question at a subsequent date might be allowed to refer to what has taken place upon the question. Either the remarks of the Minister of Customs should be expunged or any hon. member should be



permitted to deal with those remarks when speaking upon the same question.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The application of the rules of the House will undoubtedly at times work unfairly to some members. The Minister of Customs might, I presume, object to some remarks I have already allowed and if I have been unjust with him any unjustness or unfairness will be a matter of regret to myself as well as to him. But I have felt called upon, as I have told the House, to apply this rule to the hon. member for Leeds, partly because it was the rule of the House and partly because I have ruled against the Ministei of Customs on that very subject in the manner I have stated.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) was trying to explain that the Minister of Customs made a statement that is of record on ' Hansard ' to the effect that I had those figures or statements in my possession when the House opened, and my hon. friend was proving that I had not those statements, nor had any hon. member of the House but that I had had them compiled in the Trade and Commerce Department. That being the case, there is no way of having that record on * Hansard ' made right, and so it seems to me that in all fairness we should be allowed to discuss the question in order to put it right. I appeal to the Minister of Customs and to the prime minister that the member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) ought to have an opportunity of explaining the matter fairly.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand the chairman's ruling to be that the hon. member cannot refer to a previous debate because that debate took place on another motion. Suppose the Minister of Finance delivered his budget speech on a motion to go into Supply. In doing so he might go over the same items that are included in this resolution. He would perhaps refer to the duty on natural products, wheat, rye, oats, etc., and on the conclusion of his speech these duties would become law. Then when we came to discuss the reciprocity pact, although the same subject would be under discussion, any hon. member quoting from the minister's remarks on the budget speech would be out of order according to the ruling of the Chair. In mv judgment he would not be out of order because he would be dealing with the same subject.


Robert Laird Borden: I desire to be understood as, with all respect, absolutely dissenting from the ruling which has been made. The ruling of His Honour the deputy Speaker would prevent any reference whatever to the speech with which the Mr. PORTER.
Minister of Finance introduced this proposal in parliament on the 26th of January. I think it only necessary to mention that to see, if I may use the words, to what absurd conclusions such a decision would bring the committee. The Minister of Finance introduced this whole question to parliament in a speech on going into committee of ways and means. If this ruling is a correct ruling, that a speech made by the Minister of Customs upon a subsequent motion for the same purpose cannot be referred to in committee, then in this committee we cannot refer to a single argument made by the Minister of Finance when he presented the subject to the House. If the rules of the House mean that, and I do not think they do, then the sooner we get some other interpretation put on them the better. I have never understood that the rule as to a previous debate went to anything like that length. *1 do not think, with all respect, that it does go to that length. Unless it does go to that length then the remarks of the Minister of Customs on that occasion when he was discussing, the very subject we are discussing now in this committee, may be properly referred to by my hon. friend from Leeds. These debates have gone on without any check from the Chairman over and over again, during the 'past two and a half months, upon motion to go into Committee of Ways and Means. I do not know how often they have been referred to in Committee of Ways and Means, but I would not be surprised to find that they have been referred to very often in committee, although they were made on the motion to go into committee. I can understand the logic of regarding all these debates as one debate because they are, after all, one debate; but I cannot understand the logic or principle of saying, for example, that the speech of the Minister of Finance, made upon the introduction of these proposals, cannot be referred to after you once get into committee nor a single argument in that speech answered after you get into that committee. That is the position into which we are likely to be driven if the ruling of His Honour the deputy Speaker is a correct ruling in this respect.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend knows as well as I do that in these matters when a decision is given by a chairman, or by a judge, it is very difficult to have unanimity of opinion among all those concerned. I am sure that my hon. friend, in the course of his career, has very often heard decisions rendered with the soundness of which he *was not satisfied. He says that this has been going on for two and a-half months unchecked. But on one

occasion it was checked. I was present when the Minister of Customs was called to order and I heard the ruling given by the Chair. I thought at the time that the ruling was, perhaps, questionable-I say that frankly in your presence, Mr. Chairman. But I bowed to the chairman's judgment, recognizing the very able manner in which he discharges his duties. I thought he ought not to have given that decision; but he gave it and I bowed to it, as did everybody on both sides of the House. My hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) knows that he has a thousand and one ways in which to challenge the figures of the Minister of Customs if he wishes to do so, but it so happens that the ruling of the Chair is against his referring to the matter on this occasion. And I should hope that, under such circumstances, the ruling of the Chair would be obeyed.


Robert Laird Borden: Does not the Prime Minister think that we are at liberty to refer to the speech of the Minister of Finance which was given before going into Committee of Ways and Means?


Wilfrid Laurier: The Minister of Customs was cut off and ruled out of order, and I think the same rule should apply to my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor, Leeds) who has the floor.


Robert Laird Borden: But I was asking the Prime Minister if we were precluded from referring to the speech with which the Minister of Finance introduced these proposals, that the speech not having been made in committee but on the motion to go into Committee of Ways and Means?


Wilfrid Laurier: The point taken by the chairman was that the matter had been referred to the Committee - of Ways and Means, and it was not open to discussion in the House on motion to go into Committee of Ways and Means.


George Taylor: I will try to take another opportunity to deal with the speech of the Minister of Customs, as the Prime Minister suggests. You, Mr. Speaker, having ruled, I will obey your ruling. I appealed to the Prime Minister to allow me to speak, but he has refused because he knew I was scoring his Minister of Customs pretty severely, and he took this opportunity to knock me out. However, I am Irish, and an Irishman may be knocked down, but he never stays down. We tried to get some information from the Minister of Customs, in fact I myself put questions on the Order Paper and moved for returns. But the Minister of Customs would not give us information. My hon. friend from North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) moved for a return and this House granted the order- 261}
a return showing the quantity and value of butter, eggs, poultry, chilled or frozen meat, bacon, lard, apples, vegetables, wheat, barley, cattle, horses and potatoes imported into Canada during the six months ending March 1, 1911, the countries from which the same were imported and the duty collected thereon. The minister brings that down as a return, but it does not show that there wag a pound of butter imported during the time covered by the order of the House. Yet the return that I asked for gives the import of butter for one month, the month of February, at figures 206,000 pounds. And this return of the Minister of Customs says at the bottom, ' chilled or frozen meats not separately provided for in the customs classification of imports.' That is the conduct of the Minister of Customs. I asked for information as to the cheese, butter and eggs imported into Canada during February. This return shows that 119,729 pounds of cheese were imported into Canada in February last. Eggs were imported to the extent of 719,000 dozen. I heard the Minister of Customs say not long ago, that the imports from all these countries would not affect the trade of Canada nor the farmers of Canada. I heard him say that there were 750,000 dozen of eggs imported, and if this were reduced to single eggs and these divided equally among the population it would mean 1} eggs for every man, woman and child in Canada. These are the Minister of Custom's statements. But what are the .facts? The figures I have before me show that 725,000 dozen of eggs were imported into Canada in February ar.d three cents a dozen duty paid on them. This was the importation for one month. Multiply that by the twelve months of the year and reduce it to single eggs, and you have 13} eggs on the average for every person in Canada, instead of 1} eggs, as stated by the Minister of Customs. The same applies to butter. According to the statement I heard him make, the importation was } oz. for each man, woman and child in Canada. But the return he has given me shows an importation of 206,000 pounds in February alone. Multipjy this by the twelve months of the year and reduce it to ounces, and you find that it gives an average of 9 ounces to every man, woman and child. Yet the minister says that the appendix which he had added to the statement of the hon. member


Some hon. MEMBERS: Ch, oh.


Mr TAYLOR (Leeds).: If I could have my whole speech added as an appendix to his I would send a copy to each of his constituents, for I would like to show the kind of statements he makes before parlia-
8:63

ment. Because I am surprised that they should send a gentleman here-and he is retained in the cabinet, too-vho makes statements that he knows are not in accordance with the facts-


William Paterson: May I ask a question?


George Taylor: No, Sir.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER

'makes a
statement which he knows is not in accordance with the facts,' is stronger than is allowed under the rules of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman does not say that he knew at the time, hut that he now knows, the statement to be incorrect.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: If the gentleman draws that distinction it will be in order.


George Taylor: I think it is in order, because I make a statement that is true, and I heard the minister make a contrary statement and which I know to he not in accordance with the facts. The same applies to butter.


Mr PATERSON.: I want to make one point, if the hon. gentleman will allow me.


George Taylor: No, sir, I claim my rights. The minister was asked a question from this side of the House by the hon. member from Quebec West (Mr. Price), and asked politely, and he replied, 'No, sit down.' Now the government have an agent over in New Zealand, and on page 394 of the weekly report of the Trade and Commerce Department, of March 27, here is what their agent reports from New Zealand:
In any event prices are not expected to go much lower, for should they do so the butter could he shipped to other markets such as Vaucouver and San Francisco. At the present time there is a keen demand for New Zealand butter at Vancouver, and good prices are offering.
The government had that information before them, and yet they say there is nothing coming into this country from New Zealand. If there is any man in whose statements I have confidence it is the man who is talking about his own business. Now the government have given their case up entirely in so far as this reciprocity pact is concerned, by an hon. member who is supporting them, the hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. Robb). Here is a comment by a newspaper on a speech of that hon. gentleman, a man who knows his own business, and he tells us how it will affect the farmers. I am surprised that any member from Ontario, after hearing this statement. and knowing how this bargain is 1 Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds)
going to injure the farmers of Ontario, will still persist in supporting it.



[Stage Direction]
Hon. J, A. Robb, Liberal, Huntingdon, Admits that Best Figure is Secured Now. Government Afraid to Leave Issue Alone. Ottawa, Ont., April 19.-(Special.)-Hon. J. A. Robb, the Liberal member from Huntingdon, Que., completely spoiled the case of the government to-day as regards the reciprocity agreement. He is a miller. He admitted that the Ontario farmers got better prices for their wheat than they will get under tho agreement. He said the farmers to-day refused to sell their grain at the world's market prices.	.
* Now,' said Mr. Robb, ' under the reciprocity agreement the millers would be able to go to Chicago and buy grain cheaper, m other words the Canadian farmers could stew in their own juice.
That is the comment of the newspapers on the statements of one of the government supporters. Now I will read the hon. gentleman's own words in the 'Hansard :
Under the proposed tariff changes, the United States miller will have the advantage in that he can import a certain percentage of our number one and two hard wheat, blend it with the softer United States varieties, mill it in the United States and market a 30 per cent or 40 per cent best patent at home, export the bakers, on clears, and the price received for his best flour at home will enable the United States miller to sell _ the lower grades for export at reduced prices. The Canadian miller, having a smaller home market, will be that much handicapped on the export trade.
Again he says:
My hon. friend comes from Ontario. He knows that the millers of Ontario have been at a considerable disadvantage in recent years because the farmers of Ontario refused to deliver their wheat at the market price; that is the market value of the world. The Ontario miller will be able to go into Michigan, Kansas, Missouri, Ohio, anywhere they grow wheat, and buy it at the market price.
There is an hon. gentleman who says that it will ruin the farmers of Ontario, yet the Minister of Customs wants to impose this pact upon them.
Mr. ROBB.: Did I say it would ruin the farmers of Ontario?


