PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 123) to incorporate La Banque du Canada.-Mr. Bickerdike.
Bill (No. 119) respecting the Ontario Northern and Timagami Railway Company. -Mr. Carvell.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 124) relating to the water in the Railway Belt and Peace River block of land. He said:	The purpose of this Bill is to
provide for the administration of rights in regard to water in the Railway Belt of British Columbia and in a certain area of land in the Peace River country within the province of British Columbia, to administer rights to water in these areas by the Dominion government in pursuance of the decisions of the Privy Council delivered recently by which that jurisdiction was fixed.
Mr. MACLEAN (York).: May I ask if the Bill covers' a policy for the conservation of that water and its equitable distribution? Does it take in that view of the case?


Mr. OLIVER.: The whole purpose of the Bill is to provide for the conservation of the public interest in the water in these areas. But, the conditions being what they are, the details are not set out in the Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CARVELL moved the first reading of Bill (No. 120) respecting the Quebec and New Brunswick Railway Company.
Mr. CROCKET.: Explain.


Mr. CARVELL.: The object of this Bill is to renew a railway charter granted about ten years ago. The charter was renewed about two years ago, but the time allowed for commencement of construction will expire, I believe, in April next. The parties are anxious to have the charter renewed for the purpose of going on and probably constructing the railway. The proposed line is from Quebec to the town of Connors in the province of New Brunswick, and, by an amendment added two years ago, from Connors to the city of St. John. There is also provision, I think, to extend across the northern part of the state of Maine. No doubt, some portion of the railway will be built within the next two years.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is the Bill simply for an extension of time?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is all.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

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

Mr. LAKE:: 1.	Referring to a resolution of the legislative assembly of the province of Saskatchewan, of December 18, 1909, endorsing the desirability of the creation of a suitable land endowment for the University of Saskatchewan out of the public domain within the province, what was the nature of the reply made by the government to the Lieutenant Governor iu acknowledging the receipt of the resolution ?
2.	Have any further Communications in regard to the subject taken place between the government and the provincial authorities? If so, will the government lay a copy of the papers on the table of the House?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	The nature of the reply made to the memorial of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan of the 18th' December, 1909, is set forth in the order in council of 31st March, 1910, which I lay upon the table of the House.
2.	There has been no communication on this subject since.


RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Mir. REID (Grenville):: If the proposed arrangement of the tariff with the United States is passed, will the following countries be allowed to import goods into Canada on same terms as allowed the United States, viz.: Argentine Republic, Austria, Hungary, Bolivia, Columbia, Denmark, Japan, Norway, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Venezuela?


Mr. FIELDING:: This question was covered by an answer given to the hon. member for North Ontario oni the 16th day of February, 1911. (See unrevised edition of ' Hansard,' page 3744.)


FARMERS' BANK.
Mr. HENDERSON:: What action does the government intend to take on the two requests preferred by the deputation on behalf of the shareholders and depositors of the Farmers' bank, viz.:-
That a royal commission be appointed to make a thorough examination into all matters connected with the incorporation and management of the Farmers' bank; and that legislation he enacted to relieve shareholders of their double liability and to enable depositors to be paid at least fifty cents on the dollar ?


William Stevens Fielding: The government have no reason to doubt that the exercise of the powers given to the Mr. CARVELL.
liquidator by law, and the performance^ of the duties imposed upon that officer by like authority, and the proceedings now engaging the attention of the courts of justice in Toronto, will lead to a full investigation into and disclosure of all the affairs of the bank, and that, therefore, there is no need of the appointment of a royal commission. Should anything arise later to indicate that the investigation, is insufficient, the question can be further considered. Replying to the latter part of the hon. gentleman's question, the government deeply regret that a number of people who are not well able to bear the loss are likely to suffer from the failure of the bank, but in the judgment of the government it would be contrary to public policy to recoup the losses of any class of investors from the public treasury.


LANDS FOR HOMESTEADS.
Mr. LAKE:: What is the total amount of land thrown open for homesteads since 1st August, 1908, in the following townships:	21 to 33 in
ranges 18 to 23 inclusive, west of the 2nd meridian?


Frank Oliver: As far as can be ascertained from the records of the department the approximate (area is 61,920 acres.


Richard Stuart Lake: What different parcels of land have been thrown open for homesteads since the 1st August, 1908, in the following townships, viz.: 21 to 33, ranges 18 to 23, west of the 2nd meridian ?


Frank Oliver: As far as can be ascertained from the records of the department the following lands in the townships mentioned were thrown open for homestead entry:
Tp. 21, range 18, west 2nd mer.-All sec. 31.
Tp. 24, range 18, west 2nd mer.-S. 4 sec. 3; W. 1 sec. 9; N.W. 4 and S.E. 4 sec. 17.
Tp. 25, range 18, -west 2nd mer.-N.W. 4 and S.E. 4 see. 15.
Tp. 27, range 18, west 2nd mer.-S.W. 4 23.
Tp. 31, range 18, west 2nd mer.-N. 4 sec. 31 and N. W. 4 35.
Tp. 32, Tange 18, wrest 2nd mer.-W. \ sec. 5; all sec. 7; N. 4 sec. 9; L.S. 1 and 2, sec. 15; all sec. 17; N4 sec. 19; all sec. 21; S. 4 sec. 25; S. 4 sec. 27; S.E. 4 sec. 31.
Tp. 33, range 18, west 2nd mer.-W. 4 sec. 7.
Tp. 21, range 19, west 2nd mer.-N. 4 sec. 19; E. 4 and S.W. 4 sec. 31.
Tp. 22, range 19, west 2nd mer.-All sec. 7; all sec. 9; all sec. 17; all sec. 19.
Tp. 23, range 19, ivest 2nd mer.-E. 4 sec. 19.
Tp. 30, range 19, west 2nd mer.-L.S. 1 and 2, sec. 7; all sec. 31; W. 4 and S.E. 4 sec. 33.
Tp. 31, range 19, west 2nd mer.-All sec. 5; all sec. 7; all sec. 9; all sec. 15; all sec. 17; all sec. 19; all sec. 21; all sec. 23; all sec. 25;

all sec. 27; all see. 31; all see. 33; W. 4 and N.E. i sec. 35.
Tp. 32, range 19, west 2nd mer.-AH sec. 1; W. i and S.E. 4 sec. 3; all sec. 5; all see. 7; all sec. 9; all sec. 13; all sec. 15; all see. 17; all sec. 21; all sec. 23; all sec. 27; all sec. 33; all sec. 35.
Tp. 33, range 19, west 2nd mer.-All sec. 3; S.W. 4 9.
Tp. 22, range 20, west 2nd mer.-N.W. J sec. 13; N. i sec. 23; all sec. 25; N.W. 4 sec. 27.
Tp. 29, range 20, west 2nd mer.-L.S. 7 and 8, sec. 23; all sec. 33.
Tp. 30, range 20. west 2nd mer.-W. | see. 3; N.E. \ sec. 5; all sec. 9; all sec. 13; all sec. 15; E. i sec. 17; S.E. 4 sec. 19; all sec. 21; all sec. 23; all sec. 25; S. 4 sec. 27; all sec. 33; all sec. 35.
Tp. 31, range 20, west 2nd mer.-All sec. 3; N.E. } sec. 9; all sec. 13; S.E. \ sec. 15; E. i and S.W. 4 sec. 23; all sec. 25.
Tp. 32, range 20, west 2nd mer.-W. 4 and N.E. 4 sec. 5; E. 4 and S.W. 4 sec. 9; all sec. 13: S.E. i sec. 23.
Tp. 33, range 20, west 2nd mer.-E. 4 sec. 7; all sec. 31.
Tp. 21, range 21, west 2nd mer.-N. J sec. 19: all sec. 31.
Tp. 22, range 21, west 2nd mer.-All sec. 31. Tp. 25, range 21, west 2nd mer.-S.W. 4 sec.
Tp. 28, range 21, west 2nd mer.-E. 4 and N.W. 4 sec. 15; W. 4 and N.E. 4 sec. 31.
Tp. 30, range 21, west 2nd mer.-S.W. J sec
Tp. 31, range 21, west 2nd mer.-N. 1 sec. 9 [DOT] W. i sec. 15; S.E. } sec. 17; S.E. 4 "sec. 19; all sec. 21; all sec. 27; all sec. 35.
Tp. 32, range 21, west 2nd mer.-All sec. 1. Tp. 33, range 21, west 2nd mer.-N.W. J sec.
Tp. 21, range 22, west 2nd mer.-S. 1 sec. 7-E | and S.W. 4 sec. 23.
Tp. 28, range 22, west 2nd mer.-N.W. J sec. 5; W. 4 see. 13; N.E. 1 sec. 15; all sec. 17; N.E 4 sec. 19; W. i sec. 27.
Tp. 29, range 22, west nd mer.-N.E. i sec. 7: S. | sec. 9.
Tp. 31, range 22. west 2nd mer.-E. 1 sec 1 [DOT] N.W. 4 sec. 23; N.E. 4 sec. 33.
Tp. 32, range 22, west 2nd mer.-E. 4 sec. 31. Tp. 21, range 23, west 2nd mer.-All sec. 7. Tp. 22, range 23, west 2nd mer.-S. 4 sec. 15; S.W. 4 sec. 23.
Tp. 23, range 23, west 2nd mer.-All sec. 5; E. 4 sec. 7; all sec. 19.
Tp. 27, range 23, west 2nd mer.-S.W. J sec.
7 ; L.S. 1 and 8, sec. 19.
Tp. 28, range 23, west 2nd mer.-S.E. 4 sec. 5; N.W. 4 sec. 13; all sec. 17; all sec. 21; E. j sec. 23; all sec. 25; all sec. 27; E. 4 sec. 31; all sec. 33.
Tp. 29, range 23, west 2nd mer.-S.E. J sec. 1.
Tp. 30, range 23, west 2nd mer.-W. 4 sec. 19; S.E. 4 sec. 23.
Tp. 32, range 23, west 2nd mer.-All see. 7.


RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES-POSITION OF CERTAIN OTHER COUNTRIES.
John Dowsley Reid: I desire to refer to my question to which an answer has 1304
just been handed in. The question is as follows:
If tlie proposed arrangement of the tariff with the United States is passed, will the following countries be allowed to import goods into Canada on same terms as allowed the United States, viz.: Argentine Republic, Austria, Hungary, Bolivia, Columbia, Denmark, Japan, Norway, Russia, Spain, Sweden. Switzerland and Venezuela?
The answer handed in by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) is that this question. was covered by answer given to the hon. member for North Ontario '(Mr. Sharpe) on the 16th February, 1911; see unrevised edition of ' Hansard.' Now, I did not name in my question all the countries covered by the question of the hon. member for North Ontario. My question is capable of being answered, * Yes ' or ' No.'


William Stevens Fielding: I object that it should be answered 'Yes' or 'No.' A question may be so asked that to answer it 'Yes' or 'No' would be misleading. I think it is right to give the information; and every point of the question my hon. friend (Mr. Reid, Grenville), was covered in the answer as published in ' Hansard ' of some days ago.


John Dowsley Reid: I have read the answer in ' Hansard,' and to me and other hon. members that answer is not plain enough to be understood. I would like the minister to give an answer to my question.


Mr. SPEAKER  .@: I do not think it is regular to discuss the subject now.


John Dowsley Reid: I can discuss it on going into Ways and Means.


Mr. MONK.: I might raise a similar question. Mine was the last question on this list, question 13. I do not see how I can get an answer to this question by converting it into a motion. I submit also that it is a question which could be answered without having recourse to a motion.
-Sir WILFRID LAURIER. There is no necessity for moving it ; it stands as an order.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved :: That from this day to the end of the session government orders on Monday will have precedence immediately after questions to be put by members.
Mr. MARTIN (St. Mary, Montreal)'. (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the right hon. Prime Minister to kindly put off the motion till the following Monday.
Under the heading of 'Public Bills and Orders,' in the journal of the House, these are very important proceedings. I think

it would be convenient that the motion do not include Monday next.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: I would suggest to the Prime Minister that the motion do not include Monday next. I would also suggest that for the words ' after questions to be put by members,' the words ' notices of motion for, the production of papers ' be substituted.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have no objection.
Motion as amended agreed to.


Wilfrid Laurier: That when this House adjourns on Tuesday next, the 28th instant, it stand adjourned to Thursday the 2nd March.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Wilfrid Laurier: That from this day to the end of the session the House will meet on Wednesday at 3 o'clock p.m., and that the sitting on such days shall in every respect be under the same rules provided for other sitting days.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. OWEN.: Before you proceed with the orders of the day, I have "here a telegram which I wish to read, and to ask a question about it. It comes from a very important place just at present, being dated Washington, February 23.
Senator Cummins has served notice that he wiU propose amendments to the Canadian Reciprocity BiU to admit free from Canada manufactured product not mentioned in the treaty.
The question I wish to ask is this : Should the American government change their reciprocity treaty soon, I suppose about to be entered into between Canada and the United States, so as to allow the manufactured products of Canada to enter the United States free, will our government also allow the manufactured products of the United States [DOT]to come into Canada free?


William Stevens Fielding: I am afraid my hon. friend is not correctly interpreting the telegram. If I understand it, the motion of Senator Cummins is that manufactured products of Canada can be admitted into the United States free of duty. There is nothing in this agreement which will prevent the United States doing that if they want to.	,


Charles Lewis Owen: But should the American government change the treaty so as to allow-


Mr. MARTIN (Montreal).: 


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is mistaken, that would not be a change in the [DOT] treaty.


Charles Lewis Owen: If they do that, will our government allow the products of American manufacturers to enter Canada free?


William Stevens Fielding: I would wait until I received the proposal before I considered it.



HOURS OF LABOUR ON PUBLIC WORKS.

Mr. KING.: Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to make a correction. In a communication I received this morning my attention was drawn to the fact that when I was asked during the course of the debate on January 16, if I had received any representations respecting amendments to the Eight Hour Bill introduced by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville), from the workingmen employed on the Intercolonial, I replied, no. I find that I was in error in making this reply, that in fact communications were received during my absence, and acknowledged by the Deputy Minister of Labour, and subsequently further acknowledged by myself. The question wa3 asked me in the due course of debate, and I answered on the spur of the moment without having recollected the communications I now refer to.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS.

Mr. FOSTER.: Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to ask the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) to two returns ordered by the House, one on the 23rd of January, the other on the 16th of February. The one on the 23rd of January was for the bylaws, &c., of the Bankers' Association as ' approved by the Treasury Board ; the other was for the reports of the curators of the different banks to whom curators had been appointed. I would like these down just as soon as the minister can get them.


William Stevens Fielding: I will call the attention of the officials to them. I was not aware the order of the House had not been complied with.


George Eulas Foster: I might also ask the minister to hurry up the other editions from day to day of reciprocity resolutions and amendments pro and con. These are becoming very interesting now, and we would like not to be behind date.



FISHERIES PROTECTION SERVICE.

Mr. JAMESON.: 
Mr. BRODEUR.: I have seen the report in the newspapers, and I asked the depatt-ment to send me the particulars. I expect to receive them in a few minutes, and will inform my hon. friend. I suppose that the information is correct. All the vessels of the Canadian navy are utilized in the protection of the fisheries.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Robert Laird Borden: What business will be taken up to-morrow)?


Wilfrid Laurier: To-morrow we intend to proceed with Supply.


Robert Laird Borden: What particular department?


Wilfrid Laurier: I shall state that later in the day.


William Stevens Fielding: There is a special Supply Bill for the current year with which some progress has been made. That will be the first item.



WAYS AND MEANS - RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Ways and Means.
[u'I would be inclined to think that it has come to pass already. I do not think the manufactured product of Great Britain at the present time approaches anything like the figures which I have-given. It is true, as my hon. friend says, that it is a little difficult to get the statistics for Great Britain in the same way as they are given for the United States. But I find that the cotton, linen and woollen industries of every kind form a very large part of the production of Great Britain, and their product does not begin to approach in value the figures to which I have just called attention. According to this year-book, it amounts to about \xa3200,000,000, which would be about one-sixteenth or one-seventeenth of the total manufactured products of the United States. Of course, that does not include the iron production. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that the manufactured product of Great Britain at the present time does not begin to approach the product of the United States; but, as we have not the figures for the purpose of exact comparison, as my hon. friend says, there may be some room for difference of opinion. I may possibly be able to get more satisfactory statistics; hut in the limited time at my disposal since my hon.\nfriend called my attention to them, I have been able to get only these. Yet I am quite satisfied that they substantially and essentially bear out the statement I made a few evenings ago.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 10,54 p.m.', 'Friday, February 24, 1911.']
Mr. PORTER.: Mr. Speaker, I beg to bring to the attention of the House a communication I have received from the Trent River Paper Company, it is as follows:	*
E. Gus Porter, Esq., M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,-I learned from the papers, that Sir Wilfrid Laurier has promised to carefully consider any objections filed against the proposed changes in the tariff.
Relying upon this promise, I appeal to you as our representative in parliament, to bring to the attention of the Premier, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the truth concerning the position the strawboard manufacturers of Canada would be placed in, should the proposed change in the tariff regarding paper, pasteboard and similar products selling for 4c. or less than 4c. per pound, be put into effect.
The Hon. Mr. Fielding when introducing the reciprocity agreement, stated that he has consented to admit all manufactures of paper selling for 4 cents or less, into Canada, free of duty, because he is of the opinion that the Canadian manufacturers should bo able to compete, with manufacturers of similar products in the United States.
Unfortunately for the manufacturers of strawboard in Canada, the Hon. Mr. Fielding has failed to realize the true position of affairs, and I submit, through you, for .the consideration of the Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Hon. Mr. Fielding, the following facts:
1st. The freight rates on strawboard, from strawboard mills situated in Ohio, are lower to Windsor and London than our rates are. and as low as ours to Paris, Hamilton, Niagara Falls, Berlin, Guelph, Galt, Brampton, and Brantford, and only 40 cents per ton higher to Toronto. Our Winnipeg business would be lost to Michigan or Indiana mills, owing to the great difference in freight rates in their favour.
2nd. Our product is to be admitted free, and we are called upon to pay the following rates of duty:-
Per ton.
On slack coal (a large item in our
cost of manufacture)	$0 14
Freight from International bridge .. 1 30
Or. in all	$1 44
Beyond a doubt we have got to pay $1.44 mere per ton for our fuel than the United States manufacturers have. Further however, on this subject of coal, the freight on a ton of coal from the mines to the international bridge is $1.25 per 2,000 lbs. On the other hand, all the board mills in Ohio can bring their coal supply to their mills for less than $1 per ton or thereabouts.
Therefore, Canadian manufacturers are under a handicap of from $1.25 to $1.50 per ton on the manufactured product, in so far as coal consumption alone is concerned.
Again, it must be remembered, that we have to endure rigorous winter season, and the amount expended in fuel for the mere heating of the mill buildings is considerable.
The duty on felts, another large item in the cost of manufacture, is 35 per cent, the duty
0	i wire cloth, 30 per cent, the duty on machinery and parts thereof is from 27i to 30 per cent, on valves and steam pipe, and steam pipe fittings, pumps, belting and all other supplies, we pay a-high rate of duty.
We consider that the duties on outward and inward freights we pay, place us under a disadvantage of from $2.50 to $4.50 per ^ ton, according to distance or point of delivery from our mill. The business west of Boston wo will lose-no hope in that direction.
This question of the paper and pulp section of the reciprocity agreement seems to me to be in a very complex condition. As
1	read it, only paper or woodboard, the major part of which consists of mechanical or chemical pulp, is to be admitted free into the United States, and even then, only when the pulp is produced from timber cut upon land, upon which there are no provincial government regulations, hindering the free export of pulp wood to the States. Such paper or board to be of the value of 4 cents per pound or less than 4 cents per pound. On the other hand, as far as I understand the _ wording of this same paragraph as it reads in the reciprocity resolution introduced in the House of Commons, all paper, pasteboard and similar

products valued at 4 cents or less than 4 cents per pound are to be admitted free into Canada from the United States, as soon as the United States government consents to admit pulp and paper free from all parts of Canada.
What I wish to make plain is this, that I gather from the two wordings that straw-board will be admitted free from the United States although the United States will not admit strawboard free. I can hardly believe that the Hon,. Mr. Fielding will allow tho agreement to go through in that way. Free admission to the United States for our straw-board will not be of any use to us, but that is only added proof that we are placed in a helpless position. I would like very much to have the opportunity of having a short interview with the Minister of Finance, just for the purpose of explaining our position.
Tours truly.
The Trent River Paper Co., Ltd.,
W. S. MILLER, Managing Director.
I would ask the Minister of Finance whether an interview such as it is desired here would be accorded?


