[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 126) respecting the Quebec, Montreal and Southern Railway Company. -Mr. Fortier.

Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster).: Before the orders of the day are called I wish to put a question to the Solicitor General (Mr. Bureau) based upon the following despatch in to-day's Montreal 'Gazette':
BILL MINER ARRESTED. Canadian Government may have him, if they want him.
Chicago, February 27.-That ' Old Bill ' Miner, second only to Jesse James in notoriety as a train robber, was one of the White Sulphur, Ga., bandits arrested at Gainesville, Ga., last Thursday, was asserted at the bureau of identification of the Pinkerton National Detective Agency to-day.
The train robbery at White Sulphur occurred February 18 and several thousand dollars were secured by the bandits. Five days later three alleged robbers were arrested, among them, it is stated ' Old Bill.'
Unless the Dominion authorities seek Miner's return he will be tried on the White Sulphur charge.
I wish to ask whether it is the intention of the Solicitor General to take steps to have this gentleman returned to Canada.


Mr. BUREAU.: The first information I have had as to this matter was from today's newspapers. I will see the Minister of Justice and ask him what course he intends to take, and I will communicate further with my hon. friend from New Westminster.



WAYS AND MEANS-RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Ways and Means. .
['None.\nBill reported, read the third time, and passed.']
Hon. CLIFFORD SIFTON (Brandon).: Mr. Chairman, I agree with what has been said by members of the House who have preceded me respecting the very great importance of the question we are now discussing. I have found it the most important question which has come before this House since I have had the honour of being a member of it, and when I say frankly to the committee that the result of my investigation has been to lead me to the conclusion that I cannot follow the leader of the party with which I have been identified practically all my lifetime it will be very evident that to me at least it is an extremely important question. A difference with the political party with which I have been associated all my lifetime must necessarily be of an extremely painful character. With the members of the government I am and always have been upon the best and closest possible terms politically and socially. Some of the members of the government I regard as my closest personal friends. And, away back in the county of Brandon there are a great many men who for 23 years have been my supporters, who, I am quite satisfied, will find great difficulty in understanding why I find it necessary to vote against the party with which they and I have been identified so long. It will be readily understood, Sir, under those circumstances, that my convictions upon the subject are extremely strong. Twenty years ago the Liberal party had as its policy a policy of unrestricted reciprocity. As a young man, young in public life at that time, I followed the leaders of my party; I took an active part in that election. There are I think some gentlemen in the House here against whom I spoke in that campaign, anci to the best of my ability I endeavoured to convince the electors whom I addressed that the policy of my party was a wise and a prudent policy. I am free to say, Mr. Chairman, that almost before the campaign was over I had succeeded in convincing myself that we were wrong. From that time on my views have undergone, perhaps a gradual, but a steady and a certain change. When the tariff was revised in 1897 I was satisfied that the tariff as we adopted it at that time represented a good policy for the Dominion of Canada and possibly the best policy we could adopt. And, ever since 1898, when under the Joint High Commission efforts were made to secure some kind of reciprocity with the United States, my conviction has been strengthening in that direction. A couple of years ago I had the honour of Mr. BUREAU.
delivering an address in New York in the Chamber of Commerce of that great city, and I indicated pretty clearly at that time, though to a somewhat hostile audience, what my views are.
Now, I am well aware, Mr. Chairman that it is a matter of possibly small concern as to when and how my opinion has been arrived at, but I will ask the House to pardon me for mentioning the facts which show that my opinion on this subject is not a spasmodic or suddenly formed opinion, but is the mature conviction which comes to me as the result of something over twenty years of pretty close contact with the affairs of Canada. Some of my newspaper friends have intimated that there was some mystery about my opinions upon this subject. I have not sought to make any mystery of them. I have perhaps avoided discussing the subject with my political friends because I did not desire that any of them should feel that I was endeavouring to induce them to adopt my opinions, and I did not desire to say anything to any of my Liberal friends except what I was prepared to say in the presence of the members of the government and in the presence of the House. But what I have to say about that is this. We have in the Dominion of Canada pretty strong party ties. We do not leave our party for small reasons. We do not leave our party because it happens to do something that we do not at the moment approve of-because it builds a bridge or a court house or a public building or even a railroad that we do not think necessary at the time. We have a pretty strong idea with regard to party allegiance, and my conviction is that it is a good thing and contributes to the stability of government that we have that idea. But it must be remembered nevertheless that, the reason why we adhere to a political party is that party in general represents the principles that we think ought to be applied to the government of the country; and when one's party is led to apply principles which are of fundamental and far-reaching importance, affecting the whole national structure, and one feels that he cannot conscientiously adopt or follow those principles, then, Mr. Chairman, his party allegiance is necessarily dissolved, and if he desires to retain his own self-respect, it becomes absolutely necessary for him to decline to follow that of which he does not approve. That is the position in which I find myself to-day; and, however, painful the process may be, I take the only course which I can take and retain my self-respect.
Getting away from that subject let me say a word or two in regard to the conduct of the debate by the government. I think the House has a little fault to

find, justifiably, with my hon. friends who have charge of the debate for the government. There has never been, since 1879, so important an alteration in the tariff as proposed in these resolutions; and when alterations of an extensive character are made, it has always been customary to make very thorough and complete inquiries of the most expert and detailed character. Otherwise it is impossible that those who are acting should really know what they are doing. When other countries undertake work of this kind, such inquiries are made. I wonder if the House is aware of the fact that when the last German revision of their tariff was made, 20,000 experts were employed for the purpose of collecting and collating information for the benefit of the government and for the -benefit of the parliamentary body which subsequently had to act upon their report. In England the Board of Trade experts act. Here we have generally had a collection of detailed information which was available when the debate came on in the House, and which the ministers in charge gave for the benefit of the members of the House. Now, I think we should have had the information which is necessary for the discussion of this question given us by the government. I think we should have had a full and clear statement as to the effects of this treaty upon our relations with the favoured nations. Members of the opposition have, by questioning, elicited from our hon. friends a good deal of information; but I venture the opinion that there is not a single member of this House outside of the government who now knows whether he is in possession of the whole information or not. Then, we should have had, I think, some comparative statements of prices. This whole question relates to markets and to prices. It would have been a comparatively small matter for a body of experts employed by the government to have got for us a comparative list of the prices of the principal commodities, in the United States, in Canada, and in the other countries concerned. But we have not received it. Neither have we the information, unless we dig it out of the blue-,books for ourselves, with great labour, and sometimes with the liability to make mistakes, as we have had evidence of once or twice in the debate already, with regard to the production of the various commodities by the countries concerned. Generally this has been done by the government and generally some member of the government has made it his business properly to place before the House the case for the government for the proposals that are made. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance never speaks except with that ability and cleverness which we all admire, and it was quite as much in Mr. SIFTON.
evidence in the address that he gave us in introducing these resolutions as it ever was in this House. But I do not think my hon. friend would claim that in that address he undertook to argue the merits of these proposals in detail. Neither did my hon. friend the Minister of Customs. If the committee desires to know just what I mean by this criticism, let them look at the speech which the Finance Minister delivered on the Grand Trunk Pacific resolutions, or at one of the speeches which my hon. friend the Minister of Customs has often delivered in this House in the budget debates, and they will see the kind of a case which our hon. friends can make when they desire to do it and have the material. I would conclude that either our hon. friends in the [DOT] government have not made the investigation and do not possess the facts, or else that the facts do not bear out the contention which they put forward.
Before going into this question of prices, I desire to say that I dissent altogether from the proposition that everybody in Canada has been in favour of reciprocity with the United States for the last forty years. I do not know of any warrant at all for the statement that both the parties, or that one of the parties, for the last forty years has been in favour of reciprocity. There can be no doubt that the Liberal party was in favour of reciprocity twenty years ago; there can be no doubt that in the platform of 1893 there was what might be called a look at reciprocity; and there .can be no doubt that later on, I think it was in 1898, under the Joint High Commission, the right hon. leader of the government attempted to get some measure of reciprocity from the United States. But there is equally no doubt that when the Joint High Commission ceased to act, the right hon. gentleman expressly made his position clear, and that in the general election of 1900, in the election of 1904, and in the election of 1908, there was no mention whatever of reciprocity by either of the parties. As a member of the government in the first two of those elections I should be credited at least with having a general idea of the policy of the government of which I was a member, and I dp not think there would be any individual in Canada more surprised than I if I had been told in either of those elections that it was a part of the policy of the government to seek reciprocity. If there was anything that was clearer than another in connection with the policy of the two political parties in those three successive general elections, it was that neither of them made any claim to advocate the policy of reciprocal trade relations with the United States.
I agree with what has been said that