Mr TAYLOR (Leeds).: You said they could go to the United States and buy wheat cheaper at the world s prices than they could get it at home. I have been quoting from the hon. gentleman s speech in 'Hansard,' pages 7486 and 7487, the Unrevised Hansard.' My hon. friend no doubt has corrected it in the Revised 'Hansard,' because he was ashamed to let such a statement go out. I haye not got through with the surgical operation on the

Minister of Customs. He is my senior by a few months, and it is not very well for a boy to thrash an old man. But I felt it my duty in the present case to tell the facts that I knew. Now I want to take up the reciprocity question from another point of view. In my opinion we have arrived at the most critical time in the history of Canada since 1891. Then the right Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald appealed to the country and fought his last political battle, and his battle cry was 'Canada for the Canadians. A British subject I was born, and a British subject I will die.'


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


George Taylor: Yes, and there are a good many people who are not British subjects just now. The opposition was then led by Mr. Wilfrid Laurier, and what was his battle cry? It was not Canada for the Canadians,' it was unrestricted reciprocity or commercial union. The hon. Edward Blake, one of the loyal men of Canada, who had been leader of the Liberal party, gave way to Mr. Laurier, who led the party in the fight of 1891. But the hon. Edward Blake would not go into the fight with him, and he wrote a letter to his constituents declining to go into the fight, because he said the policy of the Liberal party would lead to annexation. In 1896 there was another battle fought. Sir John had passed away, and Sir Charles Tupper was leading the government. What was the battle cry in 1896? It was not commercial union, the battle cry of the Liberal party was 'Hands off Manitoba.' That was the only question fought out in 1896, and Mr. Laurier, the present Prime Minister, came into power on that question. How did he act after getting into power? Did he carry out the policy of 'Hands off?' Did he keep his hands off Saskatchewan and Alberta? No, he forced separate schools on Saskatchewan and Alberta, after opposing them being forced on Manitoba. What has been his policy ever since? I quote from the speech of the right hon. gentleman in which he told us what his ambition was:
I hold out to my fellow-countrymen the idea of independence, but whenever the day comes it must come by the consent of both countries, and we shall continue to keep the good feeling and good will of the mother land. If we are true to our record we will exhibit to the world the unique and unprecedented example of a nation achieving its independence by slow degrees, and as naturally, as the severing of the ripe fruit from the parent tree. Is there a Canadian anywhere who would not hail with joy the day when we would be deprived of the services of British diplomacy.
There is the gentleman who is to-day prime minister of this country and that is
the policy which he laid down then and he has never retracted. What has he ever done to strengthen the bonds that bind us to the British Empire? How did he act in the Boer war? Did he send men?-no, but he allowed England to send them, paid their expenses, and passed an order in council declaring that it would not be a precedent, that it must never happen again. What did he do to help England at the colonial conference of 1902? Did he assist England then? He made an arrangement shortly afterwards for England to hand over the fortifications at Halifax and Esquimau and to take her soldiers home. Was that strengthening the tie that binds us to the mother country? A number of years ago I took a trip to Victoria and while there I went out to Esquimalt. In a little cove I saw lying three or four of England's bulldogs-ships and armed men kept there simply to say to Russia, Japan and China: You may pass by on these waters but keep your hands off Canada. He drove those boats away, sent those soldiers back home and said:	We will take
care of ourselves, we are a nation now. The other day an English general reported that the docks at Halifax and Esquimalt were old junk shops. Next he started a Canadian navy without consulting the people. He must establish a Canadian navy and he will not allow Canada to assist England in time of trouble unless the parliament of Canada says so, and he is the parliament of Canada. Let me allude to what is said by one of his own newspapers, ' Le Progres de Valleyfield':


WHAT SIR WILFRID HAS DONE.
[Stage Direction]
'Le Progres de Valleyfield' (Liberal) thus outlines the triumphs of Sir Wilfrid Laurier:
He paralyzes the efforts of Chamberlain.
He has rendered abortive the intercolonial conference of 1902, designed to submit Canada to heavy military contributions to the empire.
He has not only taken the head of a powerful English general, but has furthermore chased him from the country.
He refers to Lord Dundonald.
He claims for Canada all the privileges of independent action, even to the point of menacing the colonial tie.
He has placed our militia under the command of a Canadian.
He removes him from the will of the English parliament.
He leaves to the decision of Canada's parliament the question of our soldiers fighting outside their country.
He claims for Canada the right of concluding her own treaties.
'Le Progres de Valleyfield' joins with the Toronto 'Globe' in condemning the advice that we 'Keep both hands on the Union Jaok.'
This is what his own papers are saying he has done. We are not saying it, but it
[Stage Direction]
is the statement of one of his own strong supporters and organs. He was the principal in making this bargain with the United States assisted by the Minister of Finance. I said before that I did not think the Minister of Customs counted because two are a majority and with the premier and the Minister of Finance what could we expect? What could we expect from a man who was responsible for this?
At the Quebec interprovincial conference, the following minute was inserted in the official record of the proceedings, at the instance of Messrs. Fielding and Longley, the Premier and Attorney General of Nova Scotia:
In view of recent movements in the province of Nova Scotia", the representatives of that province desire to place it on record that they participate in the determinations of this conference on the understanding that while they join the representatives of the sister provinces in seeking reforms in matters which are of common interest, they do so without prejudice to the right of the government legislation or people of Nova Seoti i to take any course that may in future be by them deemed desirable with a view to the separation of ithe province from the Dominion.
This is one of the gentlemen who went to Washington to make a bargain and bind Canada without allowing the people an opportunity to speak upon it. Then, the hon. Minister of Finance, speaking at Annapolis, said this:
I believe that the people of Nova Scotia are now even more in favour of separation from the Dominion than on the 15th June last.
The position with regard to a choice between Blake and McDonald was that ouit of ten issues he would favour Blake, but on the tenth issue he believed he was equally opposed to both. That tenth issue, that of repeal, transcends all others. In closing, he declared his belief that the people of Nova Scotia in every county would assist in throwing off the yoke of Toryism, and that there would he a grand victory in Nova Scotia for Liberalism and repeal.
Mr. WILSON (Lennox).: What date was that?


George Taylor: It was shortly after the Quebec conference. These are the gentlemen who have gone down there and to add respectability they took the Minister of Customs along knowing that they would over-rule the other and that he would have to agree to their conclusions, which he did. What does this bargain mean for Canada? It lets Canada, with its eight million of people, trade with 92,000,000 people in the United States, but it lets 92,000,000 people come in with the same products and trade with Canada. It also lets in thirteen other countries, besides the Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds).
British colonies, with many millions of trade and places them in competition with eight millions of people. Does it let Canada trade with any other country except the United States and England? Every one of these countries has a high tariff against Canada and we cannot send any of our products into those countries. They have a right to dump their stuff on the Canadian market but Canada cannot send over anything to them. The United States with its ninety-two millions would sell in Canada with its eight millions, twelve American farmers against one Canadian farmer, twelve American invaders against one Canadian defender. The following is a statement of the area and population of the twelve favoured nations:
12 FAVOURED NATIONS.
	Area in	
	Square	Population.
	Miles.	
The Argentine (1908).	. 1,117,059	6,484,023Austria-Hungary .. .	. 241,197	49,280,000Columbia	. 504,773	4,142,000Denmark (1909)	. 15,052	2,692,000Japan (1908)	. 147,476	52,340,220Norway	. 124,090	2,253,000Russia (1909)	. 8,379,044	157,044,700Spain (1909)	. 194.744	20,068,381Sweden (1909)	. 172,875	5,476,441Switzerland	. 15,417	3.555,000Venezuela	. 599,358	2,647,000Bolivia	. 650,000 say 2,000,000	12,161,085	307,982,765
Making 307,982,765 people that we are allowing to come in here with their produce and sell it to the Canadian people.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: On the same terms with the Americans?


George Taylor: On the same terms with the Americans, duty free, no duty on their grain or produce. It means a territory three times as large as Canada let in for nothing, a foreign population forty times the population of Canada furnished with free trade passes and every one of these living behind high protective walls. Take wheat alone. The following is a statement showing the production of wheat by nine favoured nations in 1908:


PRODUCTION OF WHEAT.
[Stage Direction]
Bushels.
Switzerland	 3,500,000
Denmark	  4,400,000
Norway	 5,000,000
Sweden	 7,000,000
Japan	 22,500,000
Spain	 120,000.000
Argentine	 193,000,000
Austria-Hungary	 230,000,000
Russia	 570,000,000
1,155,400,000
We could not get that information from the Minister of Customs or any member of the

government, but we are able to learn from our trade and navigation returns what were the exports of the products of the farm from Canada for the year ending 31st March, 1910, and they were as follows:
PRODUCTS OP CANADA EXPORTED FOR THE YEAR ENDING MARCH -	31, 1910.
Animals and their products.. ..$ 54,696,630
Fruits	 5,598,927
Grain	 68,404,421
Flour and meal	 16,044,228
Cereal foods	 1,690,296
Hay	 1,808,470
Hemp	 28,303
Hops	 28,035
Malt	 11,328
Maple sugar	 129,046
Syrup	 4,572
Nuts	 5,765
Clover	 844,327
Flax	 3,642,476
Grass	 78,729
All other	 38,851
Straw	 25,933
Tobacco leaf	 171,481
Trees, shrubs and plants	 32,92G
Vegetables	 1,550,094
Vines	 4,939
Other articles	 230,458
Total agricultural products exported from Canada, 1910	$102,347,694
Now, the United States exported for-the year 1909, $490,000,000 worth of the products of the farm, as follows:

[Stage Direction]
Animals	$ 47,000,000
H read stuffs	 216,000,000
Provisions, including meat products	 180,000,000
Fruits and nuts	 18,000,000
Hides, about	 1,000,000
Hops	 4,000,000
Vegetables,, about	 3,000,000
Tobacco, unmanufactured	 31,000,000
[Stage Direction]
Here we have the United States exporting $490,000,000 worth of farm products or four times the value of farm products of the same kind exported from Canada, and yet we are told it is a boon to get into the United States market. Now, the following tables give the exports of farm products from the Argentine, Austria-Hungary, Denmark, Sweden, Russia, Australia, New Zealand, all of which come into competition with us:

[Stage Direction]
Argentine exported in 1908-
Animals (living) to value of.. ..$ 4,120,000
Butter to value of	 1,380,000
Bran, about	 4,500,000
Wheat and wheat flour to value .. 165,000,000 Frozen and salted meats to value. 24,000,000
[Stage Direction]
In 1910 the Argentine exported not less than $200,000,000 or double Canadian farm exports, ($102,000,000).
Austria-Hungary exported in 1908-
Eggs and cheese, more than..* .. $10,000,000 Denmark exported-
Butter (usually $10,000,000) .. .. $ 7,000,000 Sweden exported-
Butter, about	$10,000,000
Russia exported-
Animals to the value of	$ 12,000,000
Butter to the value of	 24,000,000
Wheat, wheat flour and barley.. 200,000,000
Total	$236,000,000
Or 24 times the total exports of the Canadian farms.