William Stevens Fielding: We are here from day to day, and we are only too happy to receive any gentlemen who come to us on public business.


Mr. KNOWLES.: I am requested to communicate to the government and the House this important and I believe wise and patriotic resolution passed unanimously by the Swift Current Board of Trade. The resolution reads:
This board of trade views with satisfaction the reciprocal tariff arrangement recently negotiated between Canada and the United States, and on behalf of the agricultural interests of Swift Current strongly urges upon the government of Canada that the prc motion of better commercial relations between this country and the great republic to the south of us will not affect onr national loyalty but will greatly stimulate the agricultural interests of this country and assist the development of these resources.
Respectfully,



[Stage Direction]
Secretary.
Mr. GOODEVE.: I desire to bring to the attention of the House the two following resolutions which have been communicated to me:


RESOLUTION OP THE CRESTON FRUIT AND PRODUCE ASSOCIATION.
[Stage Direction]
Whereas the proposed agreement^ introduced by the Hon. Mr. Fielding will inflict a severe blow to the fruit and lumbering industries of British Columbia without giving any equivalent; and whereas the fruit industry is in its infancy and needs fostering; and whereas the fostering of home industries is of vital importance to the welfare of this province: and whereas the proposed agreement would impair the capital investment of those interested in those industries; now be it resolved, that the Creston Fruit and Produce Associa-Mr. PORTER.
tion in regular meeting here assembled, strongly condemns the proposed agreement so far as it applies to these two industries.
And whereas the principle of reciprocity with the United States involves fundamental changes in the policy adopted during the past ten years and with such success by Canada, and may involve Canada as a whole, in a policy which will result in our commerce being diverted, and flowing north to south, instead of east to west as at present, to the great disadvantage of Canadian railways, manufacturers and producers; therefore the Creston Emit and Produce Association, in regular meeting here assembled, requests the earnest attention of the government to these facts, before any change whatsoever is made, in the present successful Canadian tariff policy.
And that copies of these resolutions be sent to Premier McBride, A. S. Goodeve, Senator Howitt Bostock and Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
Resolution passed unanimously by the South Kootenay Farmers' Institute:
Whereas, the fruit and vegetable growers of South Kootenay have invested heavily in the fruit industry, relying upon the government of Canada to maintain existing tariff conditions as affecting their products; or in case of any modification of the tariff affecting fruit, vegetable, and poultry products, to benefit, at least, to an equal extent by the modification of the tariff on other articles affecting the cost of production of these commodities ; and
Whereas, the cost of production in this district is increased by tlie fact that labour and all supplies are higher by reason of a generally protective tariff, and by the distance from eastern Canadian manufacturing centres ; and
Whereas, the proposed reciprocity arrangement with the United States would remove the protection which we now enjoy, while there is nothing in the proposed reciprocal arrangement to reduce the cost of production; the result, therefore, will be both injurious and unjust to us, and will doubtless mean the ruin of many who have invested their all in these industries.
Therefore, be it resolved, that we, the members of the South Kootenay Farmers' Institute, do unanimously protest against the abrogation of the present duties on fruit, vegetables and poultry products, and respectfully urge that the government of Canada may find some other means of securing such concessions as they may desire from the United States than the partial extinction of these most important industries.
Signed on behalf of the Institute.
GEO. A. PAULL, Secretary.
Dated at Columbia Gardens, B.C.,
Eeb. 13, 1911.
Mr. SEXSMITH.: I wish to call the attention of the government to the following item from the Toronto * News,' which is published in the Montreal ' Gazette ':
Toronto, February 22.-The 'News' says that President Stuart, of the Quaker Oats Company, a large American concern, with a Canadian branch at Peterborough, while in the city a few days ago, stated to Z. A. Lash, K.C., that if the proposed agreement

is adopted at least 80 per cent, of the business now done at Peterborough will be transferred to the United States, which will practically mean the closing of the Peterborough mills.
I wish to ask if the government has- had any representation in regard to this matter ?


William Stevens Fielding: I have read the article in the press to which my hon. friend refers.


Mr. MIDDLEBRG.: I desire to call the attention of the government to a resolution passed by the Associated Boards of Trade, of the province of Ontario at their meeting in Toronto yesterday, the resolution was introduced by a prominent Liberal and seconded by the Hon. E. J. Davis, ex-commissioner of Grown lands in the Ross government, and it reads:	'
In the opinion of the Ontario Associated Boards of Trade the proposed reciprocity agreement threatens Canadian nationality and autonomy and is opposed to the true interests of Canada and should not be ratified.
This resolution was carried by a vote of 97 to 18. I also desire to call the attention of the government to a statement made yesterday by Sir William Van Horne, who, -speaking on the reciprocity agreement said:
It has made me sick and ashamed; too sick and too ashamed to say anything on the subject.
In view of the representations of men of the standing of Sir William Van Horne; in view of the representations of an association representing all the boards of trade in the province of Ontario, and in view of all the representations that have been made by all the associations and boards of trade throughout the country, I desire to ask if these will have any effect whatever .upon the determination of the government to force through this reciprocity compact.


William Stevens Fielding: The only new point in my hon. friend's remarks is the high admiration he has now for the Hon. E. J. Davis. We are glad to know that hon. gentlemen opposite think so well of him.


Mr. LALOR.: Mr. Speaker, I desire- to call the attention of the government to a resolution of the Winnipeg Board of Trade, which, by a vote of 69 to 13, condemned the proposed trade arrangement between the United States and Canada. This resolution was moved by Mr. W. H. Cross and seconded by Mr. D. C. Cameron, who was Liberal candidate in the last election in the city of Winnipeg. I wish to know if. resolutions of this kind will have the effect of -causing the government to withdraw the agreement.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Read the resolution.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: That resolution reads:
That rhe Winnipeg Board of Trade, after careful consideration of the proposed reciprocity agreement between the Dominion of Canada and the United States, is firmly of the opinion that the same is not in the best interest of the Dominion, particularly that portion of the country west of the Great Lakes, and desires to impress upon the government its urgent wish that the proposal be not ratified.


Mr. LAW.: Mr.	Speaker,	I desire
to call the attention of the House to a resolution passed by the Yarmouth County Farmers' Association, which is composed of both Liberals	and Tor
ias alike.	I may say that this resolution was passed unanimously and without division. It reads:
Whereas the reciprocal trade arrangement recently drafted by representatives of the United States and representatives of Canada is now before tbe parliament of Canada for ratification.
And whereas, in the opinion of this Yarmouth County Farmers' Association the ratification of said arrangement and the amendment of the customs tariffs of both countries in accordance with the schedules to said proposed arrangement, will establish between Canada and tbe United States, not only a more liberal trade policy than heretofore, which must have many advantages, but will promote and encourage tbe commercial interests of both countries and strengthen the friendly relations now happily prevailing between them, and thus add another safe-guard to the peace of the empire by further promoting the union of Anglo-Saxon nations for their common interests.
Therefore resolved, that this Yarmouth County Farmers' Association place on record its approval of said trade arrangement, and of its hope and desire that it may be ratified both by the Canadian Parliament and tbe American Congress, believing that its ratification will effect a marked increase in the prosperity of the people of Canada.
Further resolved, that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Honourable W. S. Fielding, Minister of Finance and to B. B. Law, M.P., at Ottawa, *
Yarmouth, N.S., February 17, 1911.
I wish also to say that the Yarmouth County Farmers' Association is one of the largest, if not the largest farmers' associations in the province of Nova Scotia.


David Henderson: I beg to present a petition from the Fruit Growers' Association of the village of Burlington, in the county of Halton, which I will read:
Burlington, Ont., Feb. 2, 1911.
Whereas it is proposed to establish free trade in fruits and vegetables between Canada and the United States.
And whereas, millions of dollars are invested in Canada in these industries.
And whereas, under free trade, competition would be unequal and the Canadian power heavily handicapped by reason of having to sell in a wide open market and to buy in a

protected one, and also on account of ten or twelve times the amount of capital invested in the fruit industry in the United States as compared with Canada, and the larger investment always tends and strives to crush the smaller.
And whereas, the value of fruit and vegetable lands would he materially diminished.
And whereas the fruit and vegetable growers have from time to time in the past emphasized to the government of the day the desirability of a moderately protective tariff; therefore, be it resolved that:
The Canadian government be respectfully requested to maintain the present Canadian tariff on fruits and vegetables entering Canada, and that a copy of this resolution be sent to Mr. David Henderson, M.P., for Hal-ton.
Moved by A. W. Peart, seconded by Robert Fowler.


H. T. FOSTER,
[Stage Direction]
Pres. Burlington Fruit Growers' Association.

[Stage Direction]
Sec. Burlington Fruit Growers' Association.
I present this petition Mr. Speaker, hoping that it will assist the right hon. gentleman to find a reasonable excuse for withdrawing from the compact which he has announced to the House.
Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs).: I do not know that these ex-' tracts aie all in perfect order, but as we have been having some of them, and as I have here a newspaper that has been sent to me without any communication, asking me to read it to the House, perhaps it would be as well if I should do so. The article is from the Summerland ' Review,' which I suppose is the organ of the fruit industry in British Columbia. There is an article from Mr. Burrell, with reference to the question, and this article in the ' Review,' is headed ' Sober Second Thoughts.'


Mr. BURRELL.: Do I understand the hon. minister to say that this extraordinary article is from my pen?


William Paterson: No. It may, perhaps, come from the hon. gentleman's pen after he has the sober second thought which the editor recommends. The editorial in this fruit organ is as follows:


SOBER SECOND THOUGHTS.
[Stage Direction]
When the people of Canada have overcome the scare many have apparently been driven into in connection with the reciprocity agreement between the United States and Canada, we believe that the general opinion will be that the agreement is one of the greatest achievements of statesmanship to be recorded in the Laurier regime, in fact, something too good to come to pass, for the American Senate will hardly pass it. This may sound strange coming from a newspaper essentially Conservative in its politics, particularly in view of the fact that many of our politicians see in the agreement much out of which to make political capital.
David Henderson: In matters so great as this, where the interests of the whole Dominion are at stake, and Canada is getting that for which the Dominion has worked hard since 1865, we believe the matter of politics should be laid aside and the question studied soberly so as to be fully understood.
Going back to 1854, a treaty of reciprocity in natural products was entered into between the United States and Canada. This was the result, largely, of the personal work and influence of Lord Elgin, then Governor General of Canada. This treaty proved of great value to both countries and under it Canada revived in a marked degree. That treaty covered the navigation of the St. Lawrence, the fisheries question, and provided for mutual free trade between Canada and the United States in the products of the two countries. For six years the Elgin treaty worked particularly advantageously to Canada. Then the strained relations between England and the United States over the Alabama claims, brought on the question on the part of the United States of the abrogation of that treaty. For five years more it was continued, then in 1865 the American Senate cancelled the agreement.


Mr. SPROULE.: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I do not think it is quite proper for a minister of the Crown to obstruct his own motion for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means by reading a long article in defence of the government's policy, and thereby setting a bad example to the House. I want to ask your ruling on the question whether this conduct is strictly in accordance with parliamentary usage.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The Minister of Customs has seconded the motion before the Chair, and I presume that he has a right to speak.


William Paterson: I do not object to the point of order. I am glad that it has been taken. It just emphasizes the fact that hon. gentlemen opposite cannot hear the truth and remain quiet under it-that they are afraid of free discussion-afraid of anything being said which will conflict with their pet theory.


Mr. CURRIE (Simcoe).: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The motion is for the" House to go into Committee of Ways and Means. I ask whether the hon. gentleman can discuss the matter contained in the motion, as he is doing, by reading an extract.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I have been consulting Bourinot in the last day or two on that point, and I find that it would be irregular to discuss the resolution now before the committee. But the doctrine laid down by Bourinot is that on a motion for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means, or into Committee of Supply, almost any question which is not on the Order Paper, or in committee, may be discussed; but a specific reference to the resolution before

the committee I would consider out of order.


Robert Laird Borden: Then this is strictly in order, because it has nothing whatever to do with the resolution before the committee.


William Findlay Maclean: Is it your ruling, then, that an amendment dealing with the resolution before the committee would be out of order?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I am hot called upon to rule on that point. If the point is raised, after hearing the old parliamentarians, I will decide it.


Morley Currie: The hon. gentleman is out of order, then?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. gentleman is in order; he is speaking to his motion.


William Paterson: It is strange that the hon. gentleman could not see that. Hon. gentlemen opposite have been reading to the House extracts from newspapers, and have been asking time and again for any expressions of views that have reached the government with reference to this question. Here is an expression of view with reference to it, and why it should be thought that I am contravening any rule of the House by reading it I cannot understand. The article continues:
Since that time numerous efforts have been made to renew the reciprocity trade relations between the two countries. In 1866 a Canadian delegation went to Washington to negotiate a treaty; in 1869, Sir John Rose made the effort; in 1873 George Brown and Sir Edward Thornton repeated the effort, and in 1890-92 Hon. Robert Bond did likewise, with no result.
While these prominent Canadians were making the effort on the part of Canada, various Bills and resolutions for reciprocity with Canada were tabled or voted down in Congress from time to time. After this oame the ' Joint High Commission/ -which was to settle all points of difference between the two countries including reciprocity.
From this brief history of reciprocity and reciprocity negotiations covering half a century or more, it will be seen that Canada is now getting something our statesmen, at least, have believed all along the Dominion was in need of, and, whether we can all agree as to what should and should not be placed on the free list, we must recognize this, that reciprocity is something our greatest statesmen have fought hard to bring about.
There is another article in the same paper dealing with the same question, v hich is as follows:


OUR FRUIT HAS NOTHING TO FEAR.
[Stage Direction]
Without wishing to disparage the argument sincerely made by many against the removal of the duty on fresh fruit and vegetables to and from the United States, as provided in
the proposed reciprocity agreement, we object to the underlying thought which bottoms all such argument, that Canadian fruit growers are not able to compete with the American fruit growers in the matter of picking, packing and selling their fruit.
British Columbia fruit, such as peaches, pears and apples,-particularly apples,-could be sold at the highest price in the best markets in America alongside of the best fruit from California, Colorado Washington and Oregon. We have seen Colorado Jonathans push the California Belleflower off the market at Los Angeles, the greatest fruit centre in the world. And, under reciprocity British Columbia fruit growers could ship apples to such centres as this and find a market already built up. For our fruit growers have nothing to fear in competition with the fruit from any of the American districts.
Speaker Cannon, of the American House, spoke significantly at a banquet of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers a few evenings ago.
We have lately had sent to Congress a commercial agreement in name, but a treaty in reality, but one that goes primarily to the House. In a month's time we shall be called upon to enact it as law. I do not know what we are going to do with it. Ask the fruit growers of California what they are going to do when Canadian fruits are free. What answer are we going to give one-third of the population of the country-the farmers?
And are we to fear the American apple on our markets when our fruit is so much superior? If our fruit growers could produce the quantity, the product from the other side would not stand any chance here, for our fruit would command the market. Until we do produce the quantity the present tariff or any other tariff is but a superficial remedy.
As I said, the other side of the question is set out in the letter published in thisj same paper and signed by Mr. Burrell.
Francis Ramsey Lalor: Is that a resolution or an editorial article?


William Paterson: They are both editorials.


Martin Burrell: As the hon. minister has seen fit to introduce my name in this discussion and has also quoted an editorial from the Summerland ' Review,' British Columbia, it is only fair that I should ask the House to hear with me a minute or 1 wo along that same line. I have in the Vernon ' News ' of February 9 an article which gives the report of the Associated Boards of Trade of the Okanagan valley, which met at Summerland, and which expressed very clearly and explicitly the overwhelming convictions of the fruit growers in that district. That resolution is as follows:
That the Associated Boards of Trade for the Okanagan Valley at their annual meeting now assembled urged in the strongest manner upon the Dominion government the absolute necessity of maintaining the present import duty on fruit as from the United States.

The fruit industry in British Columbia is in the infant stage with great possibilities which has been stated by responsible men will equal the lumber industry of the province, and at present stage requires careful handling and fostering. There are millions of dollars invested in the fruit industry in the province more than in the farm implement business of Ontario which has been nursed and protected, by so doing these factories of Canada are classed in this line as the leading industries of the world. Without this protection through their growing years, these magnificent plants now employing thousands, would never have existed. The same applies to the British Columbia fruit industry in which the growers have invested many millions of dollars, besides the very large investments of capital in irrigation systems running into millions of dollars.
The necessity of a protection duty outside the fostering of a young and promising industry, is the undeniable fact that the natural market for British Columbia. ' The Northwest Territories ' is made the dumping ground for surplus fruit from the northwestern states which already possess a large and fully developed fruit industry and the pernicious action of consignment is resorted to on a large scale. It is well taken that the fruit growers are entitled to have their rights guarded the same as has been the case for| other enterprises.
It winds up with the strongest representation that this fruit industry absolutely needs protection. The minister has seen fit to quote the views of one editor of a newspaper. I do not know the gentleman who wrote the article or what weight it carried, but the overwhelming majority of the whole of that district entertained diametrically opposite views. I have a copy of the Vernon ' News ' of February 16, to show you how strongly they feel on this question. I may say that at a very large meeting on February 15, they quoted various statements made by the government and others with reference to this industry, and among these statements I 'find the following:
The Shoreham Hotel,
Washington, D.C..
21st January, 19:1.
G. C. Johnston, Esq.,
Secretary. Board of Trade,
Vernon, B.C., Canada.
Dear Sir,-I am just in receipt of your telegram of the 20th and have carefully noted all that is stated therein.
I shall bring the matter before my colleague, Hon. Mr. Fielding, and you may rest assured that it will have our most serious consideration.
Tours truly,


WM. PATERSON.
[Stage Direction]
So that these gentlemen who were representing the fruit growing industry in the. Okanagan valley wired to the minister at Washington the disastrous effects which would follow if the duties were taken off, Mr. BURRELL
and the hon. 'Minister of Customs wired in reply, before the negotiations were concluded, that he would seriously consider their representations. The hon. minister has intimated that the gentleman who wrote the article he quoted is a Conservative. I have here a copy of the Kelowna * Courier ' and Okanagan * Orchardist,' which is edited by one of the strongest, most consistent and vigorous supporters of this government that I know of in western Canada. *	-
William Paterson: I did not say that this editor was a Conservative.


Martin Burrell: My hon. friend was endeavouring to say apparently.


William Paterson: No.


Martin Burrell: He said that paper was Conservative, which would lead to the inference that this was a Conservative authority, but the gentleman who edits Kelowna ' Courier ' is one of the most indefatigable Liberals in British Columbia, and is rarely to be found opposing or criticising harshly anything this government does. I want to read a leading article from this gentleman on February 16:-
Free trade is theoretically the best policy, failing which fair trade, which would consist in a reasonable tariff to use as a weapon in making countries with high protective tariffs come to time; hut there should be no picking and choosing, and a lopsided reciprocity agreement which leaves untouched the 'majority of the high protective duties on manufactured articles, hut strips the farmer and fruit grower of their share of protection, is grossly unfair.
And he goes on:
As a Liberal, albeit always an independent one, it pains ns to find ourselves in opposition to the policy of the leaders of our party, especially when Liberal rule in Canada has been signalized by such abundant prosperity, but we cannot endorse a departure from the established policy of the past fifteen years so discriminatory in its character that it l,mows the burden of loss and disaster on ilie infant industry of horticulture, only beginning to direct its wavering steps along the path of progress, while the manufacturing trusts of Eastern Canada, gorged with the accumulated profits of years, sit sleek and smiling behind an impregnable tariff wall.
Now, before I close this short reply to the Minister of Customs, I would like the minister to understand the emphatic opinion of a gentleman whom he ought to respect. And I would call the attention of the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), to this, and that of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) also, for, if I understood the latter gentleman rightly, he implied that they were Conservatives largely, who were in-

dulging in the fiercest criticism of the tendency of this policy from the national point of view. The gentleman whom I am going to quote, is one who had the honour and pleasure of entertaining my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), in the city of Vernon. I refer to Mr. Husband, mayor of Vernon, a lifelong Liberal, and highly respected in the district, and who, so far as I know, has always been a consistent Liberal. At the board of trade meeting, at which they protested strongly against the proposals, MayoT Husband spoke strongly on the point to which I have referred. I quote from the Vernon ' News 5 report of the meeting:
Mayor Husband then said that he would like to offer a few remarks regarding the reciprocity agreement, and proceeded to set forth in very lucid and convincing terms his reasons for opposing it. He thought that every one in the district, who had any knowledge of the circumstances, would agree with the resolution passed by this board

That is the resolution protesting against the removal of the duty.
-and the associated boards, protesting against the removal of the duty, and he went on to review very thoroughly the various conditions which gave the old established fruit growers of the states to the south a great advantage over us on the prairie markets. . .
Still more important, however, was the efiect that such an arrangement would have on our national and political life. The great and patriotic statesmen who had made it their object to build up a strong nation in Canada under British institutions had commenced by uniting the east and west by a line of railway. We have pledged our national credit for many millions to build other reads, with the view of uniting our provinces and maintaining our trade in our own channels. He believed that the trade policy inaugurated by Sir John A. Macdonald -was the best possible for Canada at the time, and it was fortunate that another such great statesman as Sir Wilfrid Laurier had continued the development of this policy. Have wo reached a stage, he asked, when we can afford to let down our tariff walls? . . .
He felt that any step towards reciprocity was premature and dangerous. It was the beginning of the parting of the ways which might eventually lead to Americanizing the country. While he had every confidence in Mr. Fielding, who he regarded as one of the best finance ministers Canada ever had


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Martin Burrell: The hon. gentlemen who cheer that .sentiment, should let me finish the sentence.
-he feared that in his anxiety to increase trade he had overlooked the grave political danger of such an agreement.
He disliked and mistrusted the attitude of the United States in this agreement. He felt that there was an ulterior motive behind their actions, and concluded by comparing them to the Greeks at Trov. reiterating the
classic warning to beware <tf the Greeks especially when they bear gifts.
That is all I have to say. I want to make it absolutely clear that the little matter of editorial opinion quoted by my hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson), is abundantly repudiated, and he has his answer at the hands of the Liberal gentlemen whom I -have quoted.