the government lias no mandate to make these proposals. I do not mention that .point because of a desire to fill up the cup or to aggravate the argument against my bon. friends, and I furthermore say that I think oppositions very often say what can hardly be supported on grounds of reason or law in opposition to what is done by governments on the ground that they have no mandate. But I do not think the principles which often apply, apply in this case. We have not, it is true, a system of government by delegation. Our governments are not elected to do specific things; that is not the nature of our constitution. We are elected under a very wide system of parliamentary responsibility, and a great discretion is vested in the House of Commons, and in the government which is the executive committee of the House of Commons in connection with the transaction and new business, business which was not discussed when they were before the electors. They may do a great many things that were not discussed when they were before the electors, but they may not constitutionally or properly do everything, and I venture to say that when the fiscal policy of a country has been thoroughly canvassed and settled, discussed, debated and approved in the year 1900, discussed, debated and approved in the year 1904, discussed, debated and approved in the year 1908, that there is no constitutional warrant for the members of the government reversing that policy radically without any consultation and practically without the knowledge of the people. There is a discretion vested in the government, there is a discretion vested in the House of Commons, but Mr. Chairman, it must be remembered that the discretion that is exerciseable by those who occupy important positions under our form of government is not an arbitrary personal discretion, it is a constitutional discretion which must be exercised in accordance with-the principles of the constitution, and the constitutional rights of the people we represent, and I want to say and to say it not as I said simply for the purpose of making another point against my hon. friend, but I want to say that I do not believe, speaking from my own experience and from the experience of many men whom I have met in various walks of life and largely members of the Liberal party, I do not believe that in the recent history of Canada anything has happened which has given to the thinking people of Canada so painful and so sudden a shock as the sudden realization that four or five gentlemen who, by reason of their ability, their years of service and their high position in their party, are in control of the affairs of the dominant political party, can suddenly, of their own motion, without discussion, without debate, without the knowledge of the country, commit the country to a radical change of fiscal policy. That is not, I am bound to say, the doctrine of constitutional government as I was taught it in the Liberal party, and I do not think ihat there could be possibly a more langerous innovation.
Sir, what we are asked to do in these resolutions is to reverse the fiscal policy of the Dominion of Canada. It is interesting to note, although there has been very little discussion of that point, what is the policv which we are asked to reverse and why we are asked to reverse it. The policy was adopted in 1897 after the election which resulted in the right hon. the present leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) taking office. That tariff was described by its own friends, of whom I was and am one, as having first for its most outstanding feature the British preference, second, a readjustment of duties which largely reduce the duties upon articles commonly used by the farming community and, third, a substantial reduction in the duties on the raw materials of manufacturers. Now, it may frankly be said that the system of protection was continued by that tariff. Of that there can be no possible doubt. And it must further be said quite frankly and we can say it without disturbing ourselves particularly at this distance of time-that the tariff of 1897 did not fully implement all the promises or the suggestions which we, the members of the Liberal party, had made in regard to our future policy when we were in opposition. But, Mr. Speaker, the policy which we set forth in the tariff of 1897 was deliberately adopted. All these matters were canvassed and considered before we adopted it. We found, as people generally find when they take office, that there were some things that they thought they could do that they could not do, some things that they intended to do that would do harm to some people, and would not do any good to anybody, and so there were many things that perhaps might have been expected that were not done ; but the tariff of 1897 was deliberately adopted after full and careful consideration, we went to the country in 1900 upon that tariff and submitted it to the judgment of the people wdio had put us in office. We were open to attack then on the ground that we had not fully carried out our pledges, both by our opponents and by our political friends, and, speaking for myself as having conducted largely the discussion on behalf of the government in a very large section of the country which was committed to my charge, I say that no phase of that subject was left untouched. It was discussed and rediscussed at every campaign meeting that was held. We placed the matter before the people, we explained the reasons for the action we had taken, we submitted those reasons to the people, we submitted ourselves to their judgment, and

the result was that their judgment upheld us, and that the tariff was approved. It was my opinion then, whatever that opinion might have been worth, little or much, that it was the best tariff that we could adopt. It was only an opinion but as time has gone on, and that tariff policy has been practically unchanged in any very important particular since 1897, I have become thoroughly and completely convinced that the tariff policy which we adopted at that time, which embraced the principle of moderate protection applicable to all classes of the community, is the best policy that the Dominion of Canada can adopt, a policy that it will be most unsafe and most unwise to radically change. One feature, an especially important feature, of that policy, was the British preference. The British preference has been discussed a great deal. Some of our friends from the opposition side of the House have sought to minimize its effects because we were buying largely from the United States, but I do not think that that argument is a good or a sound argument. The imports from Great Britain under the British preference have grown from twenty-nine millions odd in 1897 to ninety-five millions in 1910 ; the increase has been 320 per cent, and it is no answer to the argument that that preference is an effective preference to say that for other and very special reasons we are importing large quantities of goods from the United States for the benefit largely of our own manufacturers. The British preference is a substantial preference. It is suggested that it is likely to be substantially increased, and on that point, while I am dealing with the general question of policy, I desire to express myself clearly and fully. Nobody was a more enthusiastic supporter of the British preference when it was adopted than I was, but I think that there are limits to the extent to which we can go even in cutting the tariff of Canada in favour of the manufacturers of Great Britain as against the manufacturers of Canada. And I am not disposed to say that I would support a substantial increase in the British preference, made, as I understand it. at the expense of deserving Canadian industries for the purpose of putting back into the hands of Great Britain trade which, by this reciprocity arrangement we are taking away and giving to the United States. I cannot see that there is any sound business wisdom in that operation. I cannot see that there is any possible ground for taking such steps as will result in the closing up of Canadian factories doing business at a small margin of profit, so long as they are furnishing their goods to the people of this country at reasonable rates.
What have been the results of the policy which we are following ? The figures Mr. SIFTON.
which indicate the great progress and prosperity of Canada have been quoted in this House ad nauseam. I should not repeat them here. We know how the population has grown; we know how our public revenue, our foreign trade and the deposits in our banks have grown; we know that in the last twelve or fifteen years the Dominion of Canada has prospered more abundantly than any other country on the face of the earth. We know this, further, that, man for man, the people of Canada are better off than any other population of similar numbers that we can point to. Our farmers are prosperous; our labourers are well paid; thefe is no unemployment in Canada-almost an unknown thing in any country of the extent and population of ours-there is practically no poverty, except what is due to drink, vice, sickness or other cause which does not depend at all upon the prosperity or want of prosperity of the country; we are receiving an enormous immigration; there is a demand for every man who comes in the shape of a labourer, and still an insistent demand for more labour; and there is a rapid development of our resources. And there is one other thing which is of the utmost importance in the condition of our business position, and that is the enormous growth of the home market, which has been built up in Canada during the last tern or twelve years, and which, in my judgment, accounts more than anything else for the steadiness of prices which our farmers are receiving for their products.
_ Now, is this prosperity that we are enjoying, a sound prosperity? Very often the charge is made, when a country is prosperous, that its prosperity is unsound, that it is a hothouse growth; and that charge is almost always made if the country is working under a protective system. And that charge is generally true if the protection is excessive or not properly adapted to the wants of the community. Now, it is possible-by reason of the fact that an exhaustive inquiry has been made of an economic character under the direction of one of the members of the government-to collate a few facts which show conclusively what our position in that respect is. A volume has been issued under the direction of my hon. friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. King), dealing with the subject of wholesale prices, which work I regard as perhaps the most valuable contribution to the economic literature of Canada that I know of. That volume, setting forth the statistics of wholesale prices, enables us to follow accurately the movement of prices which affect the well-being of the various classes of the community. In the consideration of this question, the Minister of Labour and his expert assistants, took as the