[Stage Direction]
Australia-
Butter, cheese, eggs and lard,
about	
Meat, principally frozen, about.. New Zealand-
Meats, about	
Butter and cheese
[Stage Direction]
These two countries on four or five items alone, exported farm products equal one half total export of Canadian farms.
These are all countries that will compete with us. And yet, bon. gentlemen opposite, from the Prime Minister down, say, that these countries cannot export anything into Canada. Speaking on this question, the Prime Minister said:
Perhaps it is just as well now, since I am reviewing all the objections to this agreement, that I should take up another point which has been made against it and which has drawn many a tear from the eyes of son^e gentlemen sitting on the other side.
He has not a tear to shed for the poor farmers of this country when he is allowing all these countries into the home market to compete with their products.
I refer to the consequences of the agreement on what are known as the Most Favoured Nation Treaties. There are in existence certain old treaties between England and other countries in which it is provided that if England or any of her colonies should give a preference to any oountry in the world the same treatment shall be given to certain nations with which England has these old treaties. These treaties were in the past of so little consequence that we never troubled about them, but when in 1896 we found in our way the treaty with Germany and the treaty with Belgium we asked for the renunciation of these treaties. Similar treaties with other countries were not in our way, and, therefore, we did not trouble about them.
That is what the Prime Minister says. When the pact was entered into by the Minister of Customs and the Minister of﻿COMMONS
8271
Finance with the United States they thought they were dealing with the United States alone, and they never thought that all these other countries would be allowed into our markets on the same terms. They lost their heads, they did not dream of it. The Prime Minister goes on to say:
However, all of a sudden these treaties have assumed enormous magnitude in the eyes of some, and a few days ago heard a gentleman on the other side of the House say that we were practically opening our doors to the whole world. Well, the whole world is a big phrase, but let us examine in detail what it is composed of in this sense. The whole world in detail, so far as these treaties are concerned comprises Venezuela, Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, Russia, Japan, Denmark, Colombia, Bolivia (and who ever heard of any trade with Bolivia), Austria-Hungary and the Argentine Republic. Let us see what our trade is with these nations. All told last year we exported to Venezuela $14,000 worth and we actually imported from Venezuela $53,000 wo nth, a trade which would probably supply the next corner grocery.
Well, it would be a pretty big corner grocery that would dispose of all these things. Is not 101,000 pounds of cheese from Italy more than enough to supply a comer grocery? And all these other countries send in here cheese, butter, mutton, eggs, all of which the Canadian farmers raise. Here is the conclusion of the Prime Minister's speech:
The Argentine, however, is a wheat-growing country, and it exports wheat; but if ever the Argentine Republic sends wheat to Canada, there is no reason why Canada should not send wheat to the Argentine, so that objection is wholly exploded and may be dismissed without further reference.
Just think of the Prime Minister making a statement like that. Does he not know that while under this arrangement the wheat of the Argentine is admitted into Canada free, Canadian wheat has to pay a duty of 25 per cent before we can get it into the Argentine market. What nonsense it is for the Prime Minister to talk about our sending wheat into the Argentine and paying a duty of 25 per cent on it. Now, there did come in a great deal of farm products from these countries, to the Canadian market, and they paid a duty to get into our market, and after paying that duty they competed with onr farm products, and what will it be when these foreign products have to pay no duties under this trade agreement? On the 29th of March, I put a question to the Minister of Customs which was answered, and it shows what we may expect with increased imports of the same kind of goods from these countries if this treaty comes into force and they are admitted duty free. I quote from ' Hansard ' my question and the reply of the Minister of Customs:
George Taylor: IMPORTS OF BEEF, PORK, &c.
Mr.' TAYLOR (Leeds):
1.	How many barrels, boxes or packages of pork, beef, mutton, lamb and cheese have been imported into Canada during the months of October, November and December, 1910, and for the months of January and February, 1911?
2.	What was the weight and value thereof and the countries from which the same were imported?
3.	What was the number of pounds of butter and number of dozens of eggs, and the value thereof, and the countries imported from, for the month of February, 1911?


Mr. PATERSON:: 1.	The department has no record of the number of barrels, boxes or packages of pork, beef, &c., imported, the quantity in pounds, simply being shown.
2.	The quantity and value of pork, beef, mutton, lamb and cheese imported into Canada, by countries, during the months of October, November, December, January and February, was as follows:


BACON AND HAMS, SHOULDERS AND SIDES.
[Stage Direction]
Countries.	Lbs.	Value.
October, 1910-		
Great Britain
United States .. ..: .. 812,893	139,483
China	.. 271	15Hong Kong	.. 100	8November, 1910-	Great Britain	90


United States .. ..: .. 299,258	54,312
Belgium	.. 35	12Hong Kong	.. 455	23December, 1910-	Great Britain	. .. 74	18


United States .. ..: .. 234,408	39,716
New Zealand	. .. 20,304	2,894Hong Kong	.. 741	50January, 1911-


Great Britain .. ..: .. 56	13


United States .. ..: .. 223,392	34,240
Hong Kong 	. .. 515	28Japan	.. 62	4February, 1911-	United States	. .. 195,975	32,583Australia	.. 8,959	1,569Hong Kong.,	
23	2


BEEF, SALTED, IN BARRELS.
[Stage Direction]
Countries.	Lbs.	Value.
October, 1910-		
United States		247,361	$17,511
November, 1910-		
United States		271,468	18,933
December, 1910-		
United States	134,092	8,636Newfoundland 	1,255	151January, 1911-	Great Britain	7,902	702United States	92,944	6,255February, 1911-	United States	198,425	12,384MUTTON AND LAMB	, FRESH.	Countries.	Lbs.	Value.October, 1910-	United States	76,027	$ 7,046Australia	217,266	15,766November, 1910-	United States	33,760	3,251Australia	163,909	12,341
December, 1910-		
Countries.	Lbs. Value.	
United States..	
71,720 $	6,063Australia.. ..	
179,470	11,880January, 1911-	United States..	
54,665	5,027Australia.. ..	
157,927	10,371February, 1011-	United States..	
99,359	8,903Australia.. ..	
142,751	9,192PORK, BARRELLED, IN BRINE.	Countries.	Lbs. Value.	October, 1910-	Great Britain..	
2,568 $	304United States..	
1,121,100	114,523China	
66	4November, 1910-	United States..	
824,265	85,189Hong Kong.. ..	
1,858	131December, 1910-	United States..	
467,820	45,582Newfoundland	
2,916	322China	
291	25Hong Kong.. .	
3,499	246January, 1911-	Great Britain..	
45,000	5,919United States..	
852,135	83,072Hong Kong.. .	
302	19February, 1911-	United States..	
540,324	51,024Hong Kong.. .	
398	30OTHER	MEATS, FRESH.	October, 1910-	United States..	, 	
59,596	$7,774Australia.. ..	
6,480	146November, 1910-	United States.,	
27,019	4,028December, 1910-	United States.	
42,350	5,303Australia.. ..	
800	97January, 1911-[DOT]	United States.	
29,397	4.526Australia.. ..	
11,902	595February, 1911-	United States.	
37.080	5,008
Australia .. .: 506	60
OTHER	MEATS, SALTED.	
October, 1910 -		
United States.		 58,941	$8,191


Hong Kong ..: 
Switzerland .. .: 
William Paterson: How much does that amount to apiece?


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman can add it up himself.


William Paterson: I did.


George Taylor: Then you need not ask me. Let me give now the quantity and value of butter imported into Canada:
16,378
5,254
391
2,276
3,708
4.754 4,320
6.755 3,141
1,300
3,961
12,173
8,878
40
5,817
32
3,418
3,453
6,238
2,203
22,278
160
-	Countries.	Pounds.October, 1910....	Great Britain... United States...	201 5,496November, 1910.	Itaiy	
United States...	213 3,917December, 1910..	Australia	72,800New Zealand... United States...	19,600 5,563January, 1911...	Great Britain. .. Australia	
New Zealand,... Asia, Turkey in. lUnited States...	19,333 101,920 115,800 142 2,132
Value.
$
1,707
1,161
17,219
4,815
1,453
4,776
23,957
30,175
640

Then take the quantity and value of eggs imported into Canada during the same period:
October, 1910.... November, 1910.
December, 1910..
January, 1911..
Countries.
Hong Kong	
China	
United States...
Hong Kong	
China	
Germany	
United States... Great Britain...
Hong Kong	
China	
Germany	
United States... Great Britain... Hong Kong. ...
China	
Germany	
United States...
Dozens.	Value.
	$
2,855	121
1,075	53
14,056	4,994
4,290	273
1,930	114
24,000	3,942
26,440	8,159
12,000	2,117
10,966	977
10,450	2,118
12,000	1,971
41,930	11,922
40	11
14,704	219
10,485	2,364
2,000	1,971
165,026	36,622
_ ,,	Lbs.. Value.
Butter-
Great Britain	
2,800	$	689Australia	
15,008	3,000New Zealand	
181,826	41,813United States	6,838	1,707Totals	
206,472	$47,209
Eggs-
Hong Kong	 4,250	$	193


Chinese Empire .. ..: 11,138	1,673
United States	719,315	131,341Total	
734,703	$133,207
These paid a duty of 3 cents per dozen and yet competed with the product of our Canadian farms in the Canadian market. Now, we are asked to allow these in free of duty. Eggs can be produced down south in summer and winter, whereas our farmer can only raise them six months in the year. What chance then has our farmer against this American competition? He will have to go out of the business. I know that the Minister of Customs must have voted against this but was overruled by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Customs would never have consented to that bargain in the interests of the farmers but he was overruled.


William Paterson: Do - you believe that?


George Taylor: I certainly do, because I have more confidence in -the Minister of Customs, than to think he would be a party to it. But he was overruled by his colleagues and his voice did not prevail, even loud as it is. I would like to refer the right hoir. the Prime Minister to the Argentine tariff. If we sent any wheat over there, that wheat would be charged Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds).
a duty of 25 per cent. I refer the right hon. gntleman to the year-book of 1910, in which he will find my statement corroborated. In 1910 Canada exported:
Animals and their products.... $ 54,696,130 Agricultural products	 102,347,694
Total	 $157,044,224
Canada, with all its production, consumes 80 per cent of that production within its own borders. In 1908 the United States exported:
Animals and their products.. .. $191,016,582 Agricultural products	 216,494,100
Total	 $407,510,682
Or $250,000,000 more than Canada exported. The Argentine Republic exported wheat and flour to the value of $129,286,786. Denmark exported butter, eggs, and dressed meats to the extent of $87,150,000. New Zealand exported meats, butter and cheese to the value of $25,029,889. Australia exported bread stuffs and animal products, $43,895,226. France exported animals, butter, cheese, eggs and potatoes, $35,779,246. All of these will in the future, under this pact, be admitted free into our country, but if we ship any to these countries, our shipments will he charged a duty. Denmark charges a duty on butter of $4.86 per 100 pounds; on cheese, $2.43 per 100 pounds; and so on. Austria-Hungary charges a duty on butter of $2.21 per 100 pounds; on cheese, $5.52 per 100 pounds. New Zealand charges a duty of 20 per cent on butter, cheese and eggs.
This is a gold brick surely, to the farmers of Canada to allow these articles to come -in free and compete with ours. What provision did the Minister of Customs make for oleomargarine. A friend of mine was in the states the other day, and there a merchant told him that this time last year he sold 50 tubs of butter to the 12 he sells now and is selling 100 tubs of oleomargarine and only 12 of butter. I believe that oleomargarine is coming in to-day as butter .into our market.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