Mr. BRADBURY.: I hold in my hand a letter from the market gardeners of Manitoba. Last year, I presented to this House a petition in the interests of the market gardeners, and I received a promise from the Finance Minister that nothing would be done in the way of changing (he tariff until an investigation had been made. This letter goes on to say:
As secretary of our society, I make a strong protest on behalf of our gardeners, because the government have taken this step without consulting our producers and without any consideration for the petitions already sent to them, and further without any regard for the capital invested in this industry in our country by those now in the business and many others coming in renting land at a big figure and putting their last dollar into their outfits. Free vegetables will simply put these men out of business. The government should consider our local conditions-expensive labour and working and keeping clean these gardens which is a very costly item compared with cheap southern labour, and also our climatic conditions, our severe winter necessarily entailing an enormous expense in heating greenhouses which must be used in order to compete. Our market now is not as it should be, being controlled by a few middlemen. We are just now taking steps to have the city of Winnipeg establish a central market place. The number of gardeners around Winnipeg for five or six miles would be fully 100, with others growing potatoes and other vegetables who do not make a regular business of it. The amount of capital invested would average from $1,000 to $3,000. I estimate roughly the amount tied up in these outfits, including horses, machinery, wagons, greenhouses, &c., and not considering the land value, about $400,000, or perhaps $500,000. If you included the land value, of course it *would be very much more. On learning from the newspapers that this arrangement had been made, I communicated with the President of the Market Gardeners' Association and asked him for a special meeting on Monday next to protest against the action of the government. I see by the papers that it will be up in the House on Tuesday next.
A copy of the resolution sent forward to the government has been sent to me, and I beg to put it on Tecord. It is in the form of a memorial:
To the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Premier of Canada, and to the members of the House of Commons.
Gentlemen,-We, the undersigned market gardeners in the vicinity of Winnipeg now assembled humbly desire to impress upon

your honourable body the importance of the duty now being imposed upon green vegetables coming into Winnipeg from the United States.
We therefore petition that this duty be left as at present and sincerely hope your government will not remove the same as asked for by the wholesalers and jobbers in the session of 1909, which would benefit only themselves and neither the producers nor the consumers of Manitoba.
And it would only be the means of depriving our gardeners of a very large portion of their earnings and in fact many of them would have to go out of business.
And your petitioners will ever prqy.
In view of the fact that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), promised across the floor of the House last year, to give these men an opportunity of presenting their views, and at least to make an investigation, I think it is absolutely unfair, by the proposition brought down, to deprive these men of the protection they enjoyed under the old tariff. I beg to call the attention of the government to another resolution passed in the city of Winnipegf* This was passed by the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, two-thirds of the members of which are Liberals:
The Winnipeg Grain Exchange, by a vote of 54 to 15, adopted the following resolution:
Resolved, that it is the opinion of the members of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange that the proposed measure of reciprocity trade between Canada and the United States of America now under consideration at Ottawa and Washington, if ratified, will not be in the best interests of Canada.


RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES-POSITION OF SOME OTHER COUNTRIES.
John Dowsley Reid: I brought a question up here a short time ago, and asked the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding), if he would give me a definite answer. The hon. gentleman replied that the information asked for by my question, had been covered by the answer to a question asked by the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr.. Sharpe), on February 16. The question was with regard to this reciprocity treaty. The hon. member for North Ontario asked a question on February 16, as recorded at 3744 of the Unrevised ' Hansard ':
1. What is the number and the names of the countries, if any, that will be entitled! to have their natural products and manufactured articles come into Canada under the same terms as the United States under the proposed reciprocity agreement?
Now, I am not finding fault with the answer that the Minister of Finance gave to the hon. member for North .Ontario. That answer, perhaps, was satisfactory to that hon. gentleman. That answer reads as follows:


Mr. BRADBURY.: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Speaker-


John Dowsley Reid: I want the Minister of Finance to answer that question, yes or no.


William Stevens Fielding: I have no right to
speak. My hon. friend has asked a ques tion, and I could not answer it in any plainer English than I used in answering the same question more comprehensive!'' put by the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe). I think the hon. member understands it well enough, but it suits his purpose to pretend that he does not.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not regard the answer as entirely definite. The reference in it is to dutiable goods, it says nothing at all about the free list. I suppose there was an obvious intention in making that omission. Why should not the hon. gentleman be able to inform this House, in the first place-


William Stevens Fielding: On what point?


Robert Laird Borden: Whether the Argentine Republic will have the right to send its goods into our territory on the same terms as the United States?


William Stevens Fielding: That is answered, my answmr says so.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, we have the answer now ; that is correct. Then will the hon. gentleman tell us if Austria-Hungary will have the same right?


William Stevens Fielding: The same answer.


Robert Laird Borden: Will Bolivia have the same right?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Will Colombia have the same right?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Denmark the same right?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.
Mr.	BORDEN	(Halifax).	Japan	the
same right?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Norway the same right?


William Stevens Fielding: \es.
Mr.	BORDEN	(Halifax).	Russia	the
same right?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.
Mr.	BORDEN	(Halifax).	Spain	the
same right?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Sweden the same right?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Switzerland the same right? [DOT]


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Venezuela the same right.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, if the hon. gentleman had said this before, it would have saved the House a good deal of time.


William Stevens Fielding: No, I am not taking up the time of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: .No, but the hon. gentleman has done so, and he complains if any one else does it.


William Stevens Fielding: No, I do not.


Robert Laird Borden: He reproached me yesterday for having made three speeches, and I was obliged to tell him that I would have to make many more. I ask him now if we will have the right to send our goods into those countries on the same terms on which we can send them into the United States.


William Stevens Fielding: Surely the hon. gentleman is not serious. He knows the meaning of the favoured-nation treaty. It means that you get in those countries the best terms that are granted by those countries to any people on earth.


Robert Laird Borden: Surely this is a very plain question : Will we have the same right to enter the markets of those countries, both in respect to free and dutiable goods, that we have to enter the markets of the United States under this reciprocity proposal?


William Stevens Fielding: Every one of these countries makes its own tariff laws, as we make ours. Every country may send its products into the Dominion of Canada subject to our tariff laws, and our products must enter every country subject to the tariff laws of that country ; and every country having a favoured-nation treaty guarantees to us that no other country will ever get any advantage over us in it3 markets. That is favoured-nation treatment.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not ask the hon. gentleman to make a disquisition on the favoured-nation treaty, I was asking a very simple question. We did extract certain information from him by going over these countries one by one, but with difficulty, and much reluctance on his part. Now, I ask him this:	As under these reciprocity proposals, the goods of Canada can enter the United States, some osf them on the free list, and some upon the reduced list-will we have that same right in respect to the countries I have mentioned? That is a plain question, is it not? And it is a question which the government ought not to be afraid to answer.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifaxf


William Stevens Fielding: There is no fear in answering it. These favoured-nation countries are to-day, as I said in the answer I gave to the member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe), they are to-day enjoying to a large extent the concessions which this arrangement gives to the United States. These concessions to a large extent are the same as were granted to France, and when they were granted to France, they were granted to the favoured-nation countries. The favoured-nation countries are getting them to-day, and they are not getting' them by virtue of the reciprocity arrangements at all. Second, the reciprocity arrangement does not deal with favoured nations. Whatever obligation we have in the matter of trade relations has been on the statute-book for ages; it arises out of treaties made by our mother country years ago. We have been subject to these treaties for years. There is nothing new in them to-day, there is nothing in this reciprocity arrangement which in any way creates any new favoured nation condition.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman has not given a conspicuous example of courage, because he has still been afraid to answer the very simple question put to him.


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend will be good enough to repeat the question, I will be as brave as he is known to be.


Robert Laird Borden: If the hon. gentleman did not understand the question he is the only hon. gentleman in this House who did not.


William Stevens Fielding: Pity my ignorance.


Robert Laird Borden: If his intellect is not keyed up to the pitch of understanding such a question as I have addressed to him, he had better give over the control of this treaty to some one else.


William Stevens Fielding: Oh, no he hadn't.


Robert Laird Borden: I make that suggestion.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend has not been invited to do that. If he will repeat the question I will try to answer it.


Robert Laird Borden: I will repeat it once more, and try to make it so plain that even the Minister of Finance will understand it. I asked whether or not the terms which are extended to this country by the United States, under these tariff proposals, will be extended to the products of this country entering the countries that I named only a moment ago. If that is not plain, I cannot make it plain.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman's question is, whether the terms we obtain in the United States will be obtained in these various favoured nation countries ?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: I answer-and if the hon. gentleman did not know it, it is a marvellous thing that one in his position did not know it, and I must be permitted to doubt whether he did not know it,-that this arrangement does not in any way touch the rights which we have in any countries in the world. I repeat that every country makes its own tariff arrangements, that the United States has no power to determine on what terms and conditions Canadian products will enter Austria-Hungary. Every nation makes its own tariff.


William Findlay Maclean: Except Canada.


William Stevens Fielding: Canada makes its own tariff. I would have thought that after our little interview of yesterday, never again would we have heard that very foolish statement. I have a better opinion of hon. gentlemen than to suppose they do not know the principles of favoured-nation treatment. Favoured nation, simply means that in every one of these countries, we have a guarantee that no other country will ever be allowed to get any advantage over us. That is what favoured-nation treatment means, and I rather suspect that the hon. gentleman knows it.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course I do.


William Paterson: I beg pardon, I only spoke once, and I was called to order, when I was entirely within my Tights, and here is an hon. gentleman making four speeches.


Robert Laird Borden: I yielded on every occasion in order that the Minister of Finance might ask a question.


William Paterson: I do not know that you have an absolute right to ask a question, and demand three or four answers to it.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I have allowed a great many questions to be put, because I have felt it was the sense of the House that they should be put. Of course the minister having been called on more than once, cannot be called on to make a speech on each occasion, and therefore, it is irregular to put these questions, because they cannot be put without there being a right to answer them.


Robert Laird Borden: I was not calling in question the right of a minister to answer my question, that would be an utter lack of courtesy. I asked.the minister a question, and I yielded the floor in order he might have an opportunity to answer. I could not compel him to answer, but I yielded the floor to him to answer if he saw fit.


William Paterson: No, because you spoke three or four times.


Robert Laird Borden: I have never understood that a gentleman who sits down in this House in order that some one else may answer a question thereby yields his right to the floor. The Minister of Customs does not seem to know any more about the rules of the House, than he does about this reciprocity treaty.


William Paterson: I take the point of order.


Robert Laird Borden: I knew perfectly well what the answer of the Minister of Finance ought to be, but I sought to let him give a plain statement to the House of what the facts were, and with a good deal of skill he has in some sort of half-hearted way, endeavoured to make a plausible answer, and at the same time to avoid giving a direct answer.


William Paterson: Do you understand it now ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


William Paterson: I raise the point of order.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the point of order?


William Paterson: The point is that the hon. gentleman has spoken half a dozen times and he has not the right to do that. I vas called to order when I was speaking perfectly within my rights, I had not spoken before or anything, and the hon. gentfeman has taken the floor four or five times, occupying all the afternoon, after having all his questions answered. [DOT]


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I consider that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden), is within his right.


Robert Laird Borden: I think I am entirely right in the conjecture which I ventured a moment ago, that the hon. Minister of Customs knows just about as much about the rules of the House as he does about the reciprocity arrangement. That has been made absolutely manifest by the result of the point of order which he raised just now. I understood perfectly what the situation was, but we desired to have the understanding of the government upon the same point. The question was really not open to argument. We in Canada, under these reciprocity proposals, will be obliged to open our markets to all the countries that have been named upon the same terms as are contained in these proposals with reference to importations from the United States of America. There is no doubt at all about that, but on the other hand, when our products go from Canada to these countries, they do not go on the same terms as those on which products of Canada enter the United States. In other words, to sum it all up, by these reciprocity proposals,

our markets are opened upon these terms to the products of some 13 or 14 countries, while the market of only one country is opened to us, under the same terms and conditions. If the Minister of Finance had answered directly on the point, he would have said that which I have just now stated to the House, as to the correctness of which I absolutely defy contradiction by any hon. gentleman in this House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Following the good example of the Minister of Customs, I have a burning desire to entertain this House for a length of time by reading important editorials. They are very long and argumentative, and I have no doubt, will afford a great deal of valuable information to members of this House, and since it has been ruled that it is in order to do so, especially by a minister of the Crown, who, in the judgment of some is obstructing the motion which the government has made, to allow the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means, I hope to entertain the House probably for the next 24 hours, if 1 am able to stand up that long. I believe in following a good precedent and a good example.
I have one editorial here extending oveT two columns and a half; it is ornamented with a photograph of one of the ministers at its head, and I am sure it would be very interesting to the House. But I have been debating in my own mind whether it would be the part of wisdom to do as the Minister of Customs has dore and obstruct the business of the House by reading this article. Of course, the Minister of Customs said that no time was wasted by his reading an editorial, arid so I might entertain the House by reading an article from the Montreal ' Star/ covering 14 columns, which is filled with valuable advice and courteous advice and kindly advice to the First Minister and the Minister of Finance, and which speaks out on behalf of the interests of our great Dominion and the menace to our connection with the mother land. I would be strongly tempted to read that article if I could do so before the House rose at six o'clock. Of course, we are not in a hurry, because the Minister of Customs has told us that time is no great object, and I could interlard this editorial with a few of my own remarks, which might be jocose in imitation of the Minister of Customs. When my hon. friend from Kootenay was quoting some references to the Minister of Finance this afternoon, hon. gentlemen opposite all cheered the first part of the article, but when the latter part was read they all remained silent. It reminded me of the story of the man who saw a little vicious animal called a bull in a field pawing up the ground and exhibiting his desire to get over the fence and at the man. And the man said: You little brute, I feel like Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
going over that fence myself, taking you by the horns, slinging you down the hill and breaking every bone in your body. Well, the man thought this was a good idea and he had a hearty laugh at it. However, no sooner was he over the fence than the bull charged him, threw him up in the air, and when he came down to earth with nearly every bone in his body broken he said: It was a mighty good thing that I had my laugh beforehand. And so, if these hon. gentlemen opposite had waited until the end of that article they would never have had that opportunity to cheer. But, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding my desire to enlighten and entertain the House and my inclination to follow the good example of the Minister of Customs, I am inclined to be merciful and to spare my fellow-members. I, of course, have a strong desire to economize the time of parliament and let the government get on with their very interesting measure, which is doing so much to bring down on them the odium of every intelligent man in Canada, and, therefore, I will not at the present moment read these important editorials, although later on it may be necessary to do so, especially in view of the fact that every time a minister of the Crown rises to tell us something about this beautiful trade arrangement he plainly shows that he knows nothing about it. For the present, Sir, I shall content myself with the observations I have made, and I shall defer until some future occasion. following the example of the Minister of Customs in reading these newspaper editorials.


Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds).: I see_ in the newspapers this afternoon a cable despatch from England, which, I ask the Minister of Finance, to reconcile with the statement he made in the House a few days ago. This cable reads:


MR. BRYCE NOT INSTRUCTED.
[Stage Direction]
(Canadian Press Cable).
London, Fob. 23.-In the bouse of commons to-day Sir Edward Grey in answer to Mr. dames Hope said that no instructions had been given to the ambassador at Washington in connection with the Canadian-United States agreement.
Mr. Hope: Do I understand that no instructions were given at all?
Sir Ed. Grey: No instructions were sent beforehand. We have not yet received the full report of the speech of the Canadian minister who said Ambassador Bryce helped all through the negotiations.
Mr. DANIEL.: It was the Postmaster General who said that.


George Taylor: No; it was the Minister of Finance when he made his speech congratulating Ambassador Bryce for the valuable assistance he had rendered in Washington.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The Minister of Finance has already spoken on this question, and he cannot be permitted to make another
speech.


William Stevens Fielding: I should be glad to answer.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I would like it to be understood by the House that I cannot allow a minister or a member to speak more than once on the same motion.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Perhaps the Postmaster General will explain his statement that Mr. Bryce, the British ambassador, had assisted the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Customs to help along this reciprocity arrangement at Washington.


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General).: The meaning of what I said was that Mr. Bryce had given his assistance and help to the ministers who were at Washington negotiating with the American government, but that did not imply that he had received any instructions. He is our ambassador and naturally he would assist and help Canada whenever Canada needs him. That is the duty of the British ambassador and that is what I said.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Yesterday one of the ministers of the Crown tried to make the House and the country believe that the members on this side of the House and the Conservative press throughout the country were largely responsible for promoting the annexation idea. In answer to this, may I be privileged to read a resolution signed by 18 prominent Liberals in the city of Toronto, worded as follows:


PROMINENT LIBERALS OPPOSE RATIFICATION OF RECIPROCITY.
[Stage Direction]
We oppose ratification of the proposed reciprocity agreement with the United States of America:
1.	Because in the years 1897 the parliament of Canada repealed the legislation then existing relating to reciprocity and since such repeal neither the people of Canada nor their parliament have entrusted the government with any duty or authority to negotiate with respect to any agreement on the subject.
2.	Because the present unexampled prosperity of Canada is the result of the policy which has been pursued in the development of her trade and of her natural resources. Because this has involved the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars upon railways, canals, steamship and other means of transportation between east and west and vest and east, and the obligation to incur further great expenditures for the same purpose; and because further development along the same lines would he seriously checked by the proposed reciprocity agreement and the benefits of the expenditures referred to would be to a great extent lost.
3.	Because it is essential to the continued national unity and development of Canada that no trade relations with -any country
should he agreed to by Canada on any basis which would check the growth and development of trade between the various parts of Canada with each other, or between Canada and the various parts of the empire; aud because the proposed reciprocity agreement betwen Canada and the United States of America would seriously check the growth and development of this trade.
4.	Because any present benefit to any section of Canada or to any interests or individuals therein which might accrue from the proposed agreement would be more than offset by the loss and injury which would accrue to other sections and interests and individuals and because the result to Canada as a whole would be greatly injurious.
5.	Because as a result of the proposed
agreement the freedom of action possessed by Canada with reference to her tariffs and channels of trade would he greatly curtailed, and she would be hampered in developing her own resources in her own way and by her own people.	.
6.	Because after some years of reciprocity under the proposed agreement the channels of Canada's trade would have become so changed that a termination of the agreement and a return by the United States to a protective tariff as against Canada would become a disturbance of trade to an unparalleled extent, and because the risk of this should not be voluntarily undertaken by Canada.
7.	Because to avoid such a disruption Canada would he forced to extend the scope of the agreement so as to include manufactures and other things.
8.	Because the agreement as proposed would
weaken the ties which hind Canada to the empire, and because the unrestricted reciprocity which would naturally follow would still further weaken those ties and make it more difficult to avert political union with the United States.	_	_
9.	Because the disruption in the channels of Canada's trade which was caused by the termination of tlie Reciprocity Treaty of 1854 and the subsequent establishment of a protective tariff by the United States gave rise to a decided leaning in many minds towards annexation with, the United States, and this at a time when Canada was mainly peopled h.v native-born Canadians and other British subjects to whom the prospect of annexation was most unwelcome, and because Canada in a comparatively few years will have millions of newcomers, a large percentage of whom will have come from foreign countries, and because if Canada should then have to chose between disruption of her channels of trade with the United States or political union with them the preservation of Canadian autonomy and Canadian nationality would be enormously more difficult.
10.	Believing as we do that Canadian nationality is now threatened with a more serious blow than any it has heretofore met with, and that all Canadians who place the interests of Canada before those of any party or section or individuals therein should at this crisis state their views openly and fearlessly, we, who have hitherto supported the Liberal party in Canada, subscribe to this statement.
February, 1911.