basis for comparison, the decade which runs from 1890 to 1899. I find by this report, that, in the year 1909, the prices of the commodities to which I shall refer, have risen by the amount which I shall give as compared with the average of the decade, from 1890-1899:
Grain and fodder, including thirteen selected standard commodities, have risen in value 49-9 per cent; cattle and cattle products, hogs and hog products, sheep and sheep products, fowl and turkeys, have risen 48-6 per cent; dairy products have risen 33 per cent. Now, foT the purposes of comparison, let us make a different division:	Crude farm products have risen
37-3 per cent; manufactured farm products have risen 34 1 per cent; average for crude and manufactured farm products, of 35 7 per cent.
This is what the farmer sells. Now, consider what he buys. He buys imported foods, woollen goods, cotton goods, boots and shoes, metals and implements. The average increases of these commodities are as follows: imported goods, decreased 4 per cent; woollen goods increased 23-3 per cent; cotton goods increased 25 per cent; boots and shoes increased 25 per cent; metals and implements increased 2-4 per cent; an average of all these of 14-3 per cent.
Thus, we see that the staple lines of goods which account for at least nineteen-twentieths of the average farmer's expenditure, have increased 14-3 per cent, while the goods which he sells, have increased 35 -7 per cent. There you have an absolutely conclusive demonstration of the position of the two classes of the community. There you have proof of the fact that the urban community is not living at the expense of the farmer, but the farmer himself is getting more than his share of the general prosperity of the community. So, then, we have prosperity, soundness, and- what else ? Independence; an independent market for everything we raise and everything we sell. The local market of Canada takes from 80 to 90 per cent of everything raised in Canada by our farming population. Where do we send the rest? VVe send it to the great, free, open market of Great Britain, from which market nothing but our own foolishness can possibly exclude us. So, we have prosperity, soundness and absolute independence in our markets.
Now, the proposition is made that we revolutionize the fiscal policy under which these results have been attained. And what will be the effect of this proposed revolution in our fiscal policy ? I do not intend to overstate it or to say anything which can possibly be regarded as overstating it. But I am surely within the mark, when I say that there will be a very great dislocation and disturbance of business, that there will
be individuals who will suffer very great loss, and that even if these individuals succeed in rectifying their position, still, the disturbance for considerable portions of the community will be of a very serious character. As to the general progress of Canada, the production of Canada is so enormous, the immigration is so great, the impetus we have received so strong, the development of our resources so rapid, that no'possible mistake of fiscal policy can prevent this country making enormous progress in the future. Nevertheless, the effects will t\e serious. Let me enumerate what I think will be a few of those effects.
Some industries will be destroyed,-there can be no doubt about that. What reason can be given for drawing your pen through an item of the tariff and thereby shutting up an industry which is not accused of combining as against consumers, of charging illicit prices, or of any other evils?- what reason there can be for selecting that industry and wiping it out of existence, I do not see. I am bound to say that; it does not appeal to my common sense. I think that the meat packing industry of this country will be destroyed. I have given that subject a good deal of consideration. I thought when I saw and read carefully the memorial of the packers, that the meat packing industry would be injured, and I am prepared to say now that if this treaty goes into effect, and continues in effect for any length of time, the big packing industry of the Dominion of Canada will be wiped out. There is no more chance of the meat packing industry standing against the beef trust of the United States than there would be of my standing up against this building if it fell upon me. That is precisely the position in which the meat packers will be put.
I	shall not say anything about the fruit and vegetable growers. They will be injured. Their case has been stated by men who know vastly more about it than I do. But I call the attention of my friends in the government to the fact that my hon. friend from Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell) made before this House a full and careful presentation of the case of the fruit growers and vegetable growers; no fairer, no better, no fuller case was ever presented to this House while I have been a member of it, and no answer of any kind has been attempted in connection with that subject. You ask me why I do not support this proposition. Surely, Mr. Chairman, if I had the intelligence to hear a case of that kind presented and no answer made, I must come to the conclusion that no answer can be made.
There will be other large industries affected. There is an enormous industry in existence in the town of Peterborough, the Quaker Oats establishment. The president.

of the company has given an interview, and I have taken the trouble to have the interview verified, because it is not always safe to proceed upon what we see in the newspapers, with all due regard to my journalistic friends. I have taken the trouble to verify that interview with the president, speaking on behalf of the Quaker Oats Company, which is one of the very largest factories in C_anada, and one of the largest consumers of farm produce in Canada, consuming, I believe-I speak subject to correction-40 carloads of farm produce per day. This institution manufactures in the town of Peterborough largely for export, the best possible kind of factory for us to have. It takes the farm produce, it grinds it up, ships it to foreign countries, collects the money, brings it back, and it goes into circulation. We can have no better industry for a farming community than the Quaker Oats industry of Peterborough. Now, eighty per cent of the business of this establishment is done for export. The president of the company says that in the conditions that will exist under the proposed changes in the tariff it will be more convenient and economical for them to manufacture in the United States for export. Their operations in Peterborough, therefore, will be curtailed sixty, seventy, or eighty per cent, with the result that the Dominion of Canada will lose accordingly. Now, I do not at all profess to be able to express an intelligent opinion respecting the business of the Quaker Oats Company, but I call attention to this fact, that these people are not Canadian manufacturers kicking about the duty being taken off when they are manufacturing for the home market. It is easy to understand why a manufacturer would object to a change in a case of that kind. But there is no reason for this company saying that this agreement is against them if it is not. They are not unfriendly to the United States, and they are not unfriendly to our negotiations, and there is no possible reason why we should not accept their statement as being given in good faith.
Will this proposition assist in transferring American capital to the construction of factories in Canada, which has been going on in Canada for several years past at a very rapid rate? Surely we cannot conclude that it will. These factories have been established because it was thought that the fiscal policy of Canada was settled, that we had settled down to a definite fiscal policy, and people came along and built factories here and built factories there, thinking they were perfectly safe. I have no doubt that those who are engaged in putting up factories will continue and complete their work; they cannot afford to do anything else. But is it reasonable to suppose that many business men with money to invest in factories will readily decide to Mr. SIFTON
do so unless they get some definite assurance that what has happened in this particular case is not going to happen again? 1 do not see how they can get the assurance; 1 do not see how it will be possible for parliament to prove that what has been done in this case will not be done in every case in which ministers, with the best motives, may see fit to do it.
Take the question of pulp and paper. The province of Ontario and the province of Quebec have decided, in their wisdom, that it is a good and patriotic policy for them to insist upon their pulpwood being manufactured at home. I am aware that some gentlemen who are of estimable character and good information have said that it is not a wise policy, but I do not believe there are many people in Canada who would agree with them. I believe that there is no policy, no item of policy which has been followed by any of the governments of Canada of late years which has mqt with more universal approval than the action of the government of Ontario, and later of the government of Quebec, in deciding upon the conservation of their resources by securing the largest. possible revenue and benefit from the various resources which they possess. Well, that was the position. It is known of all men that the United States people would like to get cheaper paper made from Canadian pulpwood. Now, if there was anything that was perfectly clear in connection with our tariff relations with the United States, _ and if there was anythifig perfectly clear in connection with the paper and pulp question, it was that all the Dominion of Canada had to do was to sit down and wait, and leave the subject severely alone. That obviously was all that ought to have been done. We have not done that. We find this clause introduced into the treaty. What does it say? If it means what our negotiators intended it to mean, it means this, that there is a bonus put upon the abrogation of the regulations which the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario have made. It does not mean that the regulations are abrogated, because this parliament has no power to abrogate them; but it means that we put a bonus upon their abrogation, and that is the worst possible thing that we could do.
Take this question of our perishable products that we send to Great Britain. My hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) dealt with that. He is familiar with the subject, and my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher), who, I understand is to follow me, is more familiar with it, perhaps, than any man m the House. But it is a fact that, for years there was difficulty in finding a market for our perishable products. The country went to work and educated the farmers to prepare their products for the British market, instituted cold storage, under the Depart-