George Taylor: How does the hon. minister know? I am satisfied that we are eating oleomargarine for butter on this side of the line. I am satisfied that only the other day I ate oleomargarine for butter in this city. The minister shakes his head and says, no, but that is like his other statements, he does not know, he cannot know. I know that butter is being imported, and can be imported, after paying the duty, at a profit as compared with our own butter, and it may be oleomargarine for all the Customs Department knows. The government, and their supporters, are

trying to make believe that this is a boon for the farmers of this country, and they are running down the manufacturers. The manufacturers and farmers of this country must go hand in hand. What are our manufacturers doing? What are the populations of Toronto, Montreal, Hamilton, Winnipeg? Over one-eighth the entire population of the country, and who is feeding them but the farmers? Are they not to be taken into account? I have a number of extracts which I intended putting on ' Hansard ' but shall refrain from doing so. However, there appeared a letter in the press yesterday that to my mind is unanswerable. It is from a gentleman whom the people of Canada respect and love. I refer to a letter written by Sir Charles Tupper, from Bexley Heath, near London, where he is now residing. Sir Charles Tupper sends the following letter to the hon. the Minister of Finance in reply to attacks made upon the writer by the minister:
To the Hon. Mr. Fielding:
Sir,-Now nearly ninety years of age, I had hoped that I was done with political controversy,-
So he ought to have been, he ought to have been let alone by any member of this government or this House; the people of this country will resent an attack upon a gentleman who has attained the ripe old age of 90 years.
-but as you found it easier to misrepresent and disparage a man three thousand miles away than to reply to the unanswerable speech of Mr. Sifton-your former colleague -I am compelled to notice some of your remarks at Montreal on March 27.
I cannot accuse you of want of courage in challenging the statement that you had 'advanced or advocated annexation to the United States, and that that statement was without the shadow or the ghost of a shadow of foundation in truth.
When I was fighting the battle for confederation you were in the employ of Mr. William Annand on the Halifax 'Morning Chronicle,' denouncing Canada and holding [DOT] it up to public execration.
In 18C8, when Joseph Howe, after exhausting in vain every means to defeat confederation, decided to abandon hostility and make the best of it, Mr. Annand proposed to apply to the United States. Mr. Howe rejected his proposal with scorn, but you remained with Mr. Annand and supported those who hounded Howe to his death, and drove him into an untimely grave.
You 6ay that yon represent Nova Soobia, but you forget that in the election of 1872 the opponents of confederation were unable to elect a single member to oppose the government, of which Mr. Howe and I were members, and that when in 1886 you carried the province in a desperate attempt to break up the union, I went ont to Canada the following year and cured you of your folly by obtaining the support of 16 out of 21 members for the government of Sir John A. Macdonald. So much for your loyalty.
You say: 'Sir Charles Tupper in 1888 went to Washington bo seek reciprocity. I find at that time so anxious was Sir Charles Tupper for reciprocity that he offered to give the Americans, in addition to their ordinary exchanges of trade, free access bo the fishing privileges of Canada. We give an arrangement which gives everything that Sir Charles Tupper wanted, but we have not given the fisheries of the Dominion of Canada. We have maintained the rights of the people of Canada as owners of the fishing grounds, and the Americans must have a license when they come in, and not have free rights to fish in the waters of Canada.'
These are the depreciatory terms in which you refer to the great services rendered to Canada by Mr. Chamberlain and myself as plenipotentiaries of Her Majesty in 1887-8.
At that time it is well known that the press of the United States, both Republican and Democratic, were denouncing Canada for the alleged brutal treatment of American fishermen in Canadian waters, and, as they said, in violation of the treaty of 1818.
We obtained a treaty which was sent to the Senate by President Cleveland with the declaration that it was a fair and just settlement, and he urged its adoption.
That treaty provided that when American fishermen were allowed to purchase fishing supplies and enjoy transhipment of catch and shipment of crews in Canadian ports, Canadians should be allowed to sell their cargoes of fish in the United States free of any duty.
It also settled the contention as to bays on the terms contended for by Canada. It was accompanied by a modus vivendi providing for a license to American vessels pending the adoption of the treaty, to enjoy these commercial privileges upon payment of $1.50 per ton, and neither under the treaty or the modus vivendi could a fish be caught in Canadian waters by Americans, as Mr. Chamberlain and I refused the urgent appeal for that privilege by the Amerioan plenipotentiaries.
The treaty was carried in the Canadian parliament by a unanimous vote, and the modus vivendi has been continuously re-enacted down to the present day.
Why did not the government repeal it if it is a bad thing, why not amend it or repeal it?
President Cleveland was not_ re-elected, but Mr. Harrison, who defeated him, said in his inaugural address that under the modus vivendi given by Canada all irritation had been removed between the two countries.
If you wish to learn the value of the treaty of 1888, read the handsome reference to it by your colleague, Sir- Allen Aylesworth, in the House of Commons, where he stated that our settlement of the bays question had been adopted and made permanent by The Hague arbitration.
The Minister of Finance denounces it, and the Minister of Justice commends it.
You say that Sir John A. Macdonald was in favour of reciprocity in 1891, but you do not explain that, he was fighting a desperate battle to prevent Laurier and Cartwright, who were co-operating with Wiman and Far-

rer-avowed annexationists-from carrying unrestricted reciprocity with the United States, which involved Canada taking the tariff made at Washington with its discrimination against Great Britain.
Have you forgotten that the Hon. Edward Blake left his party on the ground that that policy would end in annexation to the United States.
It appears they have.
Which at that important crisis you supported? The policy for which Laurier and Cartwright and Wiman and Farrer were struggling.
It is true that in that struggle, which cost Sir John A. Macdonald his life, in maintaining British institutions for Canada, we succeeded. But before that election Mr. Laurier made the following solemn declaration:
I have read the history of unrestricted reciprocity in this way-that every reform has cost to the reformer years of labour, and those years of labour X, for one, am ready to give, though the Democrats may be defeated in the States, and though Canadians may grow faint-hearted in Canada, the Liberal party as long as I have anything to do with it, will remain true to the cause until that cause is successful.
He thinks he has gained the point now because he sends the Finance Minister who is like himself, and the Minister of Customs who does not carry weight, to consummate the bargain which he said he would live to carry into effect. The people of this country will .let him know, on the contrary, that he has not gained it,.
I will not expect to win in a day, but I am prepared to remain in the cool shade of opposition until the oause has triumphed, and you shall never hear a complaint from me. I tell you the Liberal party will never cease for the agitation until they triumph and obtain continental free trade. We are asked, sometimes, gentlemen, what is the programme of the Liberal party. This is the programme of the Liberal party: To obtain a continental freedom of trade. Success will certainly crown onr efforts at no distant day. Fixing our eye steadily on the goal we shall go on steadily until we reach it-unrestricted continental reciprocity.
This declaration was made at the Young Men's Liberal Club, Toronto, September, 1889.
He has not changed his policy since he made that declaration, he is standing by it in any way he can get there, but he intends to get there.
I regret that I must now charge you with a wilful misstatement.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Do I understand that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor, Leeds) is quoting from a letter written by Sir Charles Tupper? No letter written by a person outside this House referring to or reflecting on the action of a member or on a speech made in this House may be read Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds)
in the House The hon. gentleman will not be at liberty to read a letter written by some one outside the House reflecting on proceedings in the House or on any member of the House.


George Taylor: This is a letter written by Sir Charles Tupper a few days ago.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I will hear what the hon. gentleman has to say.


George Taylor: written by Sir
Charles Tupper, a copy of which the Finance Minister has in his possession, and I am quoting that speech verbatim, and I think I have a perfect right to read, because it is repeating history.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman says he is quoting the speech. Does he not mean that he is quoting the letter?


George Taylor: Yes, quoting the letter.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I will read the rule on the subject:
Nor is it in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or other communications, whether printed or written, emanating from persons outside the House, and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member, or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the House.
The expressions used in the letter appear to come within this rule.


George Taylor: In what way?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The expressions, as I heard them, charged a wilful misstatement against a member of the House. That would be out of order not only under this rule but if applied by one hon. member to another.


George Taylor: This was not a
speech made by <a member of this House, but a speech made by a person in Toronto.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The letter emanates from a person outside the House. If it reflects upon a member of this House or upon proceedings in this House, it may not be read.


George Taylor: It does not reflect upon proceedings that have taken place in this House.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I have not been following the letter closely, but it appeared to me that it did so. If I find-well, I think I should ask the hon. gentleman in accordance with the precedents set, to allow me to see the letter before he proceeds to read it.


George Taylor: Certainly.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The passage I heard a moment ago appears to be a por-

tion of a letter written by Sir Charles Tup-per and addressed to the hon. the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). He says:
I regret-
No, I think that in justice to all concerned I should not read it for the very reason for which I am stopping the hon. member (Mr Taylor, Leeds). I find in it a reference and a charge that would not be allowed in this House by one member to another, and it cannot be in order when quoted from some one outside the House.


George Taylor: I bow to your ruling. We will have it printed as an addendum to my speech, so that the whole letter will go to the constituents of the hon. minister. I have a number of other letters; but I have already occupied about two hours, including interruptions, and my hon. friend from Souris (Mr. Schaffner) has to deliver himsalf to-night, and I will make way for him.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: What was the monstrosity of legislation? It was the British North America Act, that was a monstrosity of legislation in the eyes of the hon. the Minister of Finance:

the British North America Act, and
let it be said to-day that you have championed the cause of political freedom, that you have thrown off the Canadian monster and emancipated yourselves and your beloved province from the thraldom, the servitude and the bondage of the Canadian union.
Mr. Fielding also headed a secesssionist movement, and in 1886 championed a resolution which had for its object the disruption of confederation. In speaking of that resolution he declared that the maritime provinces had everything to gain by separation from the

remainder of Canada that his honest conviction was that confederation had not been satisfactory and that it was the duty of the eastern provinces to place themselves on record and then let the people decide and stand or fall on that issue, i.e., disunion.
Now, Sir, is it strange that I am ,unable to support an agreement introduced by that bon. gentleman? I may be wrong. Hon. gentlemen on the other side possibly may be right, or they may be wrong, and I may be wrong. But I believe that since confederation no proposition has been introduced into this parliament that will do more to disrupt confederation than the very pact we are called upon to support to-day. I represent a constituency of which I am proud, which extends some 110 miles along the American border, and if there is any constituency in Canada that might benefit to some extent from this .agreement, perhaps it is mine. I want to say right here that this government has been derelict in its duty in neglecting to give the people proper information. Had our government taken the pains to obtain proper statistics, had they devoted the energy and the capital that the people of the United States have in procuring information, there would not have been so many long speeches as we have found it necessary to make. On visiting my home the other day I found the people exceedingly eager for information upon this question. They asked what I could refer them to, and 1 told them that the only information I could give them was obtained from American sources, that our government had absolutely no information that would enable the people of Canada to come to an intelligent conclusion on this question.
I wish now to refer briefly to the great National Policy introduced by Sir John A. Macdonald in 1879. I do not care to take up your time in stating what was said on that great question by hon. gentlemen opposite, by the present Prime Minister of this country, by the Minister of Finance, and many others. You know very well, Mr. Chairman, that Sir Wilfrid Laurier and all his followers at that time did their utmost to discredit the great policy of that great man. They were not successful. Sir John A. Macdonald carried the country, and introduced this great National Policy, a policy that has gone on to this day. Though the present hon. gentlemen when they were in opposition condemned the policy of protection, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, speaking in Winnipeg, condemned it as a policy of robbery; nevertheless, after these gentlemen came into power in 1896, they adopted that policy of robbery. The question has been asked many times how it was, if they were so opposed to the policy of protection, and so enamoured of the policy of free trade when in opposition, that