[Stage Direction]
B. E. Walker, John L. Blaikie, W. D. Matthews, W. K. George, Z. A. Lash, W. T. White, G. T. Somers, Robt. S. Gourlay, Wm. Mortimer Clark, R. J. Christie, H. Blain, H. S Strathy, L. Goldman, Geo. A. Somerville, W. Francis, James D. Allan, E. R. Wood, John C. Eaton.
My object, Mr. Speaker, in placing this resolution on ' Hansard,' is to convince the Finance Minister of the inaccuracy of the statement he made yesterday to the effect that the Conservative members of this House, supported by the Conservative press, were largely responsible for the annexation agitation throughout the country.
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Ways and Means.
Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer).: Mr. Chairman, I need scarcely say to the House that it is somewhat of a relief to a nervous man to have come through the usual daily amount of guerilla warfare, which naturally will take the place of regular opposition methods, when you have an opposition without a tabulated policy, and demoralized largely by the strength and popularity of the policy of the government of the day. I am sure that I carry with me the consensus of opinion of the whole House when I express my personal gratification that the member for the St. Antoine division (Mr. Ames), has been able, after his serious illness, to take his position once more amongst us, and make his painstaking contributions to the study and exposition of public affairs. I should like to reciprocate the wish which that hon. gentleman gave expression to, when he said that we ought to approach this question of reciprocity in a spirit calm and non-partisan. If he were to ask us to be non-partisan in a resolution, I should be disposed to say reasonably non-partisan so far as the hon. member for St. Antoine is concerned. Now, I do not intend to devote very much attention to the details of the speech of my hon. friend, who very courteously informed me that he had to leave for New York at four o'clock this afternoon; and he, I am sure, will not think me guilty of a bad return for that courtesy in not referring to his speech in detail. There are, however, one or two points to which I would like to draw attention. The hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen), some little time ago, depicted myself as occupying a somewhat lone position in this House-as being a kind of Canadian Rosebery, ploughing my lonely furrow. Well, I am .bound to say that there was an admission at the beginning of the speech of the hon. member for St. Antoine, that takes away a great deal of my feeling of loneliness to-day; because he said that protection to be of any use, must be protection all round, otherwise it became class legislation, and was doomed Mr. ARMSTRONG.
to be destroyed. He saw, in what is going on now, the fall of the outworks, and he said the citadel would soon come down. Well, that is very consoling to a lone freetrader in a foreign land; for I should like to point out that we never have had protection all round in this country, and there never has been protection all round in any country upon earth. That is not the nature of the thing; that is not the object of it. The only object of protection is to give a minority the chance of protecting themselves at the expense of the majority. My hon. friend from St. Antoine, and I think, my hon. friend from Grenville (Mr. Reid), have indicated the opinion that the western farmers, when they understand this question, will not be so keenly in favour of reciprocity as they are supposed to be at the present time. These hon. gentlemen need not be alarmed. The western farmers have been studying this question for some time, and to a great deal of the speech of the hon. member for St. Antoine, I think I can furnish an answer which was placed in my hand to-day by Mr. Bower, the president of the Canadian Council of Agriculture, who allows me to use his name in saying that the United Farmers of Alberta, the Grain Growers of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and the Grange of Ontario are all unanimously in favour of reciprocity. The grain growers of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the Grangers of Ontario are unanimously in favour of reciprocity.


George Henry Bradbury: That is the political machine.


Michael Clark: Am I to understand that my hon. friend is opposed to reciprocity?


George Henry Bradbury: Most undoubtedly, as you propose it.


Michael Clark: Then I can only say that there will be more lonely men than myseltf, if I understand anything of the opinion of the western farmers and the meaning of legislation such as this.
I have been frequently called a theorist on this question, and I suppose that my hon. friend from. St. Antoine division of Montreal (Mr. Ames) is- put forth as a man of affairs, who understands business, and who approaches the consideration of politics from the business standpoint. Well, in that connection I was surprised to hear him suggest, apparently seriously, the giving of a three cent per bushel bounty on the raising of wheat. In the west last year we raised in the neighbourhood of 100,000,000 bushels of wheat. Three cents per bushel bounty on that would amount to a trifle of $3,000,000 bonus to begin with, and we have only begun cultivating wheat in the west. Does my hon. friend want this House seriously to believe that he and his

friends would put that as a serious proposition before the people, and then pose in this House as a man of business who wants to be considered a practical politician. I dismiss a suggestion of that kind without further comment. You cannot gold-brick the farmers of this country with a proposition of that kind.
My hon. friend from St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) further said that the cattle raisers of Alberta were convinced they would lose their market. How did my hon. friend come to know the opinion of the Alberta raisers of cattle? I am in a small way an Alberta raiser of cattle myself, and I do not think the market for that cattle is likely to be lost; but there is no answer to what Mr. Asquith has aptly termed the sloppiness of the protectionist argument. Actually the logical protectionist speaking in the person of the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames), says that the multiplication of markets means the loss of markets. Well, with gentlemen who argue m that fashion, it is impossible to continue a serious or relevant discussion.
If the House will extend me its patience a little while, I should like to make a few remarks on the general aspect of this question, and also reply to some of the objec-j tions we have heard, and I trust that my remarks will be strictly pertinent to the debate as far as it has gone. Personally I should be quite content to leave the defence of the position of the government as it was left by the speech of the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) the first night of the debate. The hon. minister (Mr. Paterson) in that speech was logical, forcible, cogent and commendedly brief. I do not know however, whether I ought not to modify that compliment about brevity, because since then my hon. friend seems disposed with some other members, to eke out his original contribution by supplementary remarks. There is another quality in that speech which we should all endeavour to imitate, and that is that he looked at the thing from the broad national standpoint. My hon. friend reminded me of some one who had been living for some time in a very inhospitable climate and had suddenly found his youth and vigour restored by returning once more to breathe his native air. But the speech of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition reminds me of the man who is still living in an inhospitable clime and likely to remain there much longer.
I find myself, however, in agreement with the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), and my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) when they said that Canada was big enough to look after her own tariffs, and to make her own tariffs independently of other countries. But if I agree in that, it is as a free trader.
I learned the doctrine in the form of an aohorism from a great Conservative-possibly the greatest Conservative leader-who was at the head of the Conservative party in England in the 19th century, a great financier, the teacher of Mr. Gladstone in matters of finance, and the man to whom Mr. Gladstone, to the very end of his career, referred always in terms of veneration and respect. Sir Robert Peel, after eight years of instruction at the hands of Cobden, came to repeal the corn laws, and laid down what I conceive to be sound philosophy today, as it was then, with regard to tariffs, and that is that the best way to combat hostile tariffs is by a system of free imports. As a free trader, therefore, I am bound to endorse the position that Canada is big and strong enough to attend to her own tariffs, That was the theory laid down by Sir Robert Peel, and which has been put in practice by the greatest commercial nation in the world during 70 years, and how has it worked out? It has worked out, as good theories always do. It has been proved by practice up to the hilt. Take for instance what has happened as regards trade between the United States and Great Britain. Britain takes the imports all right, she gets ware nails, from the United States at $6.50 per ton for which the people of the United States pay $10 per ton. As a man who uses wire nails, I prefer to buy them at $6.50 per ton rather than at $10 per ton. A well educated American told me lately that, to his own knowledge, fencing wire manufactured in Rochester is taken across the Atlantic to Britain and then reshipped to Brazil and sold in Brazil cheaper than in Rochester where it is made. That is dumping, and Britain gets the cheap goods. Sir Robert Peel said that free imports are the best method of overcoming hostile tariffs. How does Britain get on after 70 years experience of hostile tariffs? At this juncture it is sufficient for me to say that British ships plough through the hostile tariff of the United States to such an extent that she exports more manufactured goods to the United States than to any other country in the world. Britain, with her free imports, commands the trade all around. She gets the cheap goods and compels the other countries to take her manufactures in exchange. Sir Robert Peel was a great Conservative statesman and financier, and When he made an. aphorism in political economy he made it for all time.
I have ventured to trespass on the patience of the House in order to illustrate why I am an adherent of the position taken by the opposition in this regard. But, how does the position accord with their theory. How does it lie in their mouths to state that they believe Canada is big enough to make her own tariff? Another example of


Michael Clark: Well, what can you do with a front bench of an opposition like that? The hon. gentleman also says: ' The government have taken steps to increase the trade oi the country.' How horrible ! I wish hon. gentlemen opposite would recall what John Bright said and apply it to economics, to trade. He said that he failed to find any different code of morality for a nation than that which would apply to a man. Well, I cannot find a different code of economic laws, or trade laws, for a nation than I1 do for a man. When did my hon. friend from St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) fail to develop any opportunity that presented itself of expanding his business? Well, Canada is only an aggregation of human beings something like my hon. friend frun St. Antoine, and the government of Canada has as plain a duty in regard to extending the trade of Canada as it has in looking after the taxation of Canada and in finding new markets. They have remitted taxation; they have found new markets; they have extended our trade. And hon. gentlemen opposite say: 'How dare you do it?-you are breaking up the constitution t '
It is extremely refreshing to me to find my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) and the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) taking up these well-worn free trade positions; but I must say that their discussion of them does not impress me very strongly with their logic or with the consistency of their political opinions. But, perhaps, they are unconscious free traders.
Now, I want to say a few words on the( economic outcome of this policy as it appeals to me. I notice that the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for North Toronto were very non-committal on this point, in fact the leader of the opposition accomplished the extraordinary feat in his speech in the first night of the debate of taking up an hour and twenty minutes on a reciprocity agreement and discussing everything but reciprocity. This non-committal attitude, so far as the hon. member for North Toronto is concerned, is chronic with him in such circumstances, for I find that in 1897, he spoke of the scope of the tariff which ivas being introduced at that time by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and its effect on the interests of the country, and he had to confess candidly that he had not been able to make up his mind yet on these particulars. That is just why the proper place for him was opposition; and that is just why the proper people were in control of the government. Those in control of the government were able to frame a fiscal policy for the good of the country1, and they could see well what was to come' out of that policy, as all

hon. gentlemen opposite now know what actually has come out of it. They are wise after the event; therefore, opposition is the proper place for them. But some of their number at that time were not so reticent, as was pointed out by the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) the other evening. ' Industry paralysed! ' 'Industry destroyed!' The ' wail of industry.' In 1897, this was what some of these hon. gentlemen talked about. Why, it was necessary to add an adjective to describe it, so it was called the sorrowful wail ' of industry. Sir Charles Tupper used that language (he might have been anticipating the speech my hon. friend from Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell) made the other night) the sorrowful wail of the manufacturers of Canada in the Montreal ' Gazette.' The sorrowful wail has been patented now, and is being sold by the yard, accompanied by a life-like photograph of the Prime Minister to give some credit to the thing.
There are some prophecies concerning what is going to come out of this arrangement that will not be fulfilled. I venture upon that prophecy very firmly. I think it is a safe position because the prophets are driven to contradict one another and themselves, and their prophecies cannot all work out. It is clear that this arrangement cannot at the same time ruin the Canadian consumer and the Canadian producer of the products that are being consumed (or not being consumed; I do not know what hon. gentlemen opposite really think is going to happen then)-but that is what we are being told, on one hand there is a reason for the greatest alarm on account of the consumer, and on the other hand that the producers of the goods to be consumed are ruined. I think we may confidently look to the nonfulfilment of one of these prophecies. There is some part of the ' sorrowful wail ' that will not work out. Now, my hon. friend from North Toronto gave a very good example of his capabilities in the way of prophecy by being a double prophet in his long speech. One of the difficulties of a speech of four hours' duration is that a man is almost sure to forget at the end what he said at the beginning. My hon. friend (Mr. Foster) spent three hours in trying to* prove that this arrangement would be the disruption of the empire, the ruin of Canadian nationality, and the end of all' things. And then, at the end of his speech he turned round quite coolly and said' This is not a reciprocity arrangement at all, it is simply a matter of exchange of' jack-knives. We on this side of the House do not regard the British Empire and Canada as quite such flimsy things that they are going to be destroyed by an ex-' change of jack-knives.
Now, with regard to the effects of this arrangement upon the people of Canada, I think it is a good, sound position to take that trade makes prosperity, that prosperity makes for increased wealth, that prosperity and increase wealth must mean more employment to labour, and benefit all round. Why, Sir, that is capable of very simple proof. Last year this government-which has never reduced any tariffs, which has continued the National Policy, though, toy the way, a year after they came into poweT they were going to ruin the industries of the nation by departing from the National Policy-but that is a small inconsistency-a year ago this government made an arrangement with regard to the German surtax. I was in Prince Edward county ten days ago, and I met a gentleman there who is engaged largely in the evaporation fruit industry, and he told me that at the time that arrangement with Germany was come to, he had 600 cases of evaporated fruit which he could not place. The moment the arrangement was made he got $300 more for those 600 cases by selling them to Germany than he could have got before the arrangement was made. I think that is very practical proof that the lowering of tariffs promotes trade, that trade promotes prosperity and wealth, because that $300, or what it represents, would come into Canada, be circulated in Canada, and to that modest extent would increase the material prosperity of the Canadian people.
Now, I think that Mr. Scallion, who came down with the grain growers, put the case for reciprocity in a brief and convincing shape. I was surprised to see that so prominent a man as Premier Roblin, of Manitoba, yesterday said that no one had asked for reciprocity. Well, that is an extraordinary statement for the premier of the province to make, where the grain growers have their headquarters, and it is very scant courtesy to Mr. Scallion to say that no one asked for reciprocity. Mr. Scallion pointed out in so many words what he thought would be the benefit to the farmers of extending their markets; he pointed out that there would be opposition along certain lines, and I must say that he portrayed very accurately the lines of opposition which we have had elaborated in this House. Then he asked the very practical question with regard to this breaking up of the empire. He said: We do $350,000,000 of trade with the United States now, and I would like to know the exact amount of trade which would be dangerous, because there is no question that, while we have been doing that trade, it has not been leading to the destruction of the empire.
Now, Sir, I do not know that I would dare to make some of the prophecies that are

being made about the effects this arrangement will have upon the price of special commodities. I do not think that a lowering of the tariff is likely to raise prices to the consumers of the country; yet I am sure that so far as the west is concerned it will benefit the producers. The farmer in the west stands very largely to benefit by the increased price of his land holdings. It is the magnificent prerogative of Canada to-day to offer to immigrants a splendid heritage of free land and independence in the possession of their land. I think if we get this prosperity I am talking of, the farmers will benefit by the increase of their wealth, such is the fortunate position of this great country, without damaging consumers at all. As a free trader. I should regret if any lowering of the tariffs led to the punishment for one moment of the consumers. There may be temporary inconveniences, there may be temporary upsets of things in oertain localities, but we believe benefit will be the broad outcome of the policy.
Now, I want to look for a few moments at some of the main positions which -were taken up in a very serious argument by my bon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster), some of the main positions which were not dealt with at all by my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). I certainly think that with those parts he did deal with, he proved to be a successful controversialist. But I think there was an argument presented which deserves the consideration of some one in this House; because, when the hon. member for North Toronto favours us with his views at such length he naturally commands our attention, our respectful attention, and his arguments in favour of protection, and, therefore, against the reciprocity arrangement, have to be examined. Now. the member for North Toronto said: There is a labour question involved in this. I may say that I listened to every word of his speech, and I took notes of it; that was all I needed to do to give due respect to my hon. friend. After all, if one listens to a speech of four hours and then has to read it, one would be forgetting what was due to rhe consideration of the brevity of human life. I will endeavour not to misrepresent my hon. friend's position in any way. There was a suggestion of hurt to labour. There is great solicitude on the part of protectionists for labour. The labouring men, of course, in a democratic country, like this, have- votes, and unless the labourers can be deluded into supporting protection the thing is doomed past all redemption. It is pathetic in the extreme to find the interests interested in labour. It is one of the hoary-headed fallacies with which error has bolstered itself, and reappears generation after generation. When Mr. CLARK (Bed Deer).
Mr. Cobden was fighting in Great Britain sixty or seventy years ago for the repeal of the corn laws, he made great fun of the contention that British labour would be hurt by cheap labour somewhere up the Baltic. He said: I do not know where it is, but it is somewhere up the Baltic, and British labour is going to be ruined by it. I wish that hon. gentlemen who talk upon this labour question would reflect that the very things they are saying in regard to this reciprocity question hurting Canadian labour are being said on the American side about the cheap Canadian labour hurting American labour. That would surely, even to the most partisan intellect, bring conviction that there is nothing in this outcry. What are the facts about labour? There was this peculiarity in the portion of the speech of my hon. friend with which I am dealing, which deposes me from the position of the champion theorist in this House, for, as regards some of the figures, they were knocked into the proverbial cocked hat by the hon. member for South Wellington. In defending his theory of protection he gave the facts of the history of commerce the widest berth it was possible to do. I am in the memory and judgment of the House when I say that his speech along these lines was pure theory, woven out of his own brain. He might never have known there was a history of commerce, he might never have known there was trade going on all over the world among the nations of the earth. I want very briefly to follow an exactly opposite method and to cede to my hon. friend willingly any honour there is in being a pure theorist. What are the facts that bear upon this argument of how far labour is going to be hurt? It is beyond possibility of contradiction that the best paid labour in Europe to-day is the labour of the British islands, whether skilled or unskilled, and I take it that that nearly ends the argument, because there is no fair comparison between the labour of Great Britain and the labour of this continent; labour on this continent is so scarce that it is bound to be highly paid, and protection, in my mind, has nothing whatever to do with it. I take it that that fact is an argument which cannot be contradicted, and nearly ends all discussion upon the subject.
Mr. Hobson, a well-known British economist, wrote a pamphlet a short time ago in which he showed as clearly as statistics can prove anything that in the United States under the McKinley tariff the proportion of the total wealth of the country going to labour was smaller than under the lower Wilson tariff, and that the proportion of wealth going to labour under the lower Wilson tariff raised and then under the Dingley tariff it sank once more.