ment of Agriculture, upon steamships, induced the steamship companies to put it in, provided for connections in Great Britain, and did everything possible at great labour, trouble and expense, extending over a period of nearly twenty years, for the purpose of opening up markets for these products' in Great Britain, The policy succeeded entirley. We are sanding those products to Great Britain now, to a great, stable, safe, free market, from which we have never been excluded, a market that is improving all the time, a market in which we are finding fresh extensions and fresh points of advantage every year. What do we propose to do? We propose to ship our stuff to the United States instead and to throw away all the advantage of all the work that we have done, the whole of the cold storage facilities upon the steamships crossing the Atlantic provided for in past years, to break down the business connections we have made, to allow our competitors to go in and take that market, buttress it around in such a way that we can never get into it again, and put ourselves in dependance upon the markets of the United States. How long will they remain open? Nobody knows. It may be one year or five years. Nobody knows. A year ago the United States were brandishing a club over our heads and threatening to impose the surtax upon our goods-only one short year ago. Now, they say that the United States is friendly. Well, perhaps it is. What will it be in a year from now? Does anybody know? Nobody knows. The United States is at the present time, I am told, abrogating the Blaine treaties of reciprocity which were made with the Latin republics a few years ago, without even the courtesy of negotiation or discussion as to the reasons for the abrogation of those treaties. How much better will our position be at any time when an occasion for irritation may arise? There are dozens of things which might happen to cause irritation between the United States, Canada and Great Britain. I could mention to my right hon. friend who leads the government, if I desired to do so, but I do not desire to dd so-it is a matter within everybody's knowledge-some things that might cause irritation between the United States, Great Britain or Canada, not serious enough to have important international consequences but serious enough to make it very desirable for a political party in the United States to court popularity by doing something which might be of an unfriendly character to Great Britain and Canada. Then, when our market is closed, when we have shut ourselves out from Great Britain, what is the position? Sir, we are putting our head into a noose.
What are the compensations? It is 139
said that the farmers will have better prices and better markets. It is very difficult for a private individual to make an exhaustive examination of prices. He can only be expected to go into a limited number of subjects, and his information must necessarily be limited. I have made as careful an examination as I could of the prices of the various staples which the farmers of Canada sell in the open markets, and I have before me the result of that examination. It is not necessary that I should enter into any considerable number of details, but will give you a few of the conclusions which appear to be absolutely established by the facts. First, I will take hogs, one of the most important products of the province of Ontario. The average price in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec is better than it is in the United States. As far as cattle are concerned the prices are variable, and as far as eggs are concerned the prices of the better grades are higher, and of the other grades, lower. It is said that the market for lambs will be good if we get reciprocity with the United States. From the 1st of December up to the present time lambs have been cheaper in Chicago than in Ontario. The best creamery butter sells at a higher price in the United States, but all the lower grades are cheaper, and it seems to be quite clear from an investigation of the market conditions by those who are familiar with the subject, that we shall lose our local market for butter and eggs-in the case of eggs to the United States and in the case of butter to countries like New Zealand, Denmark and possibly Australia. While we may get some advantage by selling a small portion of the higher grade of the product to the United States, we shall lose upon a great portion of the lower grade, which, as everybody knows, is the greater proportion of the product. In poultry the higher grades will be higher and the lower grades will be lower. Hay is one product that is substantially higher in the United States than in Canada. Barley is higher and oats lower. Looking over the whole case, it is not possible to figure out any general advantage to the farmer in getting these markets even if we take prices as they are without having any reference to the general effect upon the market which may take place in other -ways. As -to the quality, everybody knows that there is a perfectly good market for all that our farms produce. There is no glut in the market of Canada if the produce is reasonably prepared, and if it is not reasonably prepared for the market then the United States market will be of no assistance to the man who allows himself to be in that position.
Then, there are some general features of the case which require to be considered.



This, Mr. Chairman, is a conclusion which you cannot possibly escape:	Under this
arrangement, which means free trade in farm products, the markets for farm produce will be absolutely dominated by the United States and favoured nation countries. There can be no possible question about that. The meat packing industry will be destroyed. What is happening in some other places? I have taken a clipping from the Ottawa ' Citizen-' of February 25, which has since been confirmed by other information. It is not a political article, but a Canadian press cable, and it is as follows:
London, Feb. 25.-A despatch to the ' Chronicle ' from Melbourne says the federal Minister of Trade and Customs declares that the Australian commonwealth will spare no expense to ' oppose sinister operations of the American meat trust in seeking to control the Australian trade.'
The meat trust in Australia and New Zealand is so sinister in its operations that the government of the commonwealth has to take the field against it, and we are here taking down the barriers and inviting it to come in and dominate the market of Canada. That trust -will oppress pur farmers, it is not a beneficent institution, it is not a philanthropic institution, and when it dominates the market, we will say of Ontario, and any hon. gentleman on this side of the House or on the other side of the House finds that the farmers of his constituency are not getting fair play in the matter of prices, may I ask what that gentleman will do, may I ask what his remedy will be, may I ask how he is going to apply that remedy if he has any? I do not know what the remedy will be. The head office of your trust will be in Chicago or New York, it will be outside of our jurisdiction and there is only one thing we can do, just one thing-"we can put the duty back where it is now and start all over again to build up the local industries which we are threatening to destroy.
The whole tendency of this arrangement (is to induce the farmer to adapt his raw product to the United States market. The whole tendency is to do away with the byproducts which are so essential for intensive farming, the whole tendency is to break down the system of interrelated industries which makes the present prosperity of the province of Ontario and the other provinces. Under that system, Mr. Chairman, brought about by the policy which my hon. friends upon the Treasury Benches have pursued for the last 13 years, the great province of Ontario raised $250,000,000 worth of farm produce last year and nobody heard that there was no market for any of that produce.
Take the province of Quebec-my hon.


Clifford Sifton: friend the Minister of Agriculture is going to follow me, I believe, and he of course knows infinitely more about farming in the province of Quebec that I do-but I am going to ask him to address himself to one question in connection with this agreement, because I have not been able to get any light on it in favour of the treaty, and if there is any light to be thrown on it I would like to get it. The province of Quebec has bright prospects before it at the present time. Our transportation system is growing so enormously; the city of Montreal is growing so enormously; the prospects of the pulp and paper industry are so good that unquestionably in the province of Quebec in a few years there will be an enormous home market-perhaps the largest home market of any province, in the Dominion. The province of Quebec is not very well farmed at the present time-there is good farming in some parts of it, there is poor farming in a good portion of it, and moderate farming in other portions of it. The agricultural problem of the province of Quebec is to induce the farmer to keep his hay at home and to follow a system of intensive farming. That is the agricultural problem of the province of Quebec. Lately we had the Deputy Minister of the Department of Agriculture for Ontario at Quebec; he came there at my special request to deliver a carefully prepared address upon the subject of the improvement of agriculture in the province of Ontario, explaining at great length and with great care the magnificent system of agricultural education and improvement which has lately developed in the province of Ontario as the result of 20 or 25 years of laborious work, which is now approaching its period of fruition in that province and beginning to make its influence felt. We wanted it explained in the city of Quebec, and we had it explained and we are printing thousands of copies of Mr. James' address in the French language and circulating them in the province of Quebec for the purpose of getting the authorities of the province of Quebec to undertake an aggressive movement for the improvement of agriculture. What happens-comes along this treaty and puts a bonus on poor farming by inducing the farmers of the province of Quebec to ship their raw products to New England, and deplete the fertility of their soil.
Take the prairie provinces-I am perfectly aware of the fact that there are a great many people in the western provinces who think that this treaty will be a great thing for them. I have before seen premature conclusio'ns arrived at in the course of 23 years in public life during which I have had an experience that not many members of the House have had because I have had the honour of representing to-day in this House the same people who elected me