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: they still retained the friendship and support of the manufacturing interests. Well, it has been said, and I think very few people will deny it, that the present Prime Minister had a secret compact with the manufacturers of this country. We find him sending a telegram to Toronto saying:
' Who ever else may be hurt, the manufacturers of this country will not be.' We found our friends opposite everywhere opposing this great National Policy.
Now, we come to the building of the first great transcontinental railway. Where did we find our friends opposite on that great question? Did we find them trying to assist in carrying forward that great undertaking? Why, Sir, people -talk about the Grand Trunk Pacific being a great undertaking, and so it is, but it does not compare in importance with the Canadian Pacific railway. When that great railway was undertaken there were only 12,000 people west of Winnipeg, and our friends opposite said. Why spend so much money, why tax this country to such an extent to build a railway to British Columbia with only 12,000 people? It is not worth the money. What was the road built for? It was built to cement together the widely extended portions of this great Dominion, it was the child of the Conservative party principally, helped I am glad to say by some of the better Liberals in this country.
I omitted to explain to the House how the disruption of this confederation was prevented. When Mr. Fielding had carried Nova Scotia in the local election, what occurred then? Sir Charles Tupper, a bigger man than Mr. Fielding, and a more patriotic man, carried the Dominion elections in the province of Nova Scotia he gained 16 members out of 21, and that is what preserved this confederation from disruption. I believe that this present reciprocity arrangement with the United States will also tend to the disruption of the Dominion. The building of the first great transcontinental railway, and the events of 1891, when our friends. opposite expended all their energy to switch the Canadian people from the great ideal of building up a country of our own, independent of our goods friends to the south of us. Sir. great as these people to the south may be. they are not of our household. They are a foreign nation, and Sir, it is as true of nations as of men that they grow strong, vigorous, and influential by dependence upon themselves, rather than by reliance upon others.
I ask you what would have been the result, if in 1891, the policy of commercial union had been sustained by this country.
I do not need to refer you, Sir, and the members of this House, to what Canada was in 1891, or to what progress has been made since 1891, but I will ask you if we would have been as great a country to-day

if we had linked ourselves up with that great nation rather than depend upon ourselves to build ourselves up through our industries and energies. I certainly believe we would not have been. Because information has not been given to this House it becomes necessary for me to spend some time placing statistics before the House, and before my constituents. I cannot understand two intelligent men, ministers of the Crown, not young men, but men of experience going over to Washington with the meagre amount of information that they seemed to have had. True, when they got there, a hurried message was sent for the Commissioner of Customs, but these hon. gentlemen had devoted no time or expense to collecting facts in order to place themselves in the same position as the foreign nation with which they were negotiating as to information. No hon. gentleman can deny that the information we have to-day in order that we may discuss this important subject comes from Washington and not from our own government. I say it is humiliating; I go further, and I say it is a shame, and a disgrace that our government should have pursued such a course, and Sir, I say, however bold faced the ministers may be, down in their hearts they feel humiliated. Time and again have been asked for information, and they have had, by their acts at least, to confess that they have no information. But, I would remind you we have been able to secure data which condemns from first to last the pact made by these gentlemen so far at least as this country is concerned. I want the people whom I have the honour to represent to know that their government, not having any information, endeavoured to oppose and obstruct the putting of that information upon the records by members on this side of the House unless they went through the formal process of reading statements to the House and reading them for hours after eleven o'clock at night.


Mr. KNOWLES.: I understand the hon. gentleman is making his speech for the benefit of his constituents. I wish to ask: Does he want the House to understand that he is representing his constituents as being opposed, generally speaking, to this reciprocity agreement?	.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I look after my constituency, and I will be back here, as the member for the constituency, to oppose this compact, and everything in connection with it. The government has given, no comparative information, and whatever information has gone out to the people has gone out as a result of the energy of the hon. members on this side of the House. Then, I ask you: Is it not a logical conclusion that, the government having no information, and having supplied no information to the people, it becomes necessary, in the shortest form possible, to read the comparative prices that have been given by other members in the House that our constituents may have at least some opportunity of acquainting themselves with what they are to gain or lose by this agreement. We do not find other countries attempting these great revisions of their tariffs with so little preparation. I have already stated what the Americans have done. We find that Germany, in the last revision of the tariff, employed 20,000 experts to obtain all the information that it was possible to get. We find that the Americans have the comparative prices as regards products, and the increase of values, and that they have almost every minute detail in connection with this question not only on their own side of the line, but on this side of the line from Nova Scotia to Victoria.


Mr. SINCLAIR.: Will the hon. gentleman say that it will be necessary to employ experts on agricultural implements from 17i per cent to 15 per cent?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I will answer the hon. gentleman's question in this way. Does he consider one item of reduction in our tariff which we should control ourselves in our own country is of as much importance as going to a foreign country dealing with that foreign country, and allowing that foreign country to make and unmake our tariff?


John Howard Sinclair: I understand this is a reduction of our own tariff and not of the tariff of a foreign country.


Haughton Lennox: As long as you understand, it is all right.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: But, Sir, in face of all this we find these two gentlemen going to Washington without an exact knowledge, and that they were wined and dined until they sat down to make the bargain with men primed with all the necessary facts. Had our representatives the comparative information that thev should have had if they had done their duty, because, Sir, this whole question relates to markets and prices, they would have hesitated before entering into such a pact as they did. I referred a moment ago to the events of 1891 when we went through an election in connection with commercial union. Fortunately, commercial union did not survive any more than free trade as they have it in England, or unrestricted reciprocity. These have all been illegitimate children of our hon. friends opposite, but every one was strangled in its infancy, just as this will be. They will all meet the same fate, thank Providence, and this country will go on and be just as prosperous in the future as it has been in the past. I think

that we on this side of the House are just as pleased as hon. members on the other side to know that we live in a country that is prosperous. The fact that commercial union failed to be placed on the statute-books of Canada in 1891 I claim as one of the reasons why Canada has been so prosperous, and why Canada to-day occupies a position in the minds of all the nations of the world of which we are so proud. I believe it is largely because we refused to accept commercial union, depended upon ourselves, and therefore became strong and vigorous.	,
The Prime Minister tried to make light of the expression: Let well enough alone, and he had his joke about China, but after all if we are getting along well it is not a very bad idea to be content with our lot rather than take dangerous chances, and on the whole it is often not unwise to let well enough alone. Sir, I do not say, in the sense in which it was intended, Let well enough alone,' but I do say, in our advancement, in our progressiveness, let us be Conservative enough to cling to Canadian methods and [British institutions. Let us, Sir, keep ourselves free from all entanglements with our friends to the south, so far as the making of tariffs is concerned. Do not let us ever have again to say to a delegation like the fruit growers ' You are too late.'
Now, Mr. Chairman, we had three very interesting delegations here during the present session, and first of all came the farmers from the three prairie provinces. That delegation asked for many things which I am proud to say that since I have been a member of this House I have advocated to the best of my ability. Amongst these things which they asked for and which I have advocated, were terminal elevators, the reduction of the tariff on agricultural implements, the chilled meat industry, and government ownership and operation of the Hudson Day Railway. Let me say that when I was home last I attended quite a large meeting of farmers and others and I was surprised to find that while there were three grain growers associations represented at tnat meeting, not one of these associations had ever said a word about reciprocity with the United States to the delegates they sent down to Ottawa. I understand, that after these gentlemen arrived in Ottawa one of the leading members connected with the 'Grain Grower Guide ' had a consultation with the Prime Minister and it was then that it was decided to add reciprocity to their demands. I assure you Mr. Chairman, that reciprocity has never been talked in that western country.


Mr. SHARPE (Lisgar).: We don't want it.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: 


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: We don't want it and we are not going to have it. I say, Mr. Chairman, that when the third of these delegations came here, fifteen hundred fruit growers pleading on the floor of this House for justice, it was humiliating to hear the Prime Minister say that because of this reciprocity agreement he was powerless to help them. They represented that it was unfair that protection should be taken off what they produced while everything they utilized in the culture of fruit had to pay a high duty and yet the Prime Minister had to tell them they were too late. I say, Sir, that if we have grievances, and we have grievances, if our transportation rates are too high, if one class of the community is overburdened because of special privileges to another class let us not shrink the responsibility of applying a remedy, and finding a solution, within ourselves without looking to a foreign nation for help. I say, Sir, that the time for this reciprocity pact was very inopportune, and what in brief is the story that leads up to it? Everybody knows that a few years ago when the presidential election was on in the United States, promises were made that if Mr. Taft were elected there would be a. revision of the tariff downwards. President Taft was elected, but there was no revision of the tariff downwards. Then, in the United States elections of last year a majority of Democrats were returned to Congress, and President Taft seeing trouble ahead, he began to shape his course towards satisfying those who clamoured for a reduced tariff. The Prime Minister of Canada took a trip west last year accompanied by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) and, following the usual custom it was expected that when the Prime Minister visited portions of the community, addresses would be presented, and flattering tributes paid to the head of the government, and everything pass off lovely, but on this occasion things were not quite so smooth. In fact, there had been so much disturbance that the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) had to chastise some of the audience because of the manner in which they were criticising the record of the Prime Minister. They, found there was something doing in the west. He had been for fifteen years prime minister, he had promised the western farmers time and again that the tariff would be reduced and he had broken every promise that he had made in this respect, probably because of the secret contract that had been made with the manufacturers in 1896. He looked around to find some way in which to satisfy the farmers of the west, and he was quick to accept the invitation of President Taft, and they consulted together and brought forth this reciprocity agreement.