The fact is that there is nothing in this world so striking as the exploitation of labour by protection. Will the House allow me*to give an example* for this is a strange statement to make. I read recently a book by a member of the Philadelphia bar on the tariff. The evidence is by a cultured and educated American. He tells us., and I can almost repeat it in his own language, how the article borax was sold in the United States of America for $50 a ton until there was discovered in the United States the richest mine of borax in the world. That mine is situated in California- and the neighbouring states. Having discovered this rich mine, the author says a great misfortune fell upon the American people. The discovery of a rich mine should not be a misfortune to a people, but the writer goes on to prove his case. He said that the moment the mine was discovered it needed to be protected, and through the proper influences at Washington, it got protection under the McKinley tariff, 5 cents ,a pound was put on borax; under the Wilson tariff it fell to 2 cents a pound, and under the Dingley tariff it was put back to 5 cents a pound. A very simple calculation will reveal to the House that that is $100 a ton, and the price of borax to the American consumer immediately rose to $150 a ton, while the borax was taken to the coast of the Atlantic and sold to Germany and Britain in competition with the world at $50 a ton. Oh, but say the protectionists, it is necessary to protect American capital Unfortunately for that argument, the author says, every cent of the capital working that mine is the capital of a British syndicate. Yes, but the protectionist is not so easily bowled out. What about labour, look at the protection of labour-and this is the point that pertains to the argument which I am contending against, that there is going to be any injury to labour in this reciprocity arrangement. It is a very unfortunate position to be driven to for the protectionist, because my auxnor informs us that the borax is dug out of the mine by Chinese coolies living in shacks. That is a fair example of how labour is protected by this system, and goes far to justify my statement that protection is the greatest exploiter of labour in the world.
My hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) had something to say about interprovincial trade. If imitation is the sin-cerest form of flattery he should feel flattered, because Premier Robltn yesterday repeated most of what he said, in the Manitoba House, and the hon. member for St. Antoine division (Mr. Ames) dealt liberally with him in the same fashion. I wish to cite a few figures in this connection. In my opinion the hon. .member for North Toronto was on very, very weak ground when he spoke lightly of the importance of
foreign trade. I do not think I misrepresent him, I am sure I do not desire to, when I say he spoke lightly of foreign trade. I think it is capable of exact proof that there is no surer test of the greatness of a nation than its foreign trade. If I were to ask any hon. member on either side what are the four greatest nations in the world I should get the same answer from every one of them, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany and France, perhaps in a different order of preference; if I did not happen to be a modest man, I might have put Great Britain first. That would be the universal consensus of thinking men anywhere. Yes, Sir, but these four nations are also at the' head of the foreign trade of the world. I take it that this is almost a proof that you can have no better test of the greatness of a people than by its foreign trade, and no better test of the rapidity with which it is marching to greatness than by the way it is expanding its foreign commerce, and it is a matter of congratulation to us on both sides of the House that Canada is the country that is making the most rapid advances in this direction.
The next proposition I should like to lay down in regard to what fell from my hon. .friend on interprovincial trade is that there is no real quarrel between interpro-yincial trade and foreign trade; on the contrary they advance, in my judgment, pari passu. Does the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) think there is no interprovincial trade in Germany or in ' Great Britain or in France? Does he not know that there is interstate trade, but that these nations also have the greatest foreign trade in the world? There is no quarrel between interprovincial trade and foreign trade.
I wish to offer an illustration upon that point. In 1893, an interesting year, three years before the change of government, the foreign trade of Canada was $247,000,000 all told, export and import. That was when my hon. friends were building a nation under the National Policy, and when the finances of this country were under the guidance of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). In the year 1894, the year after that, the foreign trade and commerce had dropped from $247,000,000 to $240,000,000, and in the year 1895, the figures had dropped still further to $224,000,000. I should like to ask any candid hon. gentleman on the other side of the House whether Canada at that time, when her foreign trade was not only insignificant but diminishing, had an interprovincial trade that was anything to boast about? There was no west for the east to trade with. Talk of the prosperity of Canada having a growth of 40 years. I have not been in Canada 40 years, I have not been here since 1896-


Robert Laird Borden: I meant by that, that I was under the impression, and I am still under the impression, that the manufactured product of the United States is greater than that of any other country in the world.


Michael Clark: I have no desire to misrepresent my hon. friend, but 1 am sure I quoted his exact language.


Robert Laird Borden: That is what I intended by it, and I stand by that still.


Michael Clark: Very well, I do not want to labour the point. Mr. Lever is at the head of a well known company, which manufactures soap, and allied products. They have factories in the United States, in Germany, in France, in Switzerland, in Belgium, in Australia, in Canada, and in South' Africa, all grown up from little free trade Britain. I take it that Mr. Lever is somewhat of an expert in this particular line of manufacture, and the story he tells is very interesting. Jt was published in a magazine article, and it ha? been reprinted and scattered broadcast in pamphlet form.-It is because of the. wide information the British people get on these points that they vote so remarkably well. Mr. Lever says that Gladstone took the duties off soap and soap maker's materials in the middle of the last century, and at that time the exports of soap from Britain were scanty; protection bad not built up the manufacture of soap to any great extent, and not only was the manufacture of soap scanty, but the soap was poor in quality, dear in price, and the soap imports large. That was the state of affairs ifi the middle of-the last century, and to-day Mr. Lever makes himself responsible for the statement that Britain's exports of soap are equal to the exports of soap of the whole of the rest of the world put together, that the imports of soap into Britain are a negligible quantity and that soap is to-day to be had in Great Britain of the best quality in the world, and at the cheapest possible price. That is not a bad way to build up manufactures surely-to build up an industry which extends all over the world and produces these magnificent results. Contrast that with a telegram from Washington, which appeared in the London ' Daily Telegraph ' at the time of the Payne-Aldrich tariff was before the United States Congress, stating that a member of a firm of manufactures in the States, was in. Washington-you know for what purpose-and that he had sent an urgent appeal to his partner to come to Washington at once, even if he had to leave the affairs of the firm in the hands of the office boy. He went there, and of course, began log-rolling at once. Mr. Lever's statement is, that he has been able to make the great advances that he has made in his manufacturing, by means of cheap raw materials added to attention to business, and he asks the very pertinent question: is it not in accordance with the common sense of any one of us that manufactures or anything else will be built up better by cheap raw materials, and attention to business, than by dear raw materials and attention to log-rolling.
My hon. friend had something to say in this connection about the kind and variety of manufactures, and he implied, though he did not state, that it was only under protection that you can secure variety in mauu facturing. My reading on this question goes to prove the exact opposite. It is being proved by the best-informed minds in Germany to-day, that the effect of protection there, is to build up cartels-known on this continent as trusts, which pay lower wages than are paid in Great Britain, and whose whole object is to turn out huge amounts of goods, and make big profits for those at the head of the concerns. It had been proved that the half-finished articles produced in Germany are being sent to Britain, and that British workmen are getting the higher wages for doing the finishing work upon them under free trade-the exact opposite of the argument used by my hon. friend. In this connection, my hon. friend must know what was stated in the tariff debates in the old country. Mr. Joseph Chamberlain thought he had discovered a magnificent illustration in support of his views when he found that a number of steel billets had been shipped from Germany to Barrow-in-Furness. But the fact was explained by Sir Hugh Bell, one of the greatest manufacturers in England, thus:	'It is true that the steel billets went there, but Mr. Chamberlain did not find out what happened to them there. It is the business of a manufacturer to find that out. A firm of Barrow shipbuilders had a contract for ship-building which they secured in competition with the whole world, and the contractors put those billets into the ships and sent the ships back to Germany where the steel billets came from.'
Intensive farming was a subject which I had hardly expected to hear my hon. friend from North Toronto growing eloquent upon. He did, however, seem to hint that intensive farming would be hurt by this reciprocity arrangement. He did not give any facts to support that idea. What are the facts ? Mr. Cobden, in a speech which he

delivered after the repeal of the corn laws, drew attention to the fact that the most notable thing after the repeal of those laws was the improvement of agriculture in Great Britain. We know what is sure to happen if a man is held up on his feet: he will never develop the muscles of his lower limbs. The same is true when a state undertakes to support farming industry. There aTe numbers of men in this House, who have attained their present position by their own character and efforts, and who know that men grow stronger by reliance on themselves, and that manufacturing and farming grow strong in the same way. There is not a fact in the history of commerce to show that intensive farming was ever helped by protection. In free trade Britain to-day-if I am wrong, the Minister of Agriculture will correct me-33 bushels of wheat to the acre are grown on the average; in protected America the average is 14 bushels to the acre, and in Canada, with our virgin soil, it is only 17 bushels. What is the matter, I ask my protectionist friends, with little Britain as a country where intensive farming is carried on under free trade ?
My hon. friend went on next to say that the policy of mutual preference had been destroyed by this reciprocity arrangement. That was a somewhat sad confession on his part. I think he said that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister had dished preference. Well, that was extraordinary adulation. We on this side of the House are sometimes deemed servile for serving up adulation to my right hon. friend, but he never had such a dish of adulation served up to him on this side of the House. We never charged him with running both Canada and Great Britain at the same time. It was the more extraordinary phrase coming from the hon. member for North Toronto, because in another part of the same speech he had referred to my right hon. friend as a very ordinary man, while he was furnishing evidence that he was a very extraordinary man. However, I am quite sure that my hon. friend would not claim that for himself. The great thing for me is his admission that British preference is dished. I think there is no doubt about that fact, but I do not agree with his charge that it has been dished by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. Wo on this side of the House, as I believe all the people of Canada, are reasonably proud that we have for Prime Minister of this country a man whose opinion goes for a great deal in Great Britain, but neither he nor we would claim that he is the author of what my hon. friend from North Toronto must consider such a terrible misfortune. This mutual preference is a preference which meant a movement on the part of Great Britain towards restricted trade, whereas the Fielding preference was a movement Mr. CLARK (Red Deer).
towards freer trade on the part of Canada -two very different things economically considered. It must have been with a very sad heart that my hon. friend discovered that this infant of mutual preference, into which he had tried to breathe the breath of life for years, was not an infant at all, but only a wax doll. The hon. member for North Toronto said in this House in 1892, as recorded in ' Hansard ':
If I read public opinion in the old country aright, I believe that the free trade sentiment pure and simple, founded on what were thought to be irrefutable principles almost divine in origin, is largely changing in Great Britain.
Well, some men need a long time for the fulfilment of their prophecies. I am not sure that my hon. friend feels that there is so much change in that direction in Great Britain at the present time. It could reasonably be argued that if the principles are true, they are of divine origin. That may be the reason they aTe not recognized by my hon. friend. I have often been afraid that he looked in another direction for his economic inspiration. Even if I did not admit that the policy of protection is bad enough to come from a direction opposite to the divine, I would certainly admit that it is an intensely human thing to say the least of it.
At six o'clock committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Michael Clark: Mr. Chairman, I quoted some figures, in illustration of an argument which I ventured to present to the committee at the very beginning of my remarks, from a speech which I had read in the Winnipeg ' Tribune,' as made by a governor of an American state. I quoted these figures from memory. But, on examining critically, it is clear I must have been in error as to the quantity of nails procured at a certain price. It is perfectly immaterial to the argument which I was presenting. It does not need figures to prove that goods are sold cheaper in Great Britain and other protected countries. It certainly does not need figures to prove that to protectionists, because they are continually taunting Great Britain with being the dumping ground of cheap goods. I mention the matter only because it is desirable to be accurate even in small things, and not because it affects the argument I was presenting in that connection.
When the committee adjourned at six o'clock, Sir, I was trying to answer the question: What dished preference? And I set out to show that preference in the sense of the Chamberlain preference was never likely to live if it depended in any degree

upon the phophecies of those who advocate it in this country. I had shown that in my researches I came aoross the speech of my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) in ' Hansard ' of 1892, which is the first reference I have found of his in relation to this subject. We find the hon. member next figuring on this topic in the Imperial Conference which was held in Ottawa in 1894-seventeen years ago. I think it quite important to look at these things, I think it quite important to go into the history of my hon. friend in this connection and look at the Chamberlain preference for a little while. For it will be-clear to the whole House that one of the arguments of hon. gentlemen opposite is that we ought to postpone trade arrangements with other parts of the world in case we may interfere with some possible trade arrangement in the future with Great Britain. At page_234 of the report of that conference, the hon. gentleman from North Toronto ventured a prediction-as he so often does-and said that in twenty years time the larger part of Britain will be outside of Great Britain. At page 184 he places the time at twenty-five years. Well, that puts these prophecies within a few days of one another. A discrepancy of five years in the prophecies of a man who takes eternity to fulfil his prophecies is not a very long time. That was seventeen years ago. Senator Pulsford, of the Australian Commonwealth, has shown that these prophecies so far from giving promise of fulfilment, not only have the outlying portions of the British Empire not grown in a way to surpass Great Britain, but it happens that they have not grown even proportionately as fast in population as the United Kingdom has grown. And this prophecy was due to be fulfilled in twenty-five years. The hon. member for North Toronto spoke again upon the subject, as reported at page 205 of the report.
Since our meeting yesterday, I have read the comments in the British papers, and, you may depend upon it, that in the British Empire to-day the seed has more than sprouted; it is germinating.
He got a little mixed in his botany, I think, unless I ami misinformed, germination comes before sprouting.
The idea is growing, and it is going

Mark the courage, the confidence in himself.
-it is going, ultimately, to bring the different parts of the empire together, in spite of all the doctrinaires that live and breathe upon the face of the earth.
The House recognizes the style. Well, now, I do not know the exact condition of this botanical specimen to-day, but I think it is withered pretty badly; I do not think the growth is taking place very rapidly. What a magnificent contempt for doctrinaires my hon. friend has-almost as much contempt as he has for the members of the present cabinet, 1 wonder that he did not reflect, in 1894, that his record as a trade producer-for that was the middle year of the three years I quoted this afternoon when the trade of Canada was disappearing under his fostering hand-I wonder that he did not reflect that he was scarcely the man to talk to either doctrinaires or anybody else about how to promote trade either in Canada or in the British Empire. Just imagine the hon. member, with such performances and such prophecies, coming into this House and telling the hon. ministers who, after all, having found that trade as he had it diminishing have been able to show a marvellous expansion of the trade of Canada in the last fifteen years-[DOT] just imagine him standing upon a pedestal raised there by his performances, and by his sense, no doubt, of his own greatness, and saying: 'They are two very ordinary men; and the other members of the cabinet are thirteen very ordinary men.' The time has come when some one has got to say in this House and this country that the hon. member for North Toronto has no record as a statesman, and no record as a prophet which for one moment justifies him in using language like that to any hon. member on this side of the House." And then he had contempt for the doctrinaires who did not quite see this thing as he saw it, mere tyros in politics, men like Gladstone, and Peel, and Lord Salisbury, and Cobden-men of absolutely opposite sides of politics in Great Britain, but all of whom knew more about this preference thing, and the difficulty of making it live than the hon. member for North Toronto had even dreamed. And I should like to advise the hon. gentleman, if he pays any attention to what I say, not to be too much impressed by what he reads in the Tory papers of London. During the whole of my life, it has been a safe thing to prophesy that, in elections, the United Kingdom will go just in the opposite direction from the prophecies of the Tory press of London. That is an almost invariable rule; and if the hon. gentleman had known that, he would not have been so elated at what he read in the London Tory press the day after he made his comments. And if he reads the Unionist press at the present time, he will observe the extraordinary spectacle that, while all agree that preference of the Chamberlain order is a corpse, they are divided in opinion as to what to do with it. Half of them are in favour of burying it, while the other half-and the more stupid lot, I think-are in favour of hanging on to it.
I have not quite finished with the hon. gentleman's prophecies. They are interesting and are not altogether ancient history. At page 206 of this report which I have been quoting the hon. gentleman said:

I think that, as far as Canada is concerned, the day is considerably distant when we will propose, if it is not to our advantage somewhat, to give very great commercial advantages to the British Empire without receiving something in return.
After all, the imperialism of my hon. friend is of a somewhat windy variety; it is rather of the huckstering and bargaining variety; but I am dealing with him as a pTophet for a moment. In three years, after he said the day was distant, there was a change of government-and the thing was done; and done with vast profit to the country and vast advantage to the imperial connection. I think it is rather shabby of him. with a record like that, when he had banned the birth of this child, when he had declared that the Fielding preference must not be born-' the day is far distant,' when we will do such a thing-to come to the House now and say, as he did to the Minister of Finance the other''day; It is not your child. Why, he actually wants to confuse our minds, surely, as to the difference between the Fielding preference and the Chamberlain preference. Not having been able to get this wax doll of his to live, he wants to claim the Fielding child. The hon. gentleman has appeared in a great many roles in his time, but this is the first oocasion, so far as I know, on which he has assumed the role of the political kidnapper.
The Chamberlain preference has died, and I think largely because of the unfulfilled prophecies which have been uttered in regard to it. But it died because, in its intrinsic nature, there was nothing in it. It is important to Canada to know what there is in this thing, and why we should expect something to live which has not in it the germ of life. The moment you examine the possibility of the old country giving preferences in a fair way as between the different portions of the empire, you would see the thing is impossible. In Australia more wool is produced than is necessary to supply the wants of the whole empire, and it is an element of political economy that you cannot give protection to an article if more is produced in it than the^country requires. So the idea of giving a preference on wool in Australia is an economic impossibility. But my hon. friends say: We will get it on wheat. Well, how would that bind Australia to the British Crown? If I were an Australian, and my hon. friends opposite were Canadians, and Great Britain gave a preference in wheat and not give it on wool, would not I say that the old country was showing favouritism to Canada, while doing nothing for Australia? Would that help build up the British Empire?
What would be the effect of giving a preference on wheat? Clearly the moment Mr. CLARK (Red Deer).
you gave that preference you would concentrate the supplies of wheat in the outlying portions of the empire upon the British market, because you would raise the price of wheat in Britain. If it did not do that, it would be no good to Canada. You would raise the price in Britain, and you would raise the price of bread to the British workingman. Well, if I were a British workingman, how much do you think that would increase my love for Canadian preference? Flag waving won't fill a man's stomach. But that would only be the first effect of it. If a better price was given for wheat in Britain and the price was raised to the British workingman, it is clear that a secondary result would be a concentration of supplies there, because they always go where the highest price prevails. You would also raise the price of food to the workingman in Canada. It is an everyday truism that the price of wheat is made in Liverpool. Raise the price there and you inevitably raise it to the Canadian consumer. South Africa imports wheat. You would raise the price of wheat to. the workingman in South Africa, who buys it in the world's market. And do hon. gentlemen think they would build a permanent empire by a system of preference which would raise the price of the commonest article of food in Britain, Canada and South Africa? Now, these are some of the considerations which were discussed again and again in the old country, and it was largely considerations of this kind that led Mr. Asquith, at the beginning of these discussions, to declare to a crowded audience: The thing is an economic impossibility. The idea has died, because there was no life in it, and it has been killed, so to speak, in successive general elections. A friend of mine was in conversation the other day with a nobleman having intimate associations with British politics, and he said to my friend: If Canada had offered free trade within the empire it would have been fruitless, because it would be impossible to shift the free trade sentiment of Britain in fifty years. This empire has grown up on the basis of absolute freedom of its component parts. Would you have us repeat the experiment that Great Britain tried with her American colonies, 'and which lost them to the empire? Was it not this very mistake of mixing up trade relations with politics? Was it not that which led George Washington to advise his countrymen so earnestly not to become entangled with the politics of foreign nations? Now, the rule in Britain is to make her own tariffs, and what is good for Britain is good enough for Canada. It is the only rule which works to the permanency of the empire.
The hon. member for North Toronto had a good deal to say about conservation. The

conservation question is a peculiar one. I am raising steers |in, the west, and my experience has been that I have had to keep my steers from spring to fall because I could put them into market, though not of recent years. I am bound to say I imagine the leader of the opposition, on learning of my difficulties, saying to me: What we have we hold. My reply would naturally be that if that refers to the farm I agree with you, but if it refers to the steers I don't agree with you. Annexation, Mr. Chairman, means revolution. Let us understand what this blessed word annexation means. There was an old lady in England who never got any good from a sermon unless several times the blessed word Mesopotamia was mentioned, and without that blessed word annexation what would our friends opposite have left to say?	.
Annexation means the dismantling of these buildings, it means the hauling down of our flag, it means going to Washington to hold our . parliamentary sittings. Is there a man or a woman who believes in his heart of hearts that that is possible to come to pass in this country? Annexation means revolution and my little reading of history tells me that revolution has never taken place in this world except amongst a discontented people. When Charles the First drove things to a certain point there was a considerable revolution in Britain, ending in the cutting off of the King's head. A few years afterwards his son had a discontented people and was driven from the throne in the revolution of 1688. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) can tell the House far better than I can what was the condition of France before the great revolution in that country. In 1838-39 in this country of Canada the people were discontented and there was danger of revolution. In America itself, it was the discontent of the people with taxes and with the restriction of their rights to trade with other nations that led to revolution. But the argument of my hon. friend is that Canadians are of such a type that they will say: We have such freedom and prosperity under the red, white and blue that we will haul it down.
My hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) asked the government how they dared do certain things. I should like to ask him how he dared use in the Canadian parliament and with the knowledge that his words would be read by the Canadian people, the words: Conquest by gifts. He said we could not be beaten but the conquest of Canada-he mentioned these words in the parliament of Canada-the conquest of Canada is to be brought about by gifts. If I had _ dared to use such words, the kindest friends I have on this side of the House would have taken me to the Atlantic at once and have deported me. We at
least on this side of the House have not met the type of Canadians with whom he has been consorting. We on this side who represent and will represent for many a day, I think, a large majority of Canadian people, have been consorting with such Canadians that we know we have a people here who cannot be beaten and cannot be bought.
There is an interesting historic parallel between what happened in the House of representatives in a vote there 'a few days ago and the vote that took place on the repeal of the corn laws in Great Britain. A Conservative leader in Great Britain carried the repeal of the corn laws by a minority of his own followers but supported by the entire force almost of the Liberals of the House, and in the United States a great republican leader in the person of Mr. Taft was appointed I think also by a minority of his own followers but by almost the entire strength of the democratic party. I wonder if, when this reciprocity arrangement goes through in this House, there will be any break in the ranks I see opposite to me? I fear not, I fear that the darkness will be impenetrable and that the suitable wailing will be provided by the hon. member for Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell) and the gnashing of teeth in abundance by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster).
The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) says there is an element of instability in this arrangement. We have been told on every hand there will be disturbance of trade. Well it is very likely that some one may be temporarily incommoded or hurt; that is always the case in the history of human progress in scientific invention as well as in politics. One remembers how the hand loom weavers of Lancashire tore down the first machinery put up to replace the work of the hand loom workers. They did not see that for each hand loom worker thrown out of occupation, twenty others would get work making the machine that was to displace their work. The great scientist Humboldt says that when travelling in the Andes in South America he found a place where men had a profitable business carrying passengers over certain passes in the mountains in baskets. A better government came into power and made good roads, and the basket carriers petitioned the government not to make the roads because it would hurt the business of the basket carriers. Of course the government went on with the mending of the roads. I suppose that when gas was first invented there were some dealers in candles who had a very large stock on hand and who might not be able to dispose of them so well with gas, but nobody proposed on that ground to go back to the use of farthing dips. Farthing dips might indeed be a fitting illuminant for
41G7

guiding the footsteps of some of the economic reasoners opposite in the primeval paths of protection, but we on this side believe in progress, and that progress can only be made in the broad sunlight and with the best possible illuminant.
Something has been said about doing as well as we can and letting well enough alone. That was all right under the National Policy but they did not even manage to do that because the trade of Canada was shrinking. That is what happens a people who let well enough alone. We all know that for a young organism, whether it be an individual or a nation, growth and progress are the absolute necessities of continued existence, and all progress implies change and change may bring, does bring temporary, discomfort and inconvenience to sections, but it ever works out for the benefit and the prosperity and the wealth of the masses of the people. We heard this afternoon something about some one being sick and ashamed. I am perfectly certain that in a few years' time my hon. friends opposite will be sick and ashamed of their attitude and their arguments in this discussion.
There can only be one result to this arrangement. The government would have been guilty of one of those blunders which are almost as bad as crimes if they had not received the advances of the United States and made this arrangement on the high ground of showing to the people of the world how two nations can live in friendship together, on the more material ground of promoting the prosperity of the country and on the ground of Canada being in the forefront of movements that are making for the real progress of the world. On all these grounds this is a splendid arrangement, and I have not the remotest doubt that, just as the extension of freedom of trade helped Canada in 1897, this will help us still more. It is a policy in keeping with the record of the right hon. gentleman who is at the head of the government of this country (Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier); it is a policy which makes for the prosperity of the country, it is a policy in accordance with the best traditions of that Liberalism which has built and maintained the British Empire, that Liberalism which spells freedom, freedom to buy and sell, and in a few years' time, those who have opposed it will be ashamed of the thoughts they have entertained.
Yet I doubt not thro' the ages, one increasing purpose runs.
And the thoughts of men are widen'd with the process of the suns.