first as a young man to the legislature of Manitoba, and in the legislature or in this parliament I have been their representative ever since. During that time I have seen a good many questions of this kind come up as to what was going to benefit the farmer and as to what would be in his interests, and I am not so sure, when this question comes to be discussed, that the farmer of the Northwest will be impervious to reason and common sense and good judgment when he gets the case put before him. It was first said: Well, but the farmer of the Northwest is going to get more for his wheat; the price of wheat south of the line in Dakota is higher than it is in Manitoba. That is true. It is a little higher; it always or nearly always rules a little higher, and they said: If the farmer can get into that market he will get more for his wheat. Now comes along Mr. Hill, the president of the Great Northern railway who is a great advocate of reciprocity and a very fine man and in a way a friend of my own, and he says:	The
duty does not make any difference; it is true the Dakota farmer gets a little more for his wheat but it is not on account of the duty, it is on account of the local circumstances. Now, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hill is either right or he is wrong; there are just two ways to look at it. If he is right and the duty does not make any difference, then the Manitoba farmer will not get any more for his wheat when the duty is taken off. That's clear. If he is wrong and the duty does make a difference what is going to happen? Why, what is going to happen is this: That so soon as the immense exportable surplus of the Canadian Northwest is let into the Dakota market then the Dakota man's wheat goes down to the export level, and the Dakota man gets less, but the Manitoba man does not get any more. There is no doubt about that; it has happened already. Here is the New York ' Evening Post ' of February 16, and as everybody knows the New York ' Evening Post ' is a most reliable paper, and this is what it says, speaking of wheat:
As matters stand now values are off over 24 cents from tlie season's top. The range on May wheat tliis# season has been from $1.15 to 90| cents, the highest price having been made November 4. With the adoption of the treaty there would be about 13,000,000 bushels of Canadian wheat now in sight which would be available for moving into the United States provided it is needed. This, with the 43,000,000 bushels in the United States, visible supply would make 56,000,000 bushels available. Part of the Canadian wheat has already been hedged by sales of futures in the different markets and considering the drop of 12 cents in a month, it would seem as though any possible effect of the treaty on values had been largely discounted.
Of course nobody would suggest that it went down all of 12 cents by reason of the" 139}
difference between the markets on the two sides, or by reason of the difference between the Dakota price and the export price, but every one knows that when the price of wheat gets a shock in that way it keeps on going down on account of the panic on the market.
There is, however, another factor to be considered in the shape of a surplus of 133,000,000 bushels in the United States that must be taken care of. This means that values must go to an export level at which a liberal disposition of the wheat can be made. With the adoption of the Canadian treaty it is expected that the prices will be kept on an export level most of the time.
There is no doubt about the position so far as the price of wheat is concerned. I say here that I deliberately give it as my opinion, representing a constituency of Manitoba farmers and having represented them for 23 years, that the Manitoba farmer will get less for his wheat in the long run as the result of this agreement.
Now, what have we been trying to do for years past in regard to this question of wheat? We have been trying to keep the wheat of the Manitoba farmer pure. We had an Inspection Act-upstairs in the House of Commons here we laboured for weeks, yes for months to get that Inspection Act into good order so that the wheat might be properly inspected and properly graded with the object that it should be kept pure and placed upon the English market in a pure condition. And why? Because we know that if the Canadian wheat is put upon the English market in a pure condition it will bring on an average of from three to four cents per bushel on the higher grades, more than any other wheat in the world. A few years ago we revised the Inspection Act, and the result was that our wheat was put upon the market pure for a year or two, but somebody found out how to get around the Act. and the grades began to go off, and the grades have been off for several years past, and the farmers have been complaining and properly complaining in regard to the condition of things in the terminal elevators. These terminal elevators have been in the hands, to some extent, of men who-.are themselves buying and selling grain and handling millions of bushels of other people's grain, while they were buying and selling their own. What happened-grain mixed, grades have gone down, and the farmers have lost and lost very heavily, and they have a just and proper right to complain. Now, the government has introduced in the Senate a Bill to appoint a commission for the purpose of taking charge of that wheat, and I believe the government policy is good. And if the commission takes charge of this business as they ought to there is no reason why they should not keep control of that wheat. And, Sir, they

can only solve the trouble by taking control of the elevators first, not owning them, but controlling and inspecting them properly and keeping control of the wheat right through until it gets to Liverpool. There is no other way. It is not difficult; it is not half as difficult as it looks; it can be done by a competent commission of men .without any trouble at all. And in addition to that, if that is done the commission in the working out of the* system by which they can do that, can give a very substantial preference to the Canadian routes so that we will get advantages in that way as well, and they can give advantages to the Canadian routes without it costing any more to get the wheat to Liverpool. Here is the position in which we are. If we keep control of that wheat *md that market, we shall be able to get for the western farmer, by_ a proper system of handling, a better price than he will get in any other possible way. More than that, with the increase in the volume of business from the Canadian Northwest, our railroads will in a short time be in such a position that we can reasonably ask to have the rates substantially reduced on export grain; so that instead of the Canadian farmers getting a bonus of three cents a bushel for sending their wheat by the eastern Canadian channels, as was tentatively suggested by the hon. member for St. Anne if the inspection and transportation matters are properly handled by the commission which is to be appointed by the government, and the question of the freight rate is dealt with, we will secure for them within a reasonable time, not three cents a bushel, but six or seven cents a' bushel more than they can get in any other possible way. But if that is to be done, you -must keep the control of the trade in your own hands, otherwise you can do nothing.
Now, what is to happen ? I wonder if my hon. friends of the government have thought' of that, in connection with this treaty. The Grain Exchange has met in Winnipeg and has passed a resolution to the effect that the Inspection Act must be changed. What must be done under this treaty? We must change the Inspection Act, and we must make the grades the same as the American grades; that is, we must permit of mixing; and to all intents and purposes, we must hand the control of our grain market over to Minneapolis. That is the position. To get a better price ? No.
Then there is the question of cattle and that is one question in respect of which there is no doubt that the western farmer will get a benefit under this agreement, for the present at least. There is no doubt that the market for the second grade of cattle in the prairie provinces, is a poor market at the present time-why ? Because it is a new country. It is only a short time since Mr. SIFTON.
the country was sufficiently settled to have a sufficient production to organize this business. In fact, we have hairdly got to that point yet. The result is, that there is at the present time a very poor market for cattle in the western provinces. But that is no reason for throwing the country away, or for considering that we can never have a market. That is a Teason for taking up the subject and dealing with it in an intelligent way. The farmers' delegation, which came here recently, said to the government ;
We wish also to draw attention to the danger we are in while we leave the opportunity open for the United States meat interest to capture and control the export trade from our country.
What are they going to do now ? They will capture and control all the cattle of the Northwest-(the very last hoof will be controlled from Chicago. What I say is, that we should establish a chilled meat industry. It has been done in Australia and New Zealand. Dr. Rutherford has reported in favour of it. There would be [DOT] no great difficulty in the government doing this, and it would be worth while taking the trouble when you have a country like the Northwest of Canada. We could afford to hire ten mein at $10,000 a month rather than lose this business. The members of this House know that I am an enthusiastic friend of the Northwest. The best years of my life were given to the settlement of that country, and I cannot tell you how I feel about that great country being made a backyard to the city of Chicago. I have differed with my friends in my own constituency, and I do not know, but that there are many men who have supported me for years, who differ with me on this subject; but I take the liberty of thinking that I know as much or more about it than they. I have studied these questions all my life with the object of learning the way in which the affairs of that country should be organized so as to be of some benefit to themselves and the rest of the country, and I say that we should organize that country in a business way. If we do, we shall have duplicates of the stock yards of Kansas City, Omaha and Chicago in our own . Northwest.
What is the general effect of this treaty? The general effect .is, that we put the Dominion of Canada on an absolutely free trade basis, so far as farm products are concerned. The farmers of Canada are on a free trade basis for what they sell and on a protective basis for what they buy-protection for the purchaser, free trade for the seller. Do you think they are likely to stand that for any length of time? I do not. I tell you, that if you have had delegations from the Northwest, you will have them again if this