I want to say a word or two, because the question is very much debated now, as to whether reciprocity has been the policy of the two parties for many years past, as the Liberals allege. The right hon. the Prime Minister claims that it has always been the policy of his party but it is very well known that some time ago he declared we had bid good-bye to reciprocity. It is also well known that in the general elections of 1900, 1904 and 1908 we heard nothing whatever about reciprocity, unless it were from my hon. friend (Mr. Turriff) who last night told us that he had discussed the question during his campaign. I think my hon. friend must have been very lonely for I do^ not know of any one else who had anything to say about reciprocity.
I would like to refer to this question as it applies to my own constituency, which is perhaps a fair sample of the agricultural constituencies of the west. We do not grow in that country many of the natural products produced in Ontario or British Columbia, but rely principally upon wheat, barley, horses, hogs and cattle. Let me for a few moments take up the question of wheat, which is perhaps what we depend on in my constituency more largely than any otheT of the natural products. If my people were to be largely benefited by this proposed pact, I think it would be my duty to support it, although I take this stand, that while a member of this -House represents but one constituency in particular, he also represents the whole of Canada, and should endeavour to educate his constituency to the point of being willing to do that which is in the best interests of the whole country. That is the aim I set up for myself, but whether I am able to reach that standard, it is not for me to judge. As wheat is concerned, the United States grows a great deal more today than they can eat. They can only consume a certain quantity, and if they grow 127,000,000 bushels more than that, they must export it. Therefore, I do not see what advantage it is going to toe to our farmers to be given free entry for their wheat to the United States. The price of wheat all admit is fixed by the Liverpool market. In fact that has been admitted by two Liberal members, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Molloy), and the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). The hon. member for South Wellington said:
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 b.e a reason, and there may be an increased price, but I am not able exactly to find out how it will come about.
My hon. friend from Provencher (Mr. Molloy), said:
I do not pretend it will increase the price of wheat to the Canadian producer but I say it will maintain the present price.
Therefore, it seems to be generally admitted in this House that we are only to maintain the present price, and I do not see any great reason why I should be found supporting this pact, because of any benefit it will give us in the marketing of our wheat. If it is only to maintain the present price. But I want something better than maintaining the price. I want, as the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Sharpe), said last night, a better price,1 and a better price we will never obtain if we tie ourselves to our friends in the south and allow them to handle our wheat instead of handling it ourselves along British channels and through our own channels in this country. Take the delegation which was here last December, one half and more of its time was spent in presenting to the government the needs and desires of the west, regarding terminal elevators. Why do the people out west want terminal elevators? They want them in order to maintain the identity of their wheat and have it reach the market of Liverpool in the same condition as that in which it leaves the farmers. We grow the best wheat in the world. I think the Minister of Agriculture took a little exception to that last night, and thought that perhaps Quebec did, but he had not seen enough of our wheat in the west. Well, we want to protect the identity of that wheat. The miller in Liverpool will pay for his grain what it is worth to him for milling purposes, and if our wheat does not reach the European market in the same condition as that in which it leaves the farmers here, that will have a bad effect upon the price, and our farmers will receive less profit. But how are you going to maintain the identity of our wheat if it goes south? It will then be absolutely impossible for us to do so. I would like to read some of the things that were said in that connection, at the meeting of that delegation :
The value of our wheat depends on its milling qualities, but it depends on its qualities not as it is inspected at Winnipeg, but on its qualities as it is placed on the British, or the ultimate market wherever they may be. And, if, as has been proved, each grade of our wheat is brought down to the lowest point by the mixing of wheat from lower grades, (and we believe it is often brought below it, that is, it is allowed to pass out of the terminal elevators with the minimum point of each grade lower than it would be allowed to pass the inspector at Winnipeg), if this is so, it will be readily understood that the value and the reputation of our wheat on the Brit-



ish market is regraded also, and as the British miller can only afford to pay for wheat according to its milling value, the price is reduced, and being reported back to us, becomes the basis of our market here, and we have to accept a price based on the lowest point of each grade, instead of on the average as it should be, which means a difference of about two cents per bushel.
It has been said that the United States will soon furnish a market for our wheat. Mr. J. J. Hill has been leading us to believe for several years that the wheat production of the United States was growing less and its population increasing, and that consequently we would have in that country a market for our wheat. But this set of statistics, which I am about to read, does not corroborate that. Their production for the last ten years was as follows:


UNITED STATES WHEAT PRODUCTION.
[Stage Direction]
Year.	Bushels.
1901		 522,229,505
1902		 749,460,218
1903		 670,063,008
1904		 637,821,835
1905		 552,399,517
1906		 692,979,489
1907		 735,260,970
1908		 634,087,000
1909		 664,602,000
1910		 737,199,000
They are producing more wheat every year. They export about 127,000,000 bushels of wheat. But what could they do? I find that only about 50 per cent of the tillable land of the United States is cultivated and under wheat. I find further that the United States is only producing about 13 bushels of wheat to the acre, while Great Britain is producing 33 bushels. If you work that out you will find that the United States with a proper system of farming by tilling their land, by intensive farming will be able to export not 127,000,000 bush-eis but over 700,000,000 bushels. That does not look very much as if the United States would soon have to be an importer of wheat for their own consumption. The increase in production in the United States in the 10 years has been 214,000,000 bushels of wheat.
The supporters of this pact make use of the cry that they are opening up a market of 90,000,000 people to our producers. What is the use of a market of 90,000,000 if that
90.000.	000 produce everything you produce in very much larger quantities? If these
90.000.	000 did not produce sufficient quantities of wheat, butter, hogs, oats, cheese, for their own consumption then certainly you would be opening a market, but when, as is absolutely undeniable, the
90.000.	000 have a surplus for export of every one of these products, it is at once seen that the market is of comparatively little value. Many people have been led away by this
Frederick Laurence Schaffner: 
AATKS OF DUTY ON CANADIAN
[Stage Direction]
4USTEALIA °N IMP0RTATI0N ™TO
n ^	anA tafiff rates of duty.
Cattle, $2.43 per head.
Swine, $1.22 per head.
2624	v
Sheep, 48-6 cents per head.
Wheat, 36-6 cents per 100 pounds. Barley, 48-6 cents per 100 pounds. Beans, 36 -5 cents per 100 pounds Potatoes, 21-7 cents per 100 pounds. Butter, 6 cents per pound.
Cheese, 6 cents per pound.
Eggs, 12 cents per dozen.
Hay, $4.34 per ton.

[Stage Direction]
Cattle, $2.43 each.
Swine and sheep, free.
Barley, 48 6 cents per 100 pounds. Beans, 18-2 cents per 100 pounds. Wheat, 18-2 cents per 100 pounds. Potatoes, 21.7 cents per 100 pounds. Butter, 20 per cent.
Cheese, 20 per cent.
Eggs, 20 per cent.
Hay, 20 per cent.
Let me now refer very briefly to our hog production-certainly a very important industry. I find that in the United States they have 49,000,000 hogs and in Canada 3,000,000. That is they have sixteen hogs to our one in the slaughter houses of the United States. Hogs in Canada and the United States average about 200 pounds or a little more. The average price in the United States is $6.85 per hundred, or $13.70 for the average hog. The price in Canada is $8.10 per hundred or $16.20 per hog. So, you would have a loss to the, Canadian farmer under this agreement of $1.18 per hundred, or the loss of $2.36 per hog. This is on the basis of five years' average for the two places. No man will pretend that the one hog is going to govern the prices for the sixteen hogs; the price will be regulated rather by the sixteen hogs. Let me give you the prices in Chicago and in tngersoll for the last ten years:

[Stage Direction]
Price at Price at
Year.	Chicago. Ingersoll.
1901	
$5	71	$6	701902	
6	701	6	681903	
5	88	6	071904	
5	04	5	321905	
5	18	6	411906	
6	23	7	171907	
6	091	6	851908	
5	364	6	871909	
7	531	8	041910	
8	59J	9	11
And now, a few figures showing prices in Chicago and Montreal, respectively:
AVERAGE PRICE OF HOGS IN CHICAGO AND MONTREAL FOR THE FIVE YEARS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1910 : Chicago. Montreal.
1906	
$6	20	$7	771907	
6	10	7	431908	
5	70	7	101909	
7	35	8	641910	
8	90	9	60
I also have some figures in connection with the large amount of hogs which we are delivering from year to year to the packing houses, but these I will not Tead. These figures were somewhat a surprise to me. I will not give each month, though one thing that struck me as important, was the great regularity for the different months. The total for the year was 1,133,000. Now, if we take cattle, we find that practically the same conditions exist. Let us compare the prices in Chicago and Toronto. Here are the figures:
Comparative prices of cattle in Toronto and Chicago. Table of prices from 1901 to 1910, in the month of May each year:
	Toronto.	Chicago.
1901	
$4 25	$3 951902	
5 25	5 001903	
1 90	4 061901	
5 20	4 901905	
5 70	5 501906	
5 10	4 001907	
5 12 h	4 001908	
5 50	5 001909	
5 75	5 101910	
7 00	6 25
So we find that cattle in Canada also bring a better price than on the other side,
I see no reason to believe that we should gain in that connection by the reciprocity pact. When it comes to horses, we stand to lose a very great deal, not only in Ontario, but in the western provinces. The average price of horses in the United States to-day is about $108, while the average price in Canada is about $130. Not only that, but take my own country, where we used to buy a great many horses, but where to-day, we are exporters of horses. We sell many of them and sell them at good prices. What occurred two years ago? The very same thing that will occur when this pact is signed. We have coming into that country a lot of these western horses, cheap horses, whose coming was exceedingly detrimental to that country. We could not keep them out except through our customs. It was provided that horses of the value of $50 or less had to pay $12.50 in coming in. That absolutely stopped that class of horses coming in.
Of course you would not bring in horses costing $25 and $30 and pay $12.50 duty on them. Hence we have got rid of all that class of horses, and at present I think I may say without boasting that we have in Manitoba as fine a class of working horses as are to be found in any other province in the Dominion. Perhaps when you come to driving horses, we cannot boast much. But it is draught horses that are of commercial value, and there is scarcely a town of 500 or 1,000 people in that country that did not export last year four or five carloads of horses. Now we do not want that
Frederick Laurence Schaffner: trade interfered with, we do not want this pact signed, we do not want this reciprocity in horses after we have spent so long a time in bringing up the splendid class of horses we have to-day, and we don't want these cheap horses coming in, as they will if this pact is signed.


Mr. McCOLL (Northumberland).: Where were those horses exported to?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Perhaps I made a mistake in saying they were exported; I meant to say that they were sent out of Manitoba, sent to British Columbia, Alberta, Kainy Eiver, and other places. Manitoba is doing a large interprovincial trade in horses, and we found them a great benefit last year when the crop was not goon There is no question that this pact would destroy absolutely our interprovincial trade in horses. On the question of interprovm-cial trade, I may remark that last year there was an interprovincial trade of about $14,000,000 between the prairie provinces and British Columbia. Now does any hon. gentleman in this House suppose for one moment that that interprovincial trade will continue, or that it will prosper if this pact is signed? For my part I do not.
I have here a comparison from a United States government report showing that land values rose more rapidly in the Bo-minion than in the republic:
Between 1900 and 1910:
Maine.. . [DOT]	
Nova Scotia	
New Hampshire	
New Brunswick	
Vermont	
Prince Edward Island .
Quebec	
Michigan	
Ontario	
Minnesota	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta


Per Cent.   . ..@: 67 . ..181 . .. 37 . ..120 . .. 33 . .. ' 70 . .. 80 . .. 39 . .. 43 . .. 77 . .. 123 . ..201 . ..185
Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to dwell a little while on the question of these favoured nations. We have favoured nation treaties with the Argentine Kepublic, Austria-Hungary, Bolivia, Colombia, Denmark, Japan, Norway, Eussia, Spam, Sweden, Switzerland, Venezuela. Now we are asked many times: Do we need to fear these favoured nations? They do not send anything into Canada. But I find they do. I find they send a great many million dollars' worth of their products into Canada, even while they have been paying a duty, and it stands to reason that when the duty is taken off their imports will be greatly increased. Take the case of eggs and butter, there is now a duty of 4 cents

a pound on butter and 3 cents a dozen on eggs. Take off that duty, and it gives so much more profit to the exporter of those articles into Canada. We have had $30,000,000 worth of the products of those countries coming into Canada, and we may reasonably expect that the trade will greatly increase when the duties are taken off. And we must keep in mind the fact if we wish to send our natural products to any of the countries named we are met with a light tariff, while this pact permits their natural products to come into Canada free. I have a table showing the imports into Canada for home consumption from the most favoured nation countries during the period of six years:


IMPORTS INTO CANADA FOR HOME CONSUMPTION FROM MOST FAVOURED NATION COUNTRIES DURING SIX YEARS.
[Stage Direction]
Article.	Quantity.
Butter	lbs. 2,894,416
Cheese	" 2,901,815
Eggs	doz.	4,600,534
Poultry	
Potatoes	bush.	1,422,829
Beef (salted)	lbs. 10,610,533
Bacon and hams.. .. *' 35,140,613
Mutton	" 6,317,785
Pork (in brine) .. .. "	51,826,804
Other meat products.. " 13,028,060
Cattle	head	45,086Horses	
"	57,565Sheep	
"	359,447Swine	lbs.	184,779Barley	bush.	280,314Beans	
"	307,211Buckwheat	
"	6,311Oats	"	1,168^266Pease	
"	51,241Bye	
"	145,920Wheat	
"	373,979Hay	tons	49,974Flaxseed	bush.	4,702,090Apples	brls.	239,647
Vegetables (except potatoes) __________
Value.
685,306
566,786
944,704
276,648
926,693
502,831
4,312,359
440,317
4,250,673
1,567,251
640,514
2,920,117
1,151,022
12,696
174,504
490,343
6,177
603,264
120,840
112,950
317,748
853,059
5,747,612
975,870
4,755,980
1903	over $4,000,000 worth of cattle, and over $1,500,000 of butter. Austria-Hungary exported of eggs and cheese more than $10,000,000. Denmark, to my great surprise, a little country with a population of 2,500,000, made 169,000,000 pounds of butter, and exported $10,000,000 worth. Russia exported animals valued at $12,000,000, and butter valued at $24,000,000; wheat flour and barley, $200,000,000. Australia and New Zealand, although not favoured nations, will come in under this pact. Australia exported butter, cheese and eggs to the value of $12,000,000. New Zealand sent out $16,000,000 worth of meat, and $12,000,000 worth of butter^ and cheese. Speaking of wheat, the question has been put up to me that we have been exporting wheat already through the United States. That is quite true, but it has been going through in bond, and that is a very different thing. When wheat goes through bond the by-product could not be utilized in the United States, and had to be sent through bond also. After this pact is signed our wheat will go to the United States to be ground by their millers and the by-product will be sold in the United States for feeding their hogs. If we wish to get any of that by-product returned to Canada, as my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Sharpe) said last night, we will.have to pay a duty of 12$ cents per 100 pounds. I would like to place on record a statement of some of the natural resources of Canada as estimated:
Standing timber, 500 billion feet.
Wheat lands, 117 million acres.
Coast fisheries, 12,500 miles.
Fresh water fisheries, 440,000 miles.
Our coal is estimated at 172,000,000,000 tons; we have produced $260,000,000 of gold; silver mines rank third in the world; nickel, we have three-fifths of the world.
[Stage Direction]
Now we can easily imagine that when tire door is thrown open and their goods can enter Canada free of duty, these 307,000,000 people inhabiting the favoured nations will very greatly increase their exports into Canada. The question of eggs is an exceedingly interesting one. The hen seems to be a very valuable bird. I was surprised to learn that the United States, whose greatest natural product is corn, has its second greatest product, eggs. I find that in the month of February alone we imported from the United States over 700,000 dozen of eggs, paying the duty. Australia last year exported $6,000,000, and the Argentine $5,000,000 worth of frozen mutton and other frozen meats. New Zealand exported $17,500,000 of cattle; the Argentine, $4,000,000. These cattle can come directly into Canada, paying no duty. The Argentine exported in
In 1904, we produced 509,000,000 tons of iron ore and in 1910, $507,000,000; dairy products, $98,000,000; timber cut, $63,000,000; fisheries, $30,000,000.
The United States having been extravagant, according to the confession of President Taft, their resources are becoming scarce, and it is only natural that, although they have ignored us for 40 years, they are now exceedingly anxious to get our raw material. That was_well explained by my hon. friend from Dundas (Mr. Broder), the other night. What do they want it for? They want us, with our unskilled labour, to gather up this raw material, send it over to the United States in order that they may employ their skilled labour and machinery in manufacturing it and that they may then send it back to Canada in the form of manufactured articles for which we are expected to pay an increased price. A good illustration of
[Stage Direction]
that is afforded by the item of pulpwood. By the employment of unskilled labour at costs $6 to produce a cord of pulpwood. 'They send that to the United States where, with their skilled labour, they manufacture it and then send it back here and charge us $45 for it. I for one cannot consent to give my vote for a pact which does that for Canada. I would rather that we should continue to build up our country in the way we are now doing. We are not only doing that but we are causing a good deal of worry to men on the other side of the line, like Governor Foss, of Massachusetts, and others. They are not pleased with the fact that Americans are sending their money over here to establish mills and industries. Something like $223,000,000 of American money has been utilized in that way in this country and that fact is worrying these gentlemen very much.
Now, I desire to refer to the question of barley. There has been a great deal said about barley and my hon. friend from Lisgar made some statements that I would not like to make. Before 1893, the duty on barley was 30 cents a bushel. Between 1893 and 1897 the duty was reduced to 15 cents a bushel and the price of barley went down 11 cents. We find that when the duty was raised to 30 cents again _ the price again increased, and we flncj_ that during the three years preceding the lowering of the duty the average price in thd United States was 44 cents a bushel and that during the three years since the restoration of the duty the price went up.
There is another important feature in connection with barley that does not perhaps so much appeal to us in the west at this moment, but I think there is no hon. gentleman in this House but will agree with me that we will have to do a little different system of farming in the west. The best thing that ever happened in Ontario was the raising of the duty on barley going into the United States. The Ontario farmers went into hog raising and the Ontario Agricultural College at Guelph informs us that three and a half pounds of barley makes a pound of pork. It is stated that the adoption of this process makes barley worth 97 cents a bushel. It has been flashed all over this country that barley is worth 90 cents in the United States. While we get a much lower figure in Winnipeg, it is very easily explained. In the west, and I believe also in Ontario, they are not growing very much malting barley. I believe that 90 per cent of the barley that is grown is feed barley and there is not a tremendous difference in the price of barley. The barley that is bringing 90 per cent a bushel is malting barley grown in South Dakota.
I would like to say a word in regard to Mr. SCHAFFNER.
the preference. I believe that British mutual preference would be of very much more benefit to us than any thing in connection with this pact, and I believe that they are rapidly coming to it in the old country. Hon. gentlemen in this House may not agree with me, but the fact is that about 48 per cent of the people of the old country in the last election voted for mutual preference. I would like to read to the House the words of Mr. Balfour:
There could not be a prelude to controversy more clear and more decisive than that of coming to a friendly arrangement between the mother country and the Dominions, though the Dominions ask for it, and though a vast section of our own population ask for it also. I really cannot imagine on what this is founded. . . They will not treat the colonies better than they treat foreign nations, and that is the broad difference between us. We think that, it would be for the benefit of the empire as a whole, for the benefit of the empire as an economic whole, if we did treat our self-governing colonies better than we treat the foreigners. That is the difference between the government and ourselves, and upon that difference I am perfectly certain that in the long run the good sense of the people to which the right hon. gentleman appeals, certainly the verdict of history will be on our side.
That is what Mr. Balfour says in connection with the mutual preference. I call the attention of the House to what Mr. J. J. Hill thinks about it; he says:
The pending reciprocity treaty before Congress is the most important this country has had before it since the civil war. If, after having Canada waiting for years, they turn her down again, our country will suffer, and one of the hardest hit of our industries will bo that of wheat raising. England is waiting and watching for just that thing to happen. Within itlie fortnight Austen Chamberlain had called up for decision in the British parliament the measures providing an imperial federation for England and her colonies. Suppose that Canada joins the imperial federation of English colonies, as is proposed. A reasonable differentia! that England might impose upon our wheat would be 15 cents a bushel, and that would mean our wheat growers would find their whole product lowered that much per bushel in value. Great Britain would take over practically all of tb [DOT] $200,000,000 in round numbers that Canada now pays us for manufactured articles, then add the six hundred and more millions we export to Great Britain, and we find that, if we fail to adopt a reciprocity agreement with Canada and drive it to an imperial federation, we are cheapening our wheat crop annually, say, 15 cents per bushel, and at the same time we are losing $800,000,000 of export business to England and Canada.
Now, may I refer to the question of timber. What the Americans would do to Canadian forests may be judged by what they have done to their own. Any one who fifty years ago could have seen the vast extent of virgin timber in the United States,

an area of forest which in quality, quantity, variety and value had not its equal in the world, would surely have exclaimed: 'Here is a forest which can supply all the needs of man for all time to come.' Within one short half-century the American people have, before their arable lands were ail brought under cultivation, before their population reached 100 millions, so reduced that forest by wasteful exploitation, by Are and by lack of skilful management that they are now seeking access to a foreign supply. Within fifty years the American people, though fewer in number than they are now, though dealing with their own property, have consumed a forest wealth at least thirty times as great as that of Canada at the present day.
The rapid wasteful exploitation of forest areas in the United States has left that country in an unenviable position. With a population twelve times as great as that of Canada the United States has forest resources only four times as great. The timber in the United States will last the people twenty-ftve to thirty years. The timber of Canada would last them seven years. Combined, the timber of both countries would supply the citizens of both countries under present conditions of use perhaps thirty-five years. There is the secret of the great American desire to secure free Canadian timber, the ' far-sighted policy,' of which President Taft speaks. In the United States the securing of free Canadian timber will have a great effect in giving United States forests a rest.
On the other hand the free entry of Canadian lumber into the United States will have quite different results in Canada. The chief effect will be the hastening of the destruction of Canadian forests. In short the wholesale selling of our timber to the Americans at the present time can only have one result, the denudation of our forests without adequate provision for their renewal, and the subsequent development of a timber famine in Canada.
If I remember correctly the Minister of Customs gave an expression to sentiments that I would rather not hear coming from a minister of the Crown. He told us he was quite willing that the Americans should have our raw material including our timber, but I do not think that such a policy would be in the interests of Canada; on th [DOT] contrary I believe that such a policy would be most detrimental to our future prosperity.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I shall briefly refer to the transportation question. One of the greatest difficulties of making farming profitable in the west is the high rates for transportation in this country. We have spent a great deal for the construction of Canadian railways, as the following figures will show:

[Stage Direction]
Federal government	$127,000,000
Provincial governments .. .. 36,000,000 Municipalities	 18,000,000
The total cash expenditure for railways by the people of Canada since 1878 amounts to nearly $500,000,000. In addition to that the federal and provincial governments guaranteed bonds for railway construction in Canada to the extent of $27,000,000, and in addition to that the various governments federal and provincial have granted in aid of railway construction no less than 35,000,000 acres of the public domain. I have said that one of the great difficulties in making farming profitable in the west is the high cost of transportation, and I say that our way out of that difficulty is not through the south. That is not going to help us. It is just as far from the town in which I live to the seaboard of the States as it is to the seaboard of Canada, and the only way you are going to help us in the matter of transportation is by carrying out the policy advocated by the Conservative party for years, and building the Hudson Bay railway over which there will only be 500 or 600 miles of land haul for our wheat. That, no doubt, will settle the question of transportation and consequently make our wheat more valuable to the farmers. Notwithstanding that the hour is late, I must put on ' Hansard ' the remarks made by iSir Wilfrid Laurier when he introduced the measure for the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and what he said was true then, and is true to-day. But, why has he changed his mind so frequently, and why did he change his mind so frequently on the tariff before and after he came into power? They say that if you ask an Oriental a question his great desire is to find out what answer you want him to give, and it does seem to me that the right hon. the Prime Minister has an Oriental tinge to .his character because he appears to be so anxious to please with his answer that he finds himself in a maze of contradictions. The argument advanced by the First Minister for the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific is absolutely opposed to this reciprocity agreement with the United States. He said in July 10, 1903, * Hansard ' page 7670:
Now, Sir, we lay it down as a principle, upon which we are to be judged by friend and foe, that we are- to have a transcontinental railway, that its terminus must be in Canadian waters, and that the whole line, every inch of it, must be in Canadian _ territory. We say further that such a line is of necessity to our commercial independence. Sir, I am surprised at the levity displayed by some hon. gentlemen on so grave a question.
The right hon. gentleman was surprised again. He told us at the beginning of the
[Stage Direction]
session that there would be an investigation before a change was made in the tariff. The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Harris) told us that he had the word of the Prime Minister that before any tariff changes were made, there would be an investigation. The right hon. gentleman also said the same thing to the farmers of the west, and in making that declaration, spoke in a constitutional businesslike manner. He went on to say:
What have you to say to-day to this? What are your minds running to when you have facts staring you in the face which show you that at this.moment Canada is not commercially independent of the United States?
What do you think of that?
The American government granted us the bonding privilege. They granted us the privilege of using their harbours for our imports and exports without paying them tolls and customs dues. But my bon. friends opposite are aware that this privilege has always been held over our heads by (be American authorities as a sword of Damocles. My hon. friends on the other side are aware that the abrogation of this privilege has been used again and again as a threat to obtain from us concessions.
Again, he said on July 30:
We consider that it is the duty of all those who sit within these walls by the will of the people to provide immediate measure whereby the products of those new settlers may find an exit to the ocean at the least possible cost, and whereby, likewise, a market may be found in this new region for those who toil in the forests, in the fields, in the mines, in the shops of the older provinces. Such is our duty; it is immediate and imperative. It is not of to-morrow, but of to-day, of this >
hour and of this minute. Heaven grant that it be not already too late; Heaven grant that whilst we tarry and dispute, the trade of Canada is not deviated to other channels
[Stage Direction]
When I first began my Sipeech, I referred to the Canadian Pacific railway, which was built when there were very few people in the west, and built under great difficulties, and that road was completed in a shorter time than the contract called for. But here is our great Transcontinental which the government have been building since 1903, and which it not yet built, although all the conditions were most favourable. My right hon. friend then was very much exercised lest the trade of this country might be diverted into other channels:
-and that an ever vigilant competitor does not take to himself the trade that properly belongs to those who acknowledge Canada as their native or their adopted land.
What splendid sentiments those are. They are the kind I like to read:
Upon this question we feel that our position is absolutely safe and secure; we feel that it corresponds to the beating of every Canadian heart.	.
Mr. SCHAFFNER,
On July 30, page 7671 of 'Hansard,' the right hon. gentleman said:
Lett me observe that if we have used American ports it is not because for five months in the year our own ports are ice-bound. Everybody knows that our ports in winter are just as open as the American harbours. Everybody knows, except Mr. Andrew Carnegie and the bulk of American public opinion, that if vve have used American ports and the bonding privilege it was not because our harbours were ice-bound in winter, but simply because we bad no railways to reach them. In the face of this, are the Canadian parliament and people going to stand on their manhood and place us in such a position that all times of the year, not only by one railway, but by two or more, we shall have access from January to December to our own harbour, and be able to say to our American neighbours: Take off your bonding privilege whenever it suits you, we are comparatively independent.
Again, he said:
Sir, our relations to-day with our American neighbours are friendly; they were never more so, and I hope they will so continue. For my part, I never made any secret of it,
I have the greatest possible admiration for the American people. I have always admired their many strong qualities. But I have found in the short experience during which it has been my privilege and my fortune to be placed at the head of affairs, by the will of the Canadian people, that (be best and most effective way to maintain friendship with our American neighbours is to be absolutely independent of them.
Does anybody want any better sentiment than that? We could not have anything better.
How is it our neighbours to the south want us so badly just now? They want our natural resources, our raw materials. They have a large population and large industries, and they want to make use of us to feed those industries.
There is another subject to which I would like to refer. I have not waived the flag since I started, I have not referred to the annexation subject, but I should like to. quote a few of the statements made in that connection. I propose to read a few of the remarks made on the other side of the line giving the reason why they want this pact. This winter it has been my experience to come in contact with shrewd business men who were spending the winter in the south; and there is not one I met who did not tell me that whenever this pact is spoken of on the other side it is taken to mean annexation. Here is a dispatch in a leading American journal:
Minneapolis, Feb. 12.-In an editorial leader which bears every evidence of Washington inspiration, the Minneapolis _ ' Journal,' the leading newspaper of the Twin Cities, makes a frantic appeal to congress for the ratification of the reciprocity agreement. The 'Journal' urges that this is for the United

States the golden hour of opportunity which, if it passes, may never return. It shares with Hon. Joseph Chamberlain the view that the reciprocity arrangement spells the doom of empire federation and colonial preference, and asserts that the United States has the greatest, opportunity ' to unite the continent, to avert future jars and wars, and to change history that has arisen in this generation's time.'
We all have heard of our friend Champ Clark. It was he who let the 'cat out of the bag, and our opponents have been trying ever since to explain away what he said. He said:
Reciprocity in raw materials, in natural products, and in some of the simpler and more generally nsed articles of manufacture, as provided for in the pending agreement, is the obvious road to a relation profitable to both countries.	.
The time, probably the last time, when this can be realized has arrived.	_
The future union of all parts of the British Empire in a commercial federation is almost certain.
When that shall have been concluded, under a system of preferential advantages securing the English market to the colonial producer of raw materials and food products, and the colonial market to the English manufacturer, it will strike the United' States a double blow.	_
Our best customer, Great Britain, and our third best, Canada, will trade less and less with us and more and more with each other.
And it will then be permanently impossible to repair our error.	.	.
Political and economic weather signals indicate that, should the present measure fall no other can succeed for many years, if ever.
Then he goes on to speak of the price of wheat.	_
Representative G.   W.@: Prince, of Illinois, gave his version of the proposal.
I say to our neighbours on the north, be not deceived.	When we go into a country
and get control of it, we take it. It is our history, and it is right that we should take it if, we want it, and you might as well under-"Stand it. The Speaker has so said; the party back of him has so said, and it does not deny that that is its desire. Now let us see if the people of Canada believe in reciprocity and annexation.
Only in to-day's paper Mr. Madden, of Illinois says:
My hope is that if we can have closer com* mercial relations with the people of Canada,, he said, some day this relationship may blend the two peoples into the harmonious whole; and that the territory lying north of us may become a part of the United States, as it should he. I have always believed we should be one people, under one flag, and under one form of government; and it will be better for us when such a thing happens, if it ever does.
I might keep on reading such extracts all night.
Just a word as to what we offer, and what we believe to be far better than reciprocity. We stand for an improvement in transportation rates by the building and government operation of the Hudson Bay railway. We stand for the complete identification of our wheat, for maintaining the quality and price by government operation of terminal elevators. To my mind it does not make so much difference who owns a railroad or a terminal elevator, the important point is, who operates it. The whole Conservative party have voted this session for the government operation of terminal elevators. We will soon have a Bill before this House. I am not a prophet, and perhaps I should not prophesy to-night but, so far as I have seen that Bill, it does not meet the exigencies of the case, they stand about where they were before, but I am afraid that every man from the west supporting the government will be found supporting that Bill, for they have voted against the government operation of terminal elevators so far.
We stand to improve our stock, cattle and hog trade through the establishment of a chilled meat industry, which has been moved in this House, and supported by every member of the Conservative party.
I consider this, as the ' Globe ' has said, the most important crisis in our history since confederation. Once this pact is signed, once it goes into effect I believe it is going to be detrimental to the interests and the nationhood of this great country of ours. One of our friends opposite asked me what my constituents thought. I have not had an opportunity of meeting all my constituents, and I dare say quite a number of them have been in favour of this pact, but if they are in favour of it the only thing they have heard about it is reciprocity, it has not been explained to them, they have not had a proper knowledge of what it means. I know from my own experience, and from that of those who have talked to these men in the west, that every man, when he thoroughly understands this pact, is opposed to it. The hon. member for Lis-gar (Mr. Sharpe) who held four meetings told me that only one man of the Conservative party who voted for him before stated that he still wanted this pact. That is a splendid record for the west. That is where the government have expected us to fall down, they have been looking for the western members on this side of the House to support this pact. I wish to say honestly that when this thing was first presented to the House on January 26, I thought there was something in it. I thought it would be my duty to support it, but every day since then, to the best of my ability, and with the time at my disposal, I have endeavoured to become familiar with the different facts, and it would take one all night to discuss the whole question. But I I believe that if our freight rates are too

high, if our wheat is not properly handled, if we have any other grievance, we should, in the name of all that is good and great, settle these difficulties ourselves. We have met as great difficulties in the past. We to-day have a Railway Commission, and 1 am prepared to give this government great credit for the creation of this commission. They have had two splendid chairmen. Where was there a better man in Canada that Mr. Justice Killam. We thought when he was lost to the commission that no man could be found to fill his place, but it seems to be the impression that Judge Mabee has filled the position, and is doing excellent work. Let them look after the freight rates. I say that the freight rates of this country are too high, but we are not going to get them lowered by turning to the south and asking the United States to helo us. Let our commission solve that problem. If the commission have not sufficient power this parliament has power to give them further powers to handle these railway rates as they should. Let us settle all our grievances in the same manner That to me is a very strong objection and a reason why I cannot possibly Support this pact; it does seem to me that by it we are tying ourselves up to our friends to the south.
I would support the hon. member for Lis gar (Mr. Sharpe) in his statement that the Conservative party is in favour of a permanent tariff commission that will handle this question in the interests of this country. I do not believe in privileged classes as I have said before, and if the manufacturers of this countrv are getting too high prices, a commission of the proper kind could easily remedy that, such a commission could go into the offices, and into the books of the different manufacturing interests in this country, and find out just what prices would be fair. There may be ignorance in connection with this matter. Our farmers complain that thev aTe paying'too much for binders. I think that thev are, but it would satisfy the farmers if through a commission we were able to ascertain what was the actual cost of that binder, and what would be a fair profit on it.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion let me say the attempt of a few men to force the resolution upon the country is contrary to democratic government.
Canada is shaping her own destiny. The request comes from the United States, who had squandered her natural resources to such an extent, that they are face to face with their exhaustion and were, therefore, anxious to get at Canada's Taw material in order to Telieve the strain on their own.
Sir, we are building up a strong Canadian nationhood. Let us take heed lest we take a false step now that we are so near the goal of our ambitions. Let us


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: take this false step and we may shatter with one stroke all the work of confederation.
When the old treaty was repealed, we were poor in skilled labour, banking capital, in agricultural and in manufactures. To-day we are rich in them all.
The repeal of that treaty threw us upon ourselves and we were roused to action. When the United States, in 1866, flung our poverty in our faces and told us our only choice was annexation or starvation, we refused to accept either, and have proven to the world that we can captain our own ship of state. Let us be friends with our friends to the south, but let us run our own affairs.
Mr. STANFIELD moved that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
On motion of Mr. Stanfield, committee rose and reported progress.
On motion of Mr. Fisher, House adjourned at 1.02 a.m., Wednesday.

Wednesday, May 3, 1911.