Mr. R. BLAIN (Peel).: The House, I am sure, has been entertained by my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) for the last half hour since eight o'clock, and for one hour prior to the recess for dinner. Mr. CLARK (Red Deer).
The hon. gentleman has stated among various things that he does not know what the opposition would have done in this discussion had it not been for the word annexation, and if I wanted to be jocular with my hon. friend I might safely say that he had not the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for North Toronto as a text there would have been very little left in his remarks. I am not unkind when I say that the hon. gentleman did not touch upon the question before the House at all, or did he make any 'suggestion of value from a Canadian standpoint. Of course, he told us all about free trade as they have it in England, and in that respect his remarks must have been directed more to the government than to the opposition. We have heard that same speech several times in this House. True, the hon. gentleman revamps it occasionally, but it is one and the same old story : I am a free trader, and as such I am alone in this House. But, if he is| so eloquent in the House and so powerful' in the country one would have thought he would have had a few converts by this time. However, he is still alone, and if I mistake not he will be alone in his free trade professions for a long time to come. We once had a free trader in this House supporting the government but he sought and found a place in the Senate, and may be my hon. friend from Red Deer is aiming that wav. For several years the hon. gentleman has directed our attention to what he regards as a better fiscal policy for the Canadian people than that which they now have. For my part I would rather take the votes of the people of Canada on both sides of politics than the trade expressions of the member for Red Deer, when I seek a true index of the feeling of the people. What has the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clark) done since he came here to perpetuate that policy which he says is dear to his heart, and which he advocates in the House and out of the House? Did he ever vote against this government upon a single item of the tariff?


Michael Clark: Does the hon. gentleman ask a question?


Richard Blain: Yes.


Michael Clark: In voting on the tariff in this House I only have a choice between-


Richard Blain: I would like to be courteous, but I would prefer an answer and not a speech.


Michael Clark: I can only vote two ways in this House, and having only that alternative I vote for freer trade in preference to protection.


Richard Blain: The old story. It is well that the hon. gentleman has told the House that he only came to Canada in 1896, for everybody knows that the ques-

tion of our fiscal policy was settled by the Canadian people long before the hon. gentleman favoured, us with his presence. I have asked the hon. gentleman whether he ever voted against the administration since he came here, althougii it is a jiro-teciionist government in the main, and you heard his answer. In all these years did he ever take advantage of his right to move or make an attempt to move to reduce any single item of the tariff? That after all ig a test of a man's free trade principles in Canada ; I do not know what the test is in England whence he comes. And, I dare say that the hon. gentleman will continue to support the present administration. Of course he will, everybody knows that. And, I venture to say that the hon. gentleman is not only a lonely free trader but, as he has told us himself, he is the greatest theorist in the House.


Michael Clark: I am sure my hon. friend does not wish to misrepresent me.


Richard Blain: I do not.


Michael Clark: I said I had been called a theorist. There is surely a great difference between a man being called a theorist by others and calling himself a theorist.


Richard Blain: Well, the appellation fitted him so well that he made the House believe he was 11116 Sreatest theorist here. When a man comes into parliament to preach a new doctrine as it may be called ; when he comes here to preach free trade ; when the people of Canada give him a responsible position in parliament for several years, and he makes no attempt to reduce _ the tariff but gives a continued and enthusiastic support to a government which talked free trade out of power, and which adopted protection in power, what are we to think? But there are in Canada those whose opinions 1 would take in preference to that of my hon. friend as to what is best for Canada. I will not encumber ' Hansard ' with too many extracts but I must read a resolution passed by the Montreal Board of Trade which is one of the largest commercial institutions in Canada.
Resolved, that we, the members of the Montreal Board of Trade, in annual meeting assembled, believe that the sober sense of the country as a whole is against any change m the trade policy under which Canada lias grown to her present admitted state of prosperity ;
That we consider it to be the bouuden duty of every Canadian to resist to the last anything that might endanger our status as a component part of the British Empire, and that we fear such a treaty as proposed miglit easily prove to be the entering of a wedge that would eventually result in a separation of our interests from those of the mother land;
That we hereby record the unalterable opposition of this board to the proposed reciprocity treaty with the United States, which treaty would involve the country in dangers not yet fully realized, and we consider that the government should first ascertain the opinion of the whole country on this question, and receive a definite mandate thereon, before committing it to a change so revolutionary as this reversal of its entire policy, threatening not only the trade, but also the more vital interests of Canada as a nation;
That the Council of the Board, with the following other members, are hereby appointed a special committee, with power to add to its number, for the purpose of proceeding to Ottawa and presenting to the government the views of this board, as expressed in this resolution: Messrs. C. C. Bnllantyne, Geo. Caverhill, E. B. Greensliields, A. J. Hodgson, Robert Meighen, Farquar Robertson.
These are gentlemen who have been in this country longer than since 1896. These gentlemen do not all bglong to the Conservative party. Some of them are supporters of my right hon. friend and supporters of the policy which my hon. friend from Red Deer votes for, but not the policy he talks about in this House. These gentlemen ought to know something about what policy would be best suited to the people of Canada. These gentlemen have grown up with Canada's prosperity. They have witnessed one government in power and now another. They can trace the history of Canada for many years. They can go back to 1873 and find a Liberal government in power headed by a distinguished man, the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie. From 1873 to 1878 this trade question took shape' in Canada. During those years, in this very chamber, the government of the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, and the opposition headed by that distinguished statesman. Sir John Macdonald, discutstd this trade question, not from a British standpoint particularly, though that was kept in view, but from a Canadian standpoint, and that is what the people of this country want on the present question. During those years the Liberal-Conservative party placed their policy as a party before the people of Canada by a resolution and a vote in this House. The right hon. leader of the government followed his leader at that time in a policy of low tariff for Canada. During the years that the Mackenzie administration was in power-I am not going to charge it to anybody-there were dull times in Canada, in the mercantile interests, in the agricultural inter-: ests, in the manufacturing interests. They all came to this parliament seeking for some redress from the condition of things that prevailed, and the Liberal-Conservative party laid down its policy as a protective tariff for this country. The government in power opposed that, and in

1878 appealed to the people. They gave the people an opportunity to consider the question, unlike my right hon. friend, who makes a bargain with the government of the United States without giving the people of this country an opportunity to say whether they want it or not. The Mackenzie government were beaten at the polls in 1878, the people of Canada expressing themselves in favour of a National Policy for this country, with protection for the agriculturist, for the mechanic, and for every man. The Liberal-Conservative party came into power. They had in opposition given pledges to the people of Canada, and thank God they were strong enough when they came into power to fulfil those pledges by putting on the statute-book the grand old National Policy that still lives to-day. From that) moment the Liberal party in this House and out of this House made declarations; by resolutions, by speeches and by votes, against the National Policy, although it had been endorsed by a large majority of the people of Canada. I need not review the history of that policy. At once the people of Canada took on new life; at once they found employment; at once the manufacturing establishments began to grow, up in every centre of population; at once the goods that were coming into Canada from the United States, that were manufactured by the United States people, were stopped, and the Canadian p'eople commenced to manufacture those articles for themselves and to pay the wages to their own working people. My right hon. friend in those years had become leader of the opposition, and he went from platform to' platform throughout this country denouncing the National Policy and calling upon the people of Canada to adopt the same1 old policy which the hon. member for Red-Deer has been talking about to-night. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) took the platform, and, in the province of Ontario in partiJ cular, and the Toronto ' Globe,' with all its power, laid down a policy which l1 regard as one of the most dangerous ever advocated in Canada; that was the policy that the National Policy was against the interests of the farmers and was for the benefit of the manufacturers alone. I say that was a bad policy for any public man in Canada to advocate. It left its mark on the agriculturists of Canada. The mark is still there; but there is a new generation to-day, and when my right hon. friend appeals to the farming community, he will' find a class of people who have lived under this National Policy, who have enjoyed under it a better price for their products, and he will find that no class in Canada will condemn this brand-new Mr BLAIN.
policy as the farmers will when they have an opportunity to vote upon it. That is the history very briefly of the trade policy as we have it in Canada, and have bad it for the last few years. I may assume that hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House will be more interested in that than m being told about borax in the _ United States, and a large soap concern in Lng-land with branches all over the world as spoke by the hon. member for Red Deer.
I shall stop here to say a wrnrd or two to the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), who has left the chamber. Let me read his w'ords. He said:
The leader of the opposition spoke for upwards of one hour on the resolution and did not touch the reciprocity question at all.
That requires no answer, because we know how able is the leader of the opposition to discuss this question, and how well his remarks were directed a few days ago to the resolution before the Chair.
What is the question which the right hon. gentleman has thrown into-the arena of politics now. Our National Policy gave to the Canadian people of every class, the manufacturer and the farmer, protection to assist them in building up our manufacturing and agricultural industries. The right hon. gentleman has now made a division between the farmer and other classes in the proposition before the House. Let us see what that division is. With one stroke of the pen he and his Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding), have taken away altogether almost every vestige of the protection given by the National Policy to our agriculturists. That is the charge which the farmers of this country have against the right hon. gentleman and his government. In schedule A of this agreement, which gives the free goods, we find the following: Live animals, -cattle, horses and mules, swine, sheep, lambs, and all other live animals. There is to -be no duty upon these. Poultry, dead and alive, wheat, rye, oats, barley, buckwheat, dried peas and beans, edible corn, sweet corn or maize, (except into Canada for distillation), hay, straw, extract of hemlock bark, fresh vegetables, potatoes, sweet potatoes, yams, turnips, onions, cabbage and all other vegetables in their natural state. Fresh fruit, apples, pears, peaches, grapes, cherries and all other edible fruits in their -natural state. Dried fruits, apples, peaches, pears, apricots, dried or evaporated.
Dairy products:	butter, cheese, -fresh
milk and cream, eggs, honey, flaxseed or linseed, cotton seed and other seeds. I shall not go through the whole list, but this list gives the products on which the Liberal-Conservative party had placed a duty in the interests of the Canadian farmers. But the present government

now proposes to take away every vestige of protection on these articles, and make them free between the United States and Canada and a good many other countries as well. That is the charge which the farmers of this country have against the right hon. gentleman and his government.
A very large deputation waited on the government a few days ago-a deputation representing hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in the fruit and vegetable growing industries of Canada. They came here with their policy, and they said that they had already placed that policy before the right hon. gentleman in a resolution many months before. They told him in a long telegram from their association which was meeting in Toronto, some months before, what they required from this government, should there be any changes in the tariff. But they pointed out that they did not want the tariff as it stands to-day, to be interfered with. When the delegation came down here, it filled this chamber, both the floor of the House and the gallery, and the right hon. gentleman, after hearing all their statements, said: Oh, it is a pity you did not come earlier, but you are too late now. I should like to know if that was a fair answer. Might I call attention to the question which I put the right hon. gentleman in this House before this large delegation came:


Richard Blain: I desire to ask the Prime Minister whether or not serious consideration will be given to any special interest in Canada that may be affected by the proposed reciprocity arrangement should it become law? In the county I have the honour to represent there is a mry strong feeling in respect to these matters. Throughout the western part of Ontario, at the present moment, large sums of money are being subscribed to send delegations to the government to explain the position of specific interests that will be affected if these tariff changes become law. Will the government give serious consideration to the representations of these interests if they are made ? I may anticipate by saying that a general answer that the government will listen to all complaints of everybody will not be quite sufficient. I want to know if the government will give serious consideration to these matters, or whether it will be better for these gentlemen to stay at home on the ground that this proposal will not be changed?


Wilfrid Laurier: We will give most serious consideration to all the interests represented reserving our judgment.


Richard Blain: I anticipated that.
I would ask the right hon. gentleman now, whether, if these men came before the government and presented their views, the government would have any consideration for them. My right hon. friend said in his genial way:	Oh, yes, they can come down
and present their case, and we will reserve Judgment. Why did not the right hon. gentleman say in answer to my question: 132
There is no use for any reconsideration, we have signed this agreement and it cannot be broken without the consent of President Taft, and the Congress at Washington. These gentlemen came to Ottawa and presented their views to the government and in reply the government said: Oh, no, this pact is made, and it cannot be altered. And the farmers of this country, the fruit men and vegetable growers of this country, w'ill all feel that the right hon. gentleman did not deal fairly with them. He was not willing to listen to their statement at a time when these changes could be made, but he was willing to allow them to spend large sums of money to come to Ottawa to present their request to him at a time when he knew full well that, no matter >what they stated, no changes would he made in this arrangement.
I wish to say a word to the Minister ot Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) whom- I do not see in his place. One would have thought that, with all this going on against the farmers of Canada, the Minister of Agriculture would have taken a hand in. We were told, when this government was formed, that we had a real farmer as Minister of Agriculture, an educated farmer. And our farmers were expecting that, when the government proposed to strike off every vestige of protection that the farmers had, at least the Minister of Agriculture would raise some protest and would have said to the government that if others are to have protection the farmers must get their share. The Minister of Agriculture, I presume did not do that. If he did, his voice was not heard, and the pact went on and will become law, I suppose, in the course of a few weeks or a few months
I wish now to show what the policy of the Liberal party has been with respect to the protection for the farmers. That is an important matter in this discussion. I have already given a partial list of 'the articles that have been robbed of their protection by this government, all of which are of interest to the farmers of Canada. Perhaps I may be permitted to read first a letter sent to me from the county I have the honour to represent :
Clarkson, Feb. 10, 1911
Richard Blain, Esq.,
Brampton.
Dear Sir,-Tlie fruit and vegetable growers of the Clarkson and Lome Park district, earnestly request of you as our representative to use all the influence you possibly can with the government, in reference to the carrying out of the reciprocity agreement between Canaan and the United States, which is now under consideration.
If this agreement is carried out, it will mean a serious question to us as fruit and vegetable growers, more especially to the smaller growers; it will simply take from us our natural rights as citizens of Canada. Normally speaking, we have amply shown that we can supply our home market with



both lines of domestic fruit and vegetables both in season and out of season.
It is a well known fact, that, very often in business, a particular part is the most remunerative, and consequently the backbone of that particular business, the loss of which would be serious. It is this particular part, that reciprocity with the United States would take from us, simply because we are geographically handicapped.
The Fruit and Vegetable Growers, Clarkson, Peel Co., Ontario.
Going back a little in the history of this parliament, I notice that in 1902, Mr. Leonard, who then represented Laval in this House, and who sat on this side, moved the following resolution :
That it is greatly in the interests of the market gardeners and the farmers that the duties on our Canadian garden products be so adjusted as to guarantee the Canadian farmer an effective protection against foreign competition.
And in the following year, the same gentleman moved exactly the same resolution. These two resolutions were voted down by the right hon. leader of tbp House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and his supporters. But the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), and every member on this side recorded their votes for better protection for the farming interests of Canada. I follow that a little further : in 1904 I had the honour of moving this resolution *
That a large and increasing quantity of farm and market garden products is being imported into Canada.
That our own country is fully capable of furnishing an ample supply of such products for our own market.
That under an adequately protective tariff such sufficient supply would always be produced and marketed in Canada.
And that such readjustment should include as far as practicable the imposition of specific instead of ad valorem duties.
That in the opinion of this House the duties upon the said products should be so readjusted during the present session as to secure the Canadian market to the Canadian producer.
Among the requests that the farmers and gardeners make to the government are the following: That duties be imposed as follows:
Asparagus		[DOT] per pound	3 cents.
Cabbages			3 "
Cauliflowers			3 "
Celery			25 "
Beans			45 "
Green cucumbers			20 "
Onions	bush.	of 56 lbs.	40 "
Tomatoes			5 "
Watermelons			5 "
Musk melons, cantaloup	tt	3 "Spinach	[DOT] per bush.	25 "
These were some of the requests that the market gardeners of the province of On-i tario had made to the government for increase of duty. That resolution was voted down by the right hon. the Prime Min-


Richard Blain: ister and his supporters', but the leader of the opposition and hon. members on this side recorded their votes in favour of it. A little later, I find somebody on the other side of the House moving a similar resolution. The hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Sealey) moved :
That in the opinion of this House, so long as the Canadian tariff affords, incidentally or otherwise, a considerable degree of protection to manufacturers, some protection may fairly and properly be afforded by our tariff to Canadian agriculturists and stock raisers upon hegs, bog products, garden vegetables and sucb other items as it may appear possible to so protect with advantage to the agriculturist, and without undue injury to the Canadian consumer.
That resolution was supported by my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Schell), whom I see in his place. In a speech of some length made in the interests of the farmer, he stated his opinion that the government should increase the duty on pork. I do not suppose my hon. friend has changed his mind now, but perhaps he has. I must not press that question too closely. The hon. gentleman gave us a very interesting speech in favour of that resolution. The resolution was not voted upon, because the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) requested that it should not be pressed to a vote, explaining that he was going to revise the tariff that year, suggesting to the people of Canada that the farmers' interest would be taken care of in the new revision of the tariff. We have that new revision now, and not only has the request been refused of an increased protection to the farmer, but almost every vestige of protection on artiples except pork, on which there is a reduction of duty, has been swept away altogether by the Minister of Finance in the pact he has made with Mr. Taft. I would like to-know what the hon. member for South Oxford thinks of that policy-whether he proposes to support it or not. I am saying this to show that after all there has always been in this House a special distinction between the two parties in respect to protection for the agriculturist. That fact was never so manifest as it is in this proposed arrangement. The government are now proposing to take away protection the farmers have had, and /he opposition in this House say, no, that as long as there is protection in our tariff, the agriculturist should get a fair share of it. I will follow that up a little further by a quotation from a speech of the leader of the opposition. In the session of 1902-3 the leader of the opposition moved a resolution in the interest of more adequate protection to the farmers, and supported it by a very strong speech. Speaking on April 17 to the resolution for better protection to the farming interests and all other classes, he said :