treaty goes through. After it has been in force for a few years, I venture to say that there will not be any question of the duty on agricultural implements or on any other manufactured goods, for we shall be compelled to take all those duties off, and have practically commercial union with the United States. As men of common sense, let us apply to this question Jhe same business rules that we apply to~any otheT business matter. We open our market to the world. Read the list of favoured nations along with the United States, and if there is in that list of countries of production anybody who can raise any one of the commodities in this list, cheaper than it is in the Canadian market, a commodity unsaleable and unmarketable, it can be shipped and dumped into the Dominion of Canada. I cannot conceive of what our friends in the government were thinking of. I leave this question of markets and prices, and record my conviction, that if ever a government made a monumental mistake, if ever a government got in wrong on a subject from first to last, my hon. friends have got in wrong on this subject. The House may think that I am very much in earnest about it. Sir. I would not break away from the political party with which I have acted for 23 years, practically all my life, if I were not in earnest about it.
What is the commonest phrase in the mouths of the people of Canada ? We hear it in the speeches of public men, we read it in the editorials of newspapers; we even see it in the compositions of our school boys-what is it ? Binding the scattered provinces of Canada together. I would like to know if this treaty is intended to bind the scattered provinces of Canada together. It binds, but it binds the other way; it binds British Columbia to Oregon and to Washington and to California; it hinds the provinces of the Northwest to the states immediately to the south of them; it binds Ontario and Quebec to the states south of us; and it binds the maritime provinces to the states of New England. And we are expected to believe that, a policy of that kind is a broad national policy, one to promote a broad and strong nationality. What have been the main features of our transportation policy ? We have spent scores of millions of dollars for what purpose ? What has been in our mouths at all times, Liberals and Conservatives alike, on every platform? Send our goods through Canadian channels, from one province to another, and from the eastern provinces across the sea. What did Sir John A. Macdonald mean when he nailed his colours to the mast and said that the Canadian Pacific railway must be built around the north shore of Lake Superior, and appealed to the people of Canada on that policy and got their support ? My right,
hon. friend the leader of the present government later came before this House and said: We shall build another line of railway from ocean to ocean, every foot of it on Canadian soil, and he appealed to the people of this country for their support, and they supported him in doing it. They, said: Yes, we believe in that policy. Why should we turn from that policy now?
If it does not make any difference which way the traffic goes, why spend $50,000 or $60,000, or $133,000 per mile to build a railway from Quebec through to Moncton and duplicate the Intercolonial, which we had before? Why do that, if it does*not make any difference whether or not the traffic goes over Canadian soil? For my part, I can see no reason. What is the reason for the right hon. gentleman's change of view? I could take the ' Hansard ' and read to you the strong words of the right hon. gentleman when he said, in this House, that of all things in connection with the policy of Canada as related to the United States, the one thing we must do is to be independent of the Americans. That is a policy, Sir, which I believe in. He never said a word in the whole course of my close association with him with which I agreed more fully than I did with that statement, but the difference is that I believed it then and I believe it now, and so long as I have the honour to have anything to say about the public affairs of Canada in the most humble capacity I shall continue to support what I believe to be the loyal policy that the people of Canada desire to have followed. We know why it is that the other policy is being supported. We know why the milling trust of St. Paul and Minneapolis ara in favour of this proposal; it is because they want to get the hard wheat of the Canadian northwest without paying duty and drive our millers out of the export market. That is just as easy as adding two and two together. The northwest miller of the United States gets $2 or $3 a ton more for his offal than the miller in Canada, and that makes the difference; the Canadian miller has no chance in the world in the competition which is brought about in this way. The northwest miller of the United States would get the wheat free now if he could. The meat trust would get meat free if they could. We have often been told that they might take the duty off if they wanted to, but they cannot take the duty off, because they have a population of farmers who do not propose to permit these gentlemen to manipulate the duties to suit themselves. But we understand why the milling people would want this arrangement in regard to transportation, why the meat trust would want it and why the United States Steel Corporation want to get into our markets. We can understand why the Chamber of Commerce in New York, always in favour of reciprocity, should


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: Mr. Chairman, I venture, before undertaking to present some facts and observations in regard to this reciprocity arrangement to say a few words of introduction in reply to my hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Sifton). Let me at once accord to him my meed of praise for the manner in which he has presented his views to the House. It is only what we might expect from his experience, his ability and his position. I value political allegiance and party feeling as much as he does. I appreciate the fact that party feeling must not be allowed to carry one down to the point where, on important questions, one differs with one's party ; and I say frankly to him that if he differs with the government on this question, it was not only his right but his duty to come before the House and the country and declare that difference. Sir, I am not myself in the same position, because I believe that, in this arrangement with the United States, the government of the day have continued and carried on that wise and careful administration of the tariff of Canada which has characterized their work since their first tariff legislation in 1897. But did I agree with my hon. friend from Brandon, I would leave the government of which I am a member-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Hon. gentlemen opposite may laugh. I suppose they cannot conceive that a man would do such a thing. They have just been cheering the hon. member from Brandon for having left his party and joined them. Because I do not choose to leave my party on this question and join them, they jeer at me. But I venture to say that if I had followed the hon. member for Brandon, they would cheer me as they have cheered him.


Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds).: You promised to, on the temperance question.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I never found anybody on the other side of the House to follow on the temperance question. Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt of the importance of this -question. There is no doubt that a change in the tariff, embracing a considerable number of items as this does, is a matter of importance, of sufficient importance for anybody to change his party allegiance upon it. But one or two things that my hon. friend said, I would like to refer to at once. Very early in his remarks, he said that there was no general demand in Canada for reciprocity in the last forty years. I venture to take direct issue with him on that point. He acknowledged that the Liberal party had been in favour of reciprocity for many of those years. But he implied, though he did not say it, that the Liberal party, in that respect was alone in the country. But I am within the judgment of the House and the country when I say-and before I sit down I propose to prove-that the Conservative party of Canada has always been in favour of reciprocity with the United States. Therefore, when my hon. friend from Brandon says the Liberal party have been in favour of reciprocity, and I can prove that the Conservative party have been in favour of it, it is idle for him to say that Canada has not been in favour of it.
My hon. friend speaks about comparative prices. I propose, in a' few minutes, to give comparative prices in Canada and in the United States of things which are affected by this arrangement. But I am going at once to express my difference with him in his statement that the government of the day were not informed upon this question, and had not taken the utmost pains to inform themselves in regard to every detail of this arrangement. In the first place, this arrangement was . in the hands of the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) and the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) of Canada. It is well known that on two occasions especially, the government of Canada, through a committee of its members, held an exhaustive and careful examination into the tariff affairs of the country. Before the tariff of 1897 was brought down to the House, the government adopted the policy, which had never been adopted by our opponents, of taking the people into counsel, of going through the length and breadth of the country and affording every class and every interest an opportunity to come before them and give their opinions upon the question at issue. In 1905, before the last revision of the tariff took place, the same thing was done. I venture to say that in no way could men obtain a more complete grasp of th'e tariff conditions and tariff interests of Canada than by such means. And the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Customs took a leading part in both those investi-

gations. In addition to that, year by year -I might say week by week-the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Customs receive representations, by delegation and otherwise, of industries which are interested in the tariff. That is a privilege which nobody else to the same extent can possibly enjoy, an advantage which they only possess; and it is infinitely superior to any information which can possibly be obtained by any other men in the Dominion, I care not wno they may be. It is true-my hon. friend (Mr. Sifton) has spoken of it-that certain manufacturing interests may know their own business and may come before the ministers and deal with those particular interests. It is true that the transportation companies know their own particular business as well as the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Customs. But not one of these people can know the whole interests of the country in anything like the degree that these are known bv the ministers who have charge of these interests on behalf of the government and the country. There is this difference between responsible ministers of the Crown and these people who come here and make representations to them ; the latter come, as is the fashion of business men, looking at the subject from their own particular standpoint ; whereas responsible ministers of the Crown have to look at these things from all sides, and make comparisons and institute investigations as to what may be the incidence of each change in the tariff, not only upon a particular item but upon all the items, and all the interests of the country. That is the position of the gentlemen who negotiated this arrangement at Washington, a position which is not only absolutely defensible, but which is altogether unassailable.
The hon. member spoke about a reciprocity policy as having been abandoned by the government for many years back. That is very easily explained. My right hon. friend the leader of the government, after negotiations in Washington in 1898-9, came back having failed to obtain that reciprocity from the American government and people which w'e had hoped for, and my right hon. friend said, wisely, I think, there will be no more pilgrimages to Washington. I think it may be said that the whole Canadian people were at his back in that stand. But that did not mean that the people of Canada would not be ready to accept overtures from Washington. My hon. friend from Brandon was a member of the government and one of the leaders of the Liberal party, when that government declared through its head that there would be no more pilgrimages to Washington, that Washington would have to come to Ottawa. It did not mean, if Washington came to Otta-wa in a reasonable and friendly spirit that Ottawa would Mr. FISHER.
reject the offered hand, that Ottawa would not be glad to enter into an arrangement that would promote friendly sentiments and greater commercial intercourse between us and our great neighbours to the south. Sir, what has led up to this? My hon. friend seemed to say that we were entirely to blame for the initiation of this question. Nothing is further from the case. What was the condition of affairs last session between Canada and the United States? There was no question then of reciprocity. But we had this condition of affairs, that the Payne-Aldrich tariff of the United States contained an article which empowered the president, nay, which commanded the president, in case other <so untries has legislation discriminating against the United States, to proclaim against those countries a maximum tariff, a tariff which meant absolute non-intercourse, in the case of Canada. Now I ' would like to ask my hon. friends opposite,
I would like to ask my hon. friend from Brandon, whether they think that this government, responsible to the people of Canada, would have been justified in allowing that non-intercourse to come into effect if it could be avoided, that they would have been justified in casting back into the teeth of the executive of the United States, the greatest commercial nation in the world, the invitation which was made to us to come to some arrangement which would avoid the necessity of proclaiming non-intercourse? Surely neither the leader of the opposition nor the member for Brandon would dare to take that position. I think they have not studied the effects that were sure to follow from such a course upon the prosperity and progress commercially of the people of Canada.
In this connection I may refer to another incident, in our history, an incident which occurred some years ago at a time when the Conservative party ruled this country, and when a threat of nonintercourse was held over our heads then as there was last year. What was the action of the Conservative government on that occasion? Did they lightly defy the threat of non-intercourse? Did they say to the people of the United States:	We
do not care what you do? I allude to the condition of affairs in 1888 when, by reason of the seizures of American fishing vessels on our Atlantic coast a non-intercourse Act having been passed by Congress, the government of Sir John A. Macdonald did not wait for overtures from the United States, but they appealed to the executive of that country to enter into negotiations which would obviate the imposition of a non-intercourse edict. What was that non-intercourse edict? I have it here. After covering a large number of