I believe that upon many agricultural products the duty ought to be increased. I want to say that a country like Canada, possessing agricultural possibilities second to none in the world, should not be handicapped in competition with the United States, and should not be obliged to import from that country nearly $28,000,000 worth of agricultural and animal products. The farmer is protected in this country to a certain extent, he should be protected to a greater extent, and the Conservative party will be prepared, upon attaining power, to give him a further measure of protection which in its opinion the interests of the country demand.	,
I think that quotation is sufficient to prove to the country that there is a vast distinction between the policy of the government and the policy of the opposition with respect to the farming classes of Canada. I repeat that the farmers will be disappointed in the Tight hon. gentleman and in the Minister of Finance, when they consider the proposition which the government are asking us to accept, a proposition which involves the removal of almost every vestige of protection the farmer has on the products he raises upon his farm.
Now I want to look at the other side of the tariff. I want to point out that there are a large number of articles that the farmers require that are not touched by this new proposition. I want to point out that while this government have taken away protection on the products of the farmer, and reduced protection on some of the products they raise upon their farms, they have left a pretty strong tariff protection on the articles they require in their houses and the implements they use on their farms. When a farmer wants to buy a wagon, he finds there is a tariff of 224 per cent upon it; a buggy, 35 per cent; a piano, 30 per cent; boots and shoes, 25 per cent and 30 per cent; furniture in his house, 30 per cent; harness for his horses, 30 per cent; whips, 30 per cent; gloves and mitts which the farmer wears, 30 per cent; braces and suspenders for his clothing, 35 per cent; collars and cuffs, 374 per cent; scythes, forks, hoes, rakes, axes, all of which the farmer requires, 224 per cent; self binders, 15 per cent; mowing machines, 15 per cent; sewing machines that his wife requires in the house, 30 per cent; field rollers, 25 per cent. I am only mentioning a few of the articles the farmer requires to use on his farm. The farmers of this country will, therefore, see that the government, while taking the duty off wheat, barley, oats, peas, vegetables and fruit, taking away the protection the farmers have, has at the same time, allowed protection to remain upon all these articles' that he requires to use, and upon a few luxuries in which he may wish to indulge. That shows the difference between the two 1324
parties in respect to the tariff as it affects-the farmer.
Now_ I want to say a word about trade conditions. For the fiscal year ending 30th March, 1910, our total purchases from the United States amounted to $223,501,809; their purchases from Canada amounted to-$113,150,778, showing a difference of $110,351,031. For the past decade the returns, in round numbers, shows imports from the United States of $1,000,000,000 and exports to the United States of $500,000,000. In other words, 7,000,000 Canadians purchased twice as much from the United States as 90,000,000 people in the United States purchased from Canada. That is the position of the tariff at the present moment. Now let me consider the question of the tariff as it affects manufacturers. I am one of those who believe that there can be no tariff in Canada for the manufacturer, that does not help the farmer, and the mechanic, 'and every other man; and there can be no tariff upon farm products or upon animals of the farm, that is not in the interest of every other* man in this country. Therefore, I say that a protective tariff which is a uniform tariff, and gives every class a fair field and an equal chance, must be the best policy for the people of this country. There is invested in the manufacturing establishments in Canada at this moment $1,200,000,000. They have an annual output of the value of $1,000,000,000; employing 435,000 working men, and paying in wages annually, $250,000,000. I declare here, as representing the people, that an interest so valuable should be taken care of by any government. The ' Monetary Times,' of Toronto, is responsible for these figures:	There are at
least 200 manufacturing establishments, branches of United States industries, now located and operating in Canada, with an investment of United States capital of $24,000,000. That is something worthy the consideration of the government and of the people of Canada. There is no doubt in the world, that had it not been for the protective policy inaugurated by the Conservatives, and generally speaking, continued by this government, not one of these establishments would be to-day in Canada, and the wages they pay, would be expended in the United States. Let me read what President Taft expects for the United States from this agreement. At page 8 of his message to Congress, he says:
The benefit to our widespread agricultural implement industry from the reduction of Canadian duties in the agreement is clear. Similarly, the new widely distributed and expanding motor vehicle industry of the United States is given access to the Dominion market on advantageous terms.
At page 9 of his message he says:

As an illustration, it has been found possible to obtain free entry into Canada for fresh fruit and vegetables, a matter of special value to the south and to the Pacific coast in disposing of their products in their season.
I commend to the fruit growers of Canada the opinion of President Taft on how the United States fruit industry will be benefited by finding a new market in Canada. If it could be said that this government had opened up a new market of 92,000,000 people who required what we produce, not having enough of these articles themselves, then they might expect to get the approval of the people. But, the fact is that Canada produces more farm products than Canada herself requires, and the United States is in exactly the same position. The United States is an exporter of these articles mentioned in the trade agreement just as Canada is, and I cannot understand what advantage it is to the Canadian people to have access to the markets of a country which manufactures more than it can consume, and which produces more farm products than is required for their own consumption. Surely it is manifest that such an arrangement can be of no value to the farmers of Canada. Some say that protection increases the cost of the manufactured article to the consumer, and as that question has been often discussed I shall not dwell upon it further than to point out that in 1879, when the National Policy was passed there was an establishment in this country which that year manufactured about 30 buggies, for which the farmers paid them from $100 to $170 each, but last year, in various kinds of wheeled vehicles the same company had an output of 15,000, and they sold to the farmer for	$85 a better buggy
than formerly he had to pay $100 to $170 for.	In 1878 the price of sugar
was 9 and 10 cents per pound retail, but to-day, under a protective policy, it is under 5 cents per pound. The best self-binder was sold, in 1878, at from $275 to $300, but to-day the farmer gets a lighter and more compact binder that will last longer for $125. In 1878 single reapers retailed in Ontario at from $100 to $105, but to-day the best reapers retail at from $60 to $65. And so I could go all down the list and give instances to show that after all wheTe a protective tariff is placed on the statute-books in the interest of all the people, instead of increasing the price, it decreases the price to the consumer, and in addition our own people get the benefit of the wages at home and the farmers of Canada supply the wage-earners with their products. And now, as to the fruit and vegetable industry, I point out that we have at the present time large quantities of fruit coming into Canada free of duty, and it comes into competition with our native Mr. BLAIN.
grown fruit. For the fiscal year ending
31st March, 1910, there were entered for home consumption in Canada the following :
Oranges and grape fruit.. .. $2,135,913
Pineapples	 252,719
Lemons	 528,149
Bananas	 1,499,095

These fruits go into competition with fruits we raise upon our own farms, and for my part I think that the present protection should be left where it is, and that so long as these fruits that we cannot grow in our own country come in free of duty the consumer will not suffer by the protection that is given to the fruit and vegetable interests. Now, some remarks have been made in respect to the price of wheat under this new arrangement, and some of the farmers in the west think they will procure a higher price for their wheat, but let me refer them to this authority, which I quote from the Toronto ' Globe ' of February 9 last:
The Eight Hon. Sidney Charles Buxton, President of the Board of Trade, London, England, speaking:
Stated that the more Canadian wheat goes to the United States, the more will the United States send to Great Britain, with the result that the prices will decline.
That means, of course, and it seems quite logical, that the more Canadian wheat that is sent to the United States the more United States wheat there will be to ship to England, and the lower the price will be in the English market. My hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) has told us that the price of wheat is fixed in England, and therefore, it cannot be expected that under this new tariff arrangement the natural course of trade will be changed and the price of wheat fixed by the United States market. Then as to the pork industry let me quote from a statement submitted to the government the other day. by a large delegation representing that industry. Here is what they said:
The meat packers of Ontario and Quebec have in good faith invested large sums of money in fixed assets reported by their buildings and plant. They have had the courage to build and equip tlieir houses in advance of the production of hogs necessary to their operation. They have to-day, as they have had for years past an aggregate capacity greatly exceeding the aggregate supply of hogs. They are, therefore, deeply concerned and have great anxiety as to the effect upon these investments if the proposed reciprocal trade relations are established between Canada and the United States.
These business men of Canada are deeply concerned and in great anxiety as to the effect upon their investment by the proposed reciprocal trade relations between

Canada and the United States. Further on, with respect to the price paid to the farmers, these gentlemen say:
During the last 20 years the average price of hogs in Ontario and Quebec each year has exceeded the average price of hogs in the United States. We have not had the extreme range in values incident to United States' markets, hence we have not been as high in price during a period of extraordinary high levels, nor have we been as low in price during a period of extraordinary low levels, but the average price throughout any years with the exception of two years when the price was in favour of Buffalo has been higher to the farmers in Canada for their pork products.
I submit that statement for the mature consideration of Canadian farmers who are engaged in hog raising. I think I should put on ' Hansard ' a statement made within the last few hours by Sir William Van Horne. This is it:


SICK AND ASHAMED.
[Stage Direction]
(Canadian Press Despatch).
Montreal, Feb. 22, 1910.-Sir William Van Horne has just returned from Cuba, highly disgusted at the proposal just put forward to carry through the Fielding-Paterson reciprocity measure. I am too much disgusted to talk about it, be said to-day. Just think of it. Our government returns show that the commerce per capita of the people of1 Canada is $97 per head, while the commerce per capita of the people of the United States is $33, and some odd cents per head. Naturally they look upon us with a covetous eye, and this proposal for reciprocity is the result-Now we are actually proposing to remove the mill dam, and you know what happens when the mill dam is removed the waters find a common level. It is humiliating and disgusting to find such a deal as this one proposed by Messrs. Fielding and Paterson being seriously entertained. I won't trust myself !o say another word about it.
' Here just say that my opinions on the subject are summed up in the following,' ai:d Sir William sat down at his desk and wrote:
' Re reciprocity agreement-
' I am sick and ashamed-too sick and too much ashamed to say anything about the subject.'
I quote that opinion from a business man of the standing of Sir William Van Horne against the opinion of my hon. friend from Red Deer as to what is the best for Canada, and I leave the people to draw their own conclusions. As to the linseed oil industry, a gentleman who had a seat in this House a few years ago, and who is engaged in the business writes me:
As soon as the new scheme becomes effective it will kill the. linseed oil industry as dead as a mackerel.
That statement from a gentleman who has a good deal of money invested in the industry I commend to the government, and to the people of Canada. Now, the Finance Minister told us the other day that there has been no annexation feeling in Canada for the last 45 years, but the Toronto ' Globe ' holds a different opinion, and I quote from its issue of February 9, last:
Twenty years ago there was quite a strong undercurrent of annexation sentiment in the country.
That was in 1891 when the Liberal party were advocating unrestricted reciprocity in Canada. Was that annexation feeling to be found in the ranks of the Conservative party? If so how does it come that in that year the Hon. Edward Blake stated over his own signature in a published letter, that the policy advocated by the Liberal party in 1891, of unrestricted reciprocity, would lead to annexation if it were carried into law. If there is any annexation talk in Canada it certainly is not traceable to the Conservative party. True, it is said, that many years ago certain Conservatives sign. d an annexation manifesto, but that document also bore the signatures of prominent Liberals of that day, and be that as it may, in after years when these men had a better understanding of our .position and more faith in their country they repudiated the sentiments they earlier expressed. Whatever annexation talk there is in Canada is traceable to the policy advocated by the Liberals before they came into office and which at the time was repudiated by some of their best friends. And, Sir, to-day, there are prominent Liberals throughout Canada who declare that if this trade arrangement becomes law there are dangers surrounding it in respect to our nationhood. These gentlemen believe that possibly there may be some talk and some action in this House and in the United States with regard to annexation. I have in my hand a letter dated a few days ago from Aurora, Illinois, from a Canadian who lives in the United States, written to myself, and I will read one paragraph from it:
The view point over here can be summed up briefly. These Americans think they have slipped one over the Canadians. They openly admit and brag over the fact that they have secured a great deal for very little given in return. The Americans think that Canada is beginning to break away from England, and they think that this is the first step on the road to annexation later.
Evidently there is some talk on the other side of the line with respect to annexation. For my part I believe that the best policy for this country is the policy laid down many years ago by the Liberal-Conservative party, of protection for every interest in
[Stage Direction]
Canada-a policy kept on the statute-book by this government until every class of people in Canada are satisfied with present conditions. Our trade is expanding, our natural resources are being developed by our own energy, and with the assistance' that we get from the United States and from England in particular in the shape of large investments of money. The policy that has made Canada the admiration of the world is the policy that in my opinion ought to be continued, and that policy is Canada for the Canadians, not Canada for the United States people.
Mr. JOHN P. MOLLOY (Provencher).: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with pleasure, to the remarks of the hon. member who has just taken his seat. They were in line with what we would naturally expect from him as a strong protectionist. I am not a strong ^ protectionist-quite the opposite. On this question I propose to speak from the point of view of a Manitoba man as well as a Canadian, and I believe I shall have the support of every man from the province of Manitoba. The great majority of course are Conservatives; but before I came to this House, every once in a while the Conservative newspaper in Winnipeg the ' Telegram,' told us of the many things; that the three Conservative members were anxious and willing to do for the farmers 9*r Manitoba. My good friend from Souris Mr. Schaffner) never forgets to remind this House that he moved for a reduction of the duty on agricultural implements to 10 per cent. At the same time, he cannot forget that he voted for the motion of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier that this reciprocity agreement be delayed- that in 40 years the Canadian people have not had time to give it that consideration! which it deserves. Every member of this House from the province of Manitoba with the _ exception of myself voted for that motion But this question is a question of vital importance to the farmers of Manitoba, and every one of us, including the hon. member for Winnipeg, who in reality represents a rural "county. If it were n-ot for the rural counties in the province of Manitoba there would be no Winnipeg ; and, as I believe that this agreement is in the interest of the producer in the province of Manitoba, it should receive the support of all the hon. members from that province. They must do one of two things: they must either support it-and that I am sure will be the wish of their constituents-or they must oppose it. They cannot stand for one thing and vote for another, if they do not support it they class themselves with the black princes of protection who when it suits them wear the spurs of free traders. For my part, I am going Mr. BLAIN.
to vote for the agreement, the whole agreement, and nothing but the agreement, and I hope for the early ratification of the same. So far as I am concerned, and I believe the people I represent, we are not too well pleased with the amount of reduction in the duty on agricultural implements. It might ha\e been greater, but still there is a reduction of from 2i to 5 per cent. The hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) in a very able speech, to which he must have given a great deal of thought and time, moved that the reduction of the duty on agricultural implements be substantial. From that day to this we have not heard from the hon. member regarding this reduction. We have not heard from either that hon. gentleman or any other member from the province of Manitoba about the various articles which have been put on the free list. We have not heard whether they favour free wheat, free oats or free barley. I will vote for this agreement for this reason, if for no other, that it has lowered the duties on many articles and that it has not increased the duty on a single article and made many things free.	I say that it is
in the interest not only of the producer, but of the consumer, and, therefore, I will support it. I profess to speak only for the part of western Canada which I represent. On the day that this agreement was placed before the House, the 26th of January, I took care to put myself in touch with the people I represent. I wrote to a number of the ablest and most level-headed men of the county of Provencher, and the first reply I received was to this effect: The reciprocity agreement known as the Taft-Fielding agreement, has many friends :n the district, the people believing it to be the greatest and most popular thing this government has done for the people of Canada. The next letter I received was worded something like this: In that portion of the county in which I live, I have made it my business to inquire, and the only man I have found opposed to this agreement is a gentleman who is the president of the Conservative Association of the county. Therefore, I believe that I shall be justified in voting for this agreement in toto. I am convinced that it will develop, not alone the province of Manitoba, but every province in the Dominion.
I was informed not later than the night before last by one of the most prosperous farmers in Manitoba, known very wrell to my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr.' Staples)


Mr. STAPLES.: Who is he?


John Patrick Molloy: Mr. James Riddell, my hon. friend's opponent in 1904. I made the statement some time ago that I believed this agreement would increase in value at

least $5 per acre land in Manitoba, and the other western provinces and he thought it would increase a great deal more.


William D. Staples: Did Mr. Riddell tell you his opinion which he gathered abroad? Did he tell vou what feeling existed in the old country regarding this reciprocity measure? Did he tell you that in his opinion conditions were quite satisfactory in this country, and this government would be very foolish to disturb them?


John Patrick Molloy: I would like to inform my hon. friend that he told me just exactly the opposite. He told me that it would benefit, not only the people of Manitoba, but of all western Canada, and that the people were only getting what the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Staples) has told us he had fought for ever since he has been a member of this House.
It is well known that this year was an unfavourable year for Manitoba, and yet we raised in that province 96,000,000 bushels of grain, of which 40,000,000 bushels were wheat. That was raised from an acreage of 3,110,000 acres, with the , small average of 13i bushels per acre. Now, there are at least 25,000,000 acres of land arable in the province of Manitoba alone. Last year the United Kingdom imported 163-GOO,000 bushels of wheat, and that 25,00Q,-
000	acres of land, which is deemed to be arable in Manitoba alone would- yield 325,000,000 bushels of wheat at 13 bushels per acre. The question with which I am concerned is this: We know that in western Canada there will be some day from 175,000,000 to 200,000,000 acres of land under development, and I would ask where will the people of western Canada go to sell their surplus wheat, oats and Ijarley when that day comes?


William D. Staples: Does the hon. gentleman think they will find it in the United States, which is an exporting country to-day?


John Patrick Molloy: Yes, it is an exporting country to-day, and will be, perhaps, for a short time, but only for a very short time, and the argument of hon. gentlemen opposite that if we had waited the United States would have taken down their tariff barriers, is not really an argument against this agreement, because by this agreement these barriers are being taken down. I do not pretend that it will increase the price of wheat to the Canadian producer, but I say it will maintain the present prices. There are those who say it will increase the price 2 cents or 3 cents per bushel, but
1	shall be well satisfied if the present prices are maintained, because at the prices of to-day the raising of wheat is one of the best payinv businesses in the Dominion. Instead of having only a home market and
the British market, we shall have the United States market as well, and can any one doubt that with three markets at his' command instead of two the producer will benefit? Say, for instance, that the price of No. 1 Northern is 76 cents, and of No. [DOT]2 Northern 70 cents. It is well known that there may be but a very slight degree of difference between the two, and that if that grain is sampled what may be refused as No. 1 Northern may bring 75 cents.
So far as the western farmer is concerned we know that this agreement must be a good thing for him if we judge it from the American point of view, because ye know that the ablest men connected with the farming industry in the United States are opposing it on the ground that the United States government have maintained protection for the 'manufacturers and have made the tillers of the soil free traders. In proof of this, let me read an extract from a letter to Secretary of Agriculture Wilson from former Governor Nahum J. Bachelder, of Concord, N.H.:
In reply to our statement that the pending Bill was one-sided and unfair to the farmers, in that it makes no material reduction in duties on manufactured articles used by them, you attempt to defend the continuance of a high tariff for manufacturers along with free trade for the farmers, by claiming that it is the protected workers who furnish the farmers with their chief market.
We -should respectfully submit that you are simply repeating the pet argument of the domestic manufacturer and that in asserting that the prosperity of the farmer depends on the workers in protected industries, you are claiming what is exactly the reverse of actual conditions. It is on the prosperity of the farmers that the welfare of all other classes-manufacturers, merchants, transportation interests and factory workers, depends, and we cannot understand how at this late day you should be found repeating the stale and exploded theory that the farmers exist by the grace of protected manufacturers, or any one else on earth.
I sav, therefore, that when men in the position to make such a statement as-whose letter I have just read, who is at the head of the National Grange and chairman of the Patrons of Industry, are in a position to make such a statement as that, this reciprocity must be a good thing for our western farmer, and if it be good for them it will benefit the whole Dominion.
Some time ago we were all struck with an article which appeared on the front page of the Montreal ' Star,' in which that paper appealed to Sir Wilfrid Laurier as the only man who could save Canada. Well, we on this side believe that he has been the only man for a generation, who has done that which is best for Canada, and who will continue to do so as long as God spares him, regardless of the fact that it was a paid advertisement, regardless of the fact

that it was paid for by the manufacturers, and vested interests as against the masses of this country. But an article appeared in the Montreal ' Star,' which was copied by the Winnipeg ' Tribune,' in which they took up the side of the farmer. That was like some gentlemen on the other side, who before the reciprocity agreement had been entered into, and while they believed it was impossible to secure reciprocity in natural products, advocated such reciprocity, but when such an arrangement was actually made, they found an excuse to get out. The Montreal ' Star ' found a way to get out. But what they now say, will not go down with the masses of this country, because the farmers represent 63 per cent of the population of Canada, and they must, and will be heard. And nobody will hear them more plainly than the men who represent rural counties in western Canada, when the tocsin is sounded for the next election. For my part, I believe it to bp my duty to stand for that for which the people elected me. If I could not support, this agreement conscientiously and fairly and honestly, it would be my duty, as a man, to get out and let some one else take my place who is more cloisely in touch with the people 1 represent. However, I will read this article in which the Montreal ' Star ' stood up for the farmers. My western friends will notice that it is pretty pointed. Whether correct or incorrect, there are facts in it that it will be pretty hard for them to get over:
Where the tariff burdens the farmer, that item is immediately put on trial for its life. This country yan stand a burden anywhere else more easily. Agriculture is our hope. It is the splendid agricultural opportunities of the west which are drawing to that section such excellent settlers. A mere chance to make a living will attract all the less desirable sort of immigrants we can stand- and probably far more. But after all, it is not so much population we want as fellow citizens up to the Canadian standard; and we can only secure this high grade of immigrant- by making farming conditions superlatively attractive. New York can boast nf its. brokers and London can boast of its Lords;* but Canada must be in a position to boast of its farmers. That is our prize product-our compelling lure to the best of the best nations.
And again they say:
Where they find railway or other corporations inclined to side-track their interests or ignore their just demands, they must tell any government that sits or ever shall sit at Ottawa that its only title to continued existence is its instant readiness to compel the possessors of public franchises to recognize that the public is the controlling partner in their business. The farmers are the masters of the situation; and, if they fail, the blame is theirs.