points in regard to the fisheries, the edict went on to this effect:
And also to deny the entry into any port or place of the United States of fresh fish or salt fish or any other product of the said Dominions or other countries coining from the said Dominions to the United States.
It was absolute prohibition. Now what was the conduct of the then Conservative government? I remember it well, I was in the House at that time, my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) was here also, the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) was sitting on the government side of the House, as were also the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart), and the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor). I remember well when Sir Charles Tupper, then Finance Minister, came back from Washington, and in his speech which I have under my hand, advised the House of Commons to accept what is known as the Chamberlain-Bayard Treaty in regard to the fisheries. They did not ignore the situation, they did not defy the Americans on the contrary they sought to reach a treaty between Canada and her great neighbour. Let me say a word or two about that. Sir Charles Tupper was joined in Washington by Mr. Chamberlain in the negotiation of the treaty. They had some difficulties, and as Sir Charles Tupper said, they had to make concessions, and they did *iake concessions. We have today in existence one of the concessions which they made, it is what is called the modus vivendi.
That was made not as a part of the treaty, but as an adjunct to it; so that, if by chance the treaty itself did not go into effect, the modus vivendi would continue for the purpose of removing friction between the two nations and of preventing a recurrence of the situation with regard to the fisheries. Sir Charles Tupper went to Washington and this is what he says about the condition of affairs:
After the statement of the President of the United States in his message of 1885, asking for a commission, after the letters which passed between Mr. Bayard and myself, you will readily understand that I went there expecting and looking forward to a settlement of this question on very much the same lines as those upon which it had been settled in 1854, and to some extent, in 1871.
You see that Sir Charles Tupper declares his intention of securing a fisheries and reciprocity treaty on the lines of the treaty of 1854.
I am right in saying that the instructions with which I was charged by this government were to obtain, if it was possible, as near an approach to the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854 as I could obtain, that is, the policy of carrying out free exchange in the natural products of the two countries.	1*1?)
And yet my hon. friend (Mr. Sifton), a few minutes ago, said that Canada was not in favour, and had not been in favour of reciprocity. Here .is the evidence of Sir Charles Tupper, that in 1888 he went to Washington for the purpose of getting reciprocity.
I was to urge that policy, and I think you will have no doubt as to the course pursued by me after reading the proposition that I made in the conference on the 3rd December, 1887:
Sir Charles Tupper begged leave to submit a note containing the following proposal from the British plenipotentiaries. That with a view of removing all causes of difference in connection with the fisheries, it is proposed by Her Majesty's plenipotentiaries that the fishermen of both countries shall have all the privileges enjoyed during the existence of the fishery articles of the Treaty of Washington, in consideration of mutual arrangement providing for greater freedom of commercial intercourse between the United States and Newfoundland.
I have proven up to the hilt that the condition of affairs in 1888 was just about what it was last winter, with the exception that in 1888 Canada went to Washington, whereas, last winter, Washington came to Canada. Sir Charles Tupper says again:
He turned our attention to the means by which it could he averted

That is non-interconrse.
-and those were the removal of the causes of irritation between the United States and Canada (for it was Canada rather than Great Britain that was referred to) and by removing those causes of irritation, and giving free scope to this policy to which they were committed, we believed that it would at a very early day give us everything that we could desire in the way of greater freedom of commercial intercourse.
Now, Sir, I said a few minutes ago that last winter we were face to face with a situation involving the possibility, in fact, almost the certainty of non-intercourse by reason of the maximum tariff of the Payne-Aldrich Bill being imposed upon Canada, if we did not give some excuse to the President for not proclaiming Canada as a country liable to have that part of the Bill applied to it. What was the condition in 1888 ? I have described it to you; it was practically the same. What did Sir Charles Tupper .say when he came back and recommended the adoption of his treaty to this parliament of Canada ? I do not think that I could as eloquently myself, describe what the results were


Mr. HUGHES.: Hear, hear.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton says ' hear, hear.' I am glad to agree with him, I sat for many years in this House with Sir Charles Tupper, and I recognized him as one of the

greatest statesmen of Canada at that time, a man who took a statesmanlike view of public affairs, a man with' a great gift of expression, a man who could express himself clearly, and I take no shame to myself in acknowledging that 1 cannot express what I desire to place before the House, as well as Sir Charles Tupper has expressed it in the words which I am about to read. These words, I hope, will carry conviction to my hon. friend from Halibur-ton (Mr. Hughes), and other hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, who, perhaps would not be convinced by any words whicli I might utter:
I have told you what position Canada stood in with regard to the United States of America before the initiation of these proceedings. I have told you that we stood face to face with an enactment which had been put on the statute-book by a unanimous vote of Congress, ratified by the President, providing for non-intercourse between the United States and Canada. I need not tell you that that Kill meant commercial war, that it meant not only the ordinary suspension of friendly feeling and intercourse between two countries, but that it involved much more than that. If that Bill had been brought into operation by the proclamation of the President of the United States, I have no hesitation in saying that we stood in the relation to tbat great country of commercial war, and the line is very narrow which separates a commercial war between two countries from an actual war. Speaking a year ago, I pointed out in my remarks, with a view to prevent the possibility of such an Act going into force, all the advantages that in our present position we could avail ourselves of to protect ourselves against such an unfriendly act on the part of the United States. I said then that it would be a mad Act. I say so now. No man who knows anything of the intimate commercial relations which exist between Canada and the United States could contemplate such an Act going into operation without feeling that it would tear up from the foundation those intimate social and commercial relations which exist between these two countries, which, in friendly commercial rivalry, are making rapid progress which has attracted the attention of the civilized world. It would produce a condition of things the end of which no man could foresee. If that Act had been adopted, we had no means of looking to any increased commercial intercourse between that great country and the Dominion of Canada. Under those circumstances, it behooved the government of Canada to adopt any means in its power to avert such a disaster, which, great as it would have been to Canada, would have been still greater to the United States. But it would be a very poor compensation for the injury which we would sustain, to know that we had a companion in misfortune suffering more than we suffered ourselves.
Those words, with some slight change, according to the circumstances and conditions, might be applied absolutely to the Mr. FISHER.
state of affairs last winter as between the United States and Canada. I venture to think that if the Liberal-Conservative party to-day do not appreciate and understand those words and are not imbued and impressed by them, they have fallen far below the statesmen of the older generation, who led the great Conservative party of that time, and who, I grant fully and freely to-day, did good things and did great things for Canada, according to their lights and 'according to their policy. At the time that Sir Charles Tupper used those words, he was standing at the right hand of Sir [DOT]John Macdonald-Sir John Macdonald, the great flag-waving First Minister of Canada, the man who, all through his career, said that he was a British subject born and that he would die a British subject.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, hon. gentlemen say ' Hear, hear.'


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yet, at the time when Sir Charles Tupper said that and when Sir John Macdonald himself, was waving that flag, both of them were trying to get from the United States just exactly the arrangement that we have got to-day. They were trying to get it by going on their knees to Washington, while we have Washington coming to us. They failed and we have succeeded. Probably that is one of the great causes of complaint. These hon. gentlemen opposite, are envious of our success and of the prosperity which it will bring to the country.
I have not finished yet with some words from Sir Charles Tupper. He didn't get his treaty but he did accomplish a friendly act with the administration at Washington, and this is what he said:
That -was the condition of things when I went down last Easter to see Mr. Bayard at Washington. If you compare the condition of things to-day with the condition of things that existed then, there is no man, I care not how partisan he may be, how unfriendly to this government he may be, who can judicially look at the position of this question then and now, without coming to the conclusion that we have emerged from midnight darkness into the light of day under the auspices of this treaty.
And that though they did not get a treaty. In regard to what was meant by that treaty, he says:
We have made concessions, as I have said, but we have made them with the avowed object of placing all our people, not only the fishermen, but the agriculturist, the lumberman, every man in this country in a better relation with the United States than he was before.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fisher) referred to me as having

been present in the House when Sir Charles Tupper made these remarks. I would like to ask him if he did not oppose Sir Charles Tupper at that time?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not upon that point. On that point the Liberal party in this House supported the then government. There were details of the treaty that we did criticise.