John Patrick Molloy: As I said a moment ago, the farmers represent 63 per cent of our population, and I do not believe that, organized, as they are, any corporate interest or any wildcat talk of annexation-which is the only defence offered by hon. gentlemen opposite-will sway the farmers from protecting and helping their own families, or cause them to vote for men who are diametrically opposed to their interests. Now, speaking of the grain of western Canada-


Richard Blain: Would the hon. gentleman permit me a question ? Did I understand him to make the statement that the article of the Montreal ' Star,' as it is found in other newspapers in Canada, was paid for, as an advertisement by the Manufacturers' Association ?


John Patrick Molloy: By members, by interests, opposed to a reciprocity agreement between Canada and the United States


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Molloy), be good enough to name


John Patrick Molloy: No, I will not


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh


John Patrick Molloy: I do not wish any hon member to feel that I am discourteous, and if I have hurt the hon. member's feelings, I apologize. But so far, I have never risen in this House to make a statement, except once, when I rose to a question of personal explanation, without being baited by hon gentlemen on the other side. And I have never yet interrupted any speaker on that side of the House. I took a vow the first day I came here that, as long as I had a seat in this House, I would not interrupt any hon. member who was speaking.


William D. Staples: I rise to a question of order. The hon. member (Mr. Molloy), said that he never rose to give offence or insult to hon. gentlemen on this side Now, with his permission, I will ask him a question


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: That is not a point of order, and unless the hon. gentleman (Mr. Staples.) has a point of order, 1 cannot hear him.


William D. Staples: I can only say that, if the hon. gentleman takes offence, I am very sorry. I did not mean it in that way.


John Patrick Molloy: I have endeavoured to point out from the farmers' point of view the desirability of an enlarged market for the western farmers' wheat. But there aTe other grains raised in western Canada besides wheat,-for example, oats. Last year, 42,000,000 bushels of oats were raised. But owing to the drought in western Canada, the crop was less on the average than for some years. The western oats are better.

stronger and heavier oats than the American, and will command on the American market higher prices, owing to their milling properties. In spite of the fact that the staple crop of Canada, up to the present time, has been wheat, there is nothing in this agreement so beneficial to the western farmer, as making barley free. We all knows that under the old reciprocity agreement, of from 1854 to 1866, the staple crop of eastern Canada was barley, and we also know that, at the present time, the price of barley, on the American side, with the duty of 30 cents equals, and in some cases, even exceeds, the price of wheat on the Canadian side. I made it my business, the other day, to inquire into the value of barley on the American side and on the Canadian side. And I say that if barley alone, had been put on the free list by this agreement, it would be my duty, in the interests of the western farmer, to vote for the agreement.
On February 18, the highest price paid for barley in Winnipeg was 56 cents, and the lowest price 38 cents. In Chicago on February 19, the highest price paid for barley was 94 cents, and the lowest price 75 cents one day between. In other words, the difference between the highest price paid in Winnipeg and the highest price paid in Chicago was 38 cents, and the difference between the lowest prices was 37 cents. That was for feed barley. But that is not all. It must be admitted, it is admitted, there is no use trying to deny it, that in decreased in the province of Manitoba toba, which is the oldest agricultural province in the west, many sections of the country have been overrun by weeds. We know that the crop of barley has decreased in the province of Manitoba for the simple reason that it does not pay. For instance, in 1908 there were 18,000,000 bushels raised; in 1909, 16,000,000 bushels; in 1910;. 12,000,000 bushels, showing a decrease for the simple reason that it does not pay. There will be this advantage, that the farmer of western Canada, and the Manitoba farmer particularly, as the oldest agricultural district west of the lakes, will be able to grow barley at a paying price, getting in the neighbourhood of what they are getting for wheat at the present time, with the additional benefit that they will have an opportunity of cleaning their land. They will have the use of the land which would otherwise be less useful. Therefore, so far as the western farmer is concerned, putting bariey on the free list is the best thing that has been done for him. It will give him a paying crop, as the yield per acre will be about double. This year the yield per acre is 20-75 bushels for barley, and for wheat only 13-47, on account of the drought. If he can receive two-thirds the price that he receives for his wheat, he will make more money raising barley, and cleaning up his farm, which has become overrun with weeds in some districts.
Another reason for which I shall vote for this agreement is that it will furnish a better market. Where are the people of western Canada to get a good market for the future? The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) in his speech the other night, and it certainly was an able speech, asked:	What will happen when
there are a million farmers in western Canada? I say, What will happen when there are twenty-five million farmers in western Canada, and what will happen when there are 200 million acres of land cultivated in western Canada? We know the time will come when there will be 80 millions of people living between the Great Lakes and the Pacific ocean. They must have a market somewhere. The western farmer asks for a fair, square deal. He says he is prepared to meet anybody, or any interest on a fair, equal footing, and the more markets he gets the better it will be for him and the better for the whole Canadian people.
There is another question I wish to touch upon, that is the question of transportation. It has been argued that if this agreement goes into effect trade will go south, and that the millions and millions that have been spent by the people of Canada on railways will be, in a sense, wasted. My argument is this, the time is near when all the existing lines we have at the present time, and when the other two now in course of construction, are completed within five years, they cannot handle the output of western Canada. I have the statement of a railway man who was in close touch with the Canadian Northern railway, and he said to me frankly, the Canadian Northern railway have the lowest fixed charges of any railway in the world of its size. It owns its own lake steamers, it owns its own ocean steamers, and if they cannot compete with their American competitors let them go out of business.


An hon. MEMBER.: May I ask the name of the hon. gentleman's informant?


John Patrick Molloy: I cannot give the names publicly, but I will give it to the hon. gentleman privately. There is one thing in regard to transportation which this government must be very careful about, and that is that the handling of grain by the elevator companies and railway companies particularly, must be such as to guard the interest of the producer. First and foremost the interest of the producer must be considered. If competition by American roads tends to lower the freight rate in this country, I am sure and I know, that nothing will be more popular in Canada. The

people of Canada will then know that for once they are in a position to control the railway rates, to some extent. If you can by this agreement induce American competition and lower the freight rates to the grain growers of Canada, to the stock raisers of Canada, to the miners of Canada, and to the fishermen of Canada, it will be welcomed by them, because it will be in the interest of the whole people. If this agreement tends to lower freight rates, which I hope it will do, that alone will be an enormous benefit. We all remember, those of us who live in Manitoba, years ago When the Canadian Pacific railway held the people by the throat, when that great company dictated their terms, dictated their rates, dictated when you should ship your grain.
Mr-. BELAND. Was Sir William Van Home then connected with that road?


John Patrick Molloy: He was president. It is now possible for the people to get relief; they believe that this agreement will tend to a reduction of freight rates, and, therefore, it will be welcome to the people of this great and growing country. It is no wonder that Sir William Van Horne is opposed to this agreement, for in a short time the Canadian Pacific railway will not be able to dictate to our free people as they have done in the past. Now the statement is made that .all the grain will go south. We must remember that part of it has already been going south. It may surprise you, and it did surprise me, to learn that half of our wheat crop for the last three years in western Canada has gone out by southern routes. I have a statement to that effect from the Department of Trade and Commerce, showing the quantity of wheat exported from the Dominion of Canada in three crop years ending August 31. In 1908 there were 39,000,000 bushels, in round figures; in 1909, 45,000,000 bushels; in 1910,
52.000.	000 bushels. How much of that wheat was exported through the United States? In 1908, 19,000,000 bushels, in round figures, went through by American routes; in 1909, 23,000,000 bushels; in 1910, 27,000,000 bushels. The Minister of Customs pointed out in his speech that from Port Arthur and Port William alone there were
19.000.	000 bushels exported by American routes. Now if you compare the figures you will find that in 1908, 1909 and 1910, half of our exports of wheat went by American routes. You may think it went in bond but the fact remains that freight rates were paid on it over American roads.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: In 1910, 100,000,000 bushels of wheat went through Port. Arthur and Fort William, and only 1,000,000 bushels did not go that far on Canadian roads.


John Patrick Molloy: 


John Patrick Molloy: My statement was that half the grain went by American routes.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: But it came east to be exported.


John Patrick Molloy: Partly, but not entirely.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: All except 1,000,000 bushels.


John Patrick Molloy: I was struck by an article written by Dr. Andrew McPhail in the Montreal ' Witness ' under date February 21. We have heard a great deal of the howl sent up by vested interests in this country, and I notice that the strongest opponents of this agreement are the moneyed men of Canada. The common people, apparently, are not to be considered or consulted if some people are to have their way, but there are those who are prepared to take up their cause and fight it out for them, and I am one of them. The blue ruin predicted by hon. gentlemen opposite and some of their press, with its accompaniment of falling stocks, financial stringency, tying up of corporations and unwillingness of the banks to lend money, is hardly borne out by the facts as here set forth. This article is as follows;


TEST OF PUBLIC OPINION.
[Stage Direction]
There is only one method of testing public opinion upon the effect which any proposal will have in industrial values, and that is by appealing to the record of prices which the public is willing to pay. The Montreal Stock Exchange will yield those quotations. The schedules were brought down on Januarv 27
[Stage Direction]
Bear in mind that was the day after the Finance Minister made his statement.
-or ' thrown on the table,' as the saying is. Let us now compare the prices which prevailed at the close of the market on the day previous to the event with those which are recorded for February 14. There are 49 stocks listed, for which quotations are given for both days, and the average values increased by 2 -22 per cent. Let us compare the values of stocks in those industries, about which the greatest clamour has been raised. The Canadian Pacific railway, on January 26, closed at 207J bid; on February 14 it had advanced to 212J bid. Grand Trunks in London on January 26, closed at 106f for firsts, 95| for seconds, and 54 to 54J on actual sales of thirds. On February 14, the closing figures were: firsts 108, thirds 54|, there being no quotations for seconds. Ogilvie Milling Company closed at 129| and 129 respectively; Lake of the Woods at 142 and 141J; Steel Company at 57| and 58J. Even ' farmers ' may be trusted to see the significance of those figures, and to test by them ithe sincerity of the ' business men ' who are crying out that they have been betrayed.
The railways have come in for especial commiseration. The railways may be trusted to take care of themselves if we adhere to the sound principle of minding our own business, and let the American railways mind theirs.

Sir Thomas Shaugknessy, Mr. Hays, and the proprietors of the Canadian Northern, are quite competent to protect their east and west haul, if only their hands are not tied by an International Railway Commission. That is the trap we have to fear. But all railways on the American continent run east and west, and always will. With the exception of the Illinois Central, there is not a road in America which ever made any profit by north and south traffic alone.
Therefore, I say that so far as the railway interests are concerned, no statement has been made by any railway man who is in active railway business to-day against this agreement, although we have, on the other side, the statements of Sir Donald Mann and Sir William Mackenzie in its favour. If it lowers the freight rates of the Canadian railways, I shall welcome the agreement more and more in the interests of the people, knowing and believing that they have paid more than their just share in the past, and I am sure the people of the country will take the same view.
The only argument left to the opposition is the flag, the old, the dear old, the good old flag. I wonder how it has stood the racket so long; it must be great stuff. Whenever the poor old, dear old, good old Tory party gets in a hole they appeal to the dear old, good old flag to help them out. It has stood the test not only in this country, in which we are proud to live, in which we will always live and will always defend, but in other parts of the world.' In this country the only thing the flag is up against is the political attacks made upon it to suit the purposes of the Conservative party. When they fail everywhere else, then they appeal to the flag. I will tell hon. gentlemen that they must have something else than that racket for the future. It has worked, I admit, pretty well in the past, but the people are getting next; they are getting wise. You have got to have something else. Just in the same way you can go on talking graft until the crack of doom, but you have to give the people a policy, and do not raise the flag and give us the flag in the place of a policy. The people want something and are bound to have it. and we, the Liberal party, are bound to give it to them. The people of this country are loyal, they always have been, and they always will be. If there is any difference in loyalty, if you can measure it in that way, the people in Canada to-day are more loyal than they ever were before, because they are better satisfied with conditions than they ever were before. Therefore, they have every reason to be satisfied. You create conditions whereby the people suffer an injury, starve the people and they will soon forget the flag, they will think of their stomachs only; men on the other side of the House would do that just
as those on this side. Some of them on the other side seem to have no consciences, but I suppose they all have stomachs.
As for the railway companies in this country, as I said, they have taken care of themselves. They do not hesitate to cross the international boundary to extend their systems in the United States, not one of them, and the bankers in this country who are raising such a row do not forget to send their money to New York if they can get a good percentage. They are out for their pockets, we all are, legitimately. Therefore, I say that the annexation cry and the disloyalty cry will not work out for the simple reason that the Canadian people are intelligent, and, therefore, they know better than to be deceived by such cries. You will have to give them something else that will appeal to them, to their sense of honesty and intelligence in addition to any ribald cry that you wore out yourselves many, many years ago. As to the statement that Americans are flocking into Canada, I say it is a good thing, and that they are welcome to Canada. There is no man who comes into Canada to-day who is a more up-to-date, a more loyal, or a more progressiva citizen Ithan the naturalized American. You meet them at every turn in western Canada.
There are many of them in my own constituency that I know personally, and if you talk to these men they will admit that they have a protection and justice in this country that they did not get in the land of their birth. Some of these men are bom Americans and in other cases they are Canadians who have come back. One word in conclusion. We heaTd to-day of a resolution passed by the Winnipeg Board of Trade, and they did not forget to tell us that Mr. D. C. Cameron seconded that motion. Mr. Cameron has a perfect right to do as he sees fit. He is an intelligent, honourable, upright man, and a good citizen. I have no fault to find with him, but I have a certain amount of fault to find with a bunch of men who palm themselves off as Toronto Grits. We are told there are 18 Grits in Toronto ; I was not aware there were that many. If you look over the list of these 18 vou will find it starts with Sir Edmund Walker, banker, and the next man is a financier, and the next man is a financier, and the next man is a financier, and so on and so forth, and the next man is the manager of a bank, and they come together and they say that this arrangement is a bad thing. I would not be afraid to wager, and I am going to tell the farmers of my constituency, that these 18 Grits of Toronto who went to that meeting went in automobiles costing from $5,000 to $10,000 each, to lay down a policy for the farmers of Canada. They either went in their own automobiles or their own carriages, or in the automobiles and carriages
4i95
[Stage Direction]
o! their friends, and they met there, and they said the country is going to the bowwows. Their position is simply this, and they know it, that they have had the best time they ever had since the Laurier government came into power, and since then the country has experienced unexampled prosperity. But, as a western man I want to tell you that so far as annexation is concerned, there could have been created a movement for annexation in western Canada in the days when the Conservative government entered into a contract with the Canadian Pacific railway which perpetrated a gross injustice to the people, of the west. The producers of this country who number 63 per cent of the people inf cluding the farmers of the west, will not submit for one moment to being dictated to by any 18 Liberals in Toronto, or, for that matter any 18 Conservatives in Winnipeg. It is all right for these men when they have -reaped their riches at the ex-[DOT] pense of the sweat of the brow of the farmer in western Canada, these gentlemen with their palaces in the city, and their seaside homes who travel in their automobiles, and spend their wealth most extravagantly throughout the length and breadth of the land ; it is all right for such men to talk, but I tell them that the people of western Canada who have made them what they are, will not be dictated to by any such bunch. As a rule the farmer of Manitoba does not travel in an automobile.
Mr. HAGGART (Winnipeg).: May I ask the hon. gentleman if he does not canvass his own electors in his own automobile?


John Patrick Molloy: I did not hear the ques tion.


Alexander Haggart: Does the hon. member (Mr. Molloy) not canvass the electors of Provencher in his own automobile or that of his brother?


John Patrick Molloy: I have been asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Hag-gart) if I, did not canvass the electors of Provencher in my own automobile or Jjiy brothers, and I want to make the statement here, and now, and Dy the time this House meets to-morrow I am prepared to prove it, that I was never in any automobile during my canvass in Provencher in 1908, my brother's or anybody else's and if that is not true I will leave this House. I will admit that my brother, of whom I am very proud, and who is a member of the Manitoba legislature, canvassed in his automobile, and he was elected by only 9 majority, and the last party he brought to the poll just numbered 9. However, that has no reference to my case. I may tell the hon. member (Mr." Haggart) that I do not need an automobile at all ; the people come up and vote for me without being driven in an automobile; they would ride in Red River carts if they had to. I can Mr. MOLLOY.
tell the hon. member further that I won't need an automobile next election. And, without wishing to hurt the feelings of anybody I will just mention that the Conservative party in the constituency I represent are scarce of candidates, and if there is any hon. member in this House from, the province of Manitoba who wishes to-try his luck in Provencher I will welcome him as my opponent ; and I think I will be able to defeat him on this or any other question of the policy of the Laurier government. I am going to vote lor this agreement, believing it is in the interests of the people, believing it is in the interest of the land in which I was born, and believing that the gentlemen who oppose it to-day, and whose opinions I respect, will in time come round to my way of thinking, that it is an agreement which is in the interests of the whole people of Canada.


Robert Laird Borden: Before the committee rises, I would like to make myself clear to my hon. friend from Red Deer, who thought I was wrong on some question of fact. I stated the other day that according to my information the United States was the greatest manufacturing country in the world and the greatest agricultural country in the world. I still think I am correct so far as the statistics show. If my hon. friend (Mr. Clark) would name any other country that is a greater manufacturing country or a greater agricultural country than the United States, I would be very glad to be corrected. My hon. friend (Mr. Clark) said I had not, as usual, buttressed my statements by facts. I suppose he regarded them as unsupported facts and, therefore, no facts at all. I have looked into the point, and I would tell my hon. friend from Red Deer that according to the best information I can get-which is to be found in the Statesman's Year-book for the year 1908, being the last edition in the library, a publication well recognized in all English-speaking countries-the manufactures of the United States amounted to $16,866,706,985. I do not think that record of value is equalled by any other country in the world. If I am wrong I should be glad to have my hon. friend correct me. As to agricultural products, the information I have is not quite so late; it only comes down to 1900. According to the same authority, the agricultural products of the United States in that year amounted to $4,717,069,973. In another publication, an American one, the Standard Dictionary of Facts, which professes to give the latest statistics, I find that the United States leads the whole world in agricultural products of the following kinds; in wheat, in oats, in corn-four or five times as much as all the rest of the world-and in cotton-nearly twice as much as all the rest

of the world. Therefore, subject to correction, I still think that the statement I made on that point in the House a few days ago was quite correct.


Michael Clark: I think my hon. friend will agree with me that the question of agricultural products does not come into dispute between us, because I did not refer to that part of his statement-at all. It would be too much to expect that a country about the size of Alberta would equal one-half of this continent in agricultural products. The hon. member has not given any comparative figures. He has stated the gross figures of the United States for 1905. I think he will agree with me that it is an extremely difficult line of comparison. There is the difficulty as to what really are manufactures. For instance, in the statement of manufactures in the old country, ships are for some reason excluded, although it could be reasonably argued that ship-building is a line of manufacture, a ship being a' highly-finished product. I certainly think that the comparative figures which I gave with regard to the export of manufactures rather bore out my side of the case. But in matters of trade I am cosmopolitan. I look for the time when the United States and Canada must of necessity overtake and pass Great Britain, just as a son outgrows his father. It is not a very important point, but I think it is as well to state it before it actually comes to pass.


Robert Laird Borden: Friday, February 24, 1911.