George Taylor: My hon. friend (Mr. Fisher) was here then?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


George Taylor: I certainly understood that you opposed (Sir Charles Tupper then.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 
Mr. GOODEVE.: That was thirty years
ago.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: What I am speaking about is as to the consistent policy of Canada in this respect. My hon. friend from Brandon said it was not reciprocity, and my hon. friend opposite said it was not reciprocity, b.ut I will come in a few minutes to another proof that if in 1888 this was their policy, later on they still had the same policy and kept it up.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: No.	[DOT]


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Does my hon. friend say no?


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: Give us any proof after 1891.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will give some proof in 1891.	,


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: I said after 1891.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am glad my hon. friend has asked that because it gives me an opportunity of telling him a little something about 1891 that perhaps he does'nt know. I am afraid there are many young Conservative members a little fresh in this House, who to-day forget the traditions and the policy of their own party. They have come upon evil times in the last ten years for the Conservative party.


Mr. LENNOX.: Evil government.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I said evil times for their party; but not evil times for the country.


Haughton Lennox: Will the minister allow
me?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Let me finish-hon. gentlemen opposite all through this debate have been saying that the country is very prosperous, and that we don't want reciprocity, and that there is no need of it, and that being so it must be a good time for the country but it obviously is an evil time for the Conservative party.


Haughton Lennox: I did not say there were evil times for the country; I said there was an evil government for the country.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Well, we will see about that in a moment or two. I have been invited to give a little later history of the Conservative party and I shall do so now. During this debate my hon. friends opposite have frequently said: Let well enough alone.


An hon. MEMBER.: Hear, hear.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: ' Hear, hear,' says the hon. gentleman opposite, but I have a word to say in regard to that. Was it well enough to have an edict of non-intercourse with the great nation to the south hanging over our heads? Was it well enough to possibly have a maximum tariff face us which would have shut out all the products of Canada from the markets of the United States? I say again, Sir, we were in a situation identical with that which Sir Charles Tupper described, and we took the same course as he did, with the one difference that he went to Washington, whereas Washington came to us. Sir, it is easy enough for people who are not responsible for the affairs of the country to say that they would lightly and recklessly reject the hand of fellowship and friendship from a great nation of nearly a hundred millions of people whose lands border ours for 4,000 miles and who, notwithstanding high tariffs on both sides of the line, constitute with us the greatest intertrading people on the whole earth. It is all very well for those not responsible for the government of the country to declare that the Canadian government should have said to the representatives of this great nation: We will have none of you; go back to Washington; we refuse your overtures; we reject you lock, stock, and barrel. It- is easy enough for irresponsible men who have not the destinies of the country on their shoulders to advise in that way, but I venture to say that had the Conservatives been in power to-day they would have tried to follow in the footsteps of their great former leaders, Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Charles (Tupper. It was said by somebody in the course of debate the other day: we cannot stand still, we have either to go forward or backward. And, Sir, when we had the offer, was it not infinitely the better and more sensible and more reasonable course to grasp the hand of fellowship than to reject it. Now, an hon. gentleman opposite asked me what was the condition of affairs in 1891, with respect to the policy of reciprocity. When the Postmaster General was speaking the other day he said that in 1891 the government of Sir John Macdonald went to the country to get a mandate from the people on the question of reciprocity, and my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) interrupted: We needed it then; we don't need it now.


An hon. MEMBER.: Hear, hear.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: ' Hear, hear,' says my hon. friend, and he endorses the sentiment that we needed it then and do not need it now. What is the meaning of that? It means that at that time, when Canada was in a depression and comparatively weak and struggling, and when the bonds of em-iMr. FISHER.
pire, which hon. gentlemen opposite are so fond of talking about, were not so strong as they are to-day


George Taylor: Much stronger.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 
Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Hon. gentlemen say no I know that they are appealing to that 'bogey, to that prejudice, but there is absolutely no foundation in fact for their appeals on that point as there is no foundation for most of their appeals ,on this question.
. -Sir, what is the third?	,
Not to discriminate against Great Britain -our mother land and the great market for our products.
' Sir, I read that with a great deal of *gusto. I am very muc'h pleased, indeed, to -find that at that time that was the policy *of that party, but I cannot help remembering that in 1897 when we brought down *our tariff of preference the gentlemen on the other side of the House, headed by Sir *Charles Tupper, then their leader, followed by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) then and for a while afterwards, until that county and that province rejected him, member for Kings, N.B., *threw the burden of reproach on us, saying that we had given a preference to the *mother land .without demanding a quid pro quo, without bargaining, without forcing our mother land to do something which *she did not want to do as the price of getting our preference in our market. Sir, we *gave the preference without price, we gave *the preference without bargaining.


George Taylor: To every country in the world as well as to (Great Britain.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: To Great Britain and other countries as we chose.


George Taylor: You could not [DOT]help it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend talks about the German and Belgian treaties, He has forgotten that although for a moment the arrangement gave the benefits of the prefer-

ence to Germany and Belgium we were influential enough in the councils .of the empire to denounce the German and Belgian treaties, and we gave the preference to Great Britain alone or to such other countries as we chose to give it. We have chosen to give it to British countries.


George Taylor: The Argentine Republic.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend does not know what he is talking about, the British preference does not go to the Argentine Republic.	i


George Taylor: It goes to some twelve countries.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, it does not.


George Taylor: Yes, it does.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The British preference goes nowhere except where we tell it to go, in British countries.
I	go on to the next item in Mr. Foster's appeal:
To raise our revenue by indirect taxation, on customs and excise and not by direct taxation.
That was brought in because they thought that with unrestricted reciprocity they would be obliged to have direct taxation. We have never proposed to have direct taxation and do not propose to do so to-day. The fifth item is the gist of it:
To meet the United States in a friendly way, and negotiate with them for a reciprocity arrangement on lines that shall be just and equitable, and in accord with the honour and best interests of Canada, so far as it can be done without infringing upon the lines above laid down.
Again, I must plead guilty to my hon. friend, that I am not able myself to put the description of our reciprocity arrangement into as concise and complete a definition as was done at that time by the present member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). That is an absolutely true description. We have made an arrangement which will

Be just and equitable, and in accord with the honour and best interests of Canada, so far as it can be done without infringing upon the lines above laid down.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) when he brought down the arrangement declared distinctly that if in any way it interfered with the preference to Great Britain, we not only would not discriminate against Great Britain, but would see to it that there was still a substantial preference for Great Britain on every item where there was a customs duty.
To keep in our own hands the power of framing our own tariff.
That is done by this arrangement absolutely, and if hon. gentlemen opposite un-Mr. FISHBR.
dertake to maintain that it does not, they are simply undertaking to say that the people of Canada do not know how to manage their own affairs, at a time when Canada is prosperous, rich, progressive, at a time when Canada is receiving an influx of people from all over the world who think so much of Canada that they are eagerly rushing to her shores and are bound to become citizens of this country. It is true that Canada with 8,000,000 of a population is face to face with a population of 90,000,000 or 100,000,000 south of the boundary, but that population of 90,000,000 or 100,000,000 to-day recognize and acknowledge the power, the strength, and the influence of Canada on this North American continent. Their views are voiced in the words of Mr. ,Taft in explaining the reason for this arrangement in Washington; he pointed out the advantages of friendship, amity and trade arrangements with Canada and gave us the best compliment our rising young nation has ever received in its history. My hon. friends opposite would not like to be asked what was their policy in 1891. What was their policy in 1891? It is well known that they went to the electors in 1891 and won, and parenthetically, I am very glad they did. But they went down to Washington, they opened negotiations with Washington in 1891 and tried to negotiate a treaty on the lines laid down by Mr. Foster. They failed again, they are envious because where they failed we have succeeded; that is the only difference.
I shall only add that the other day I was talking to a gentleman who was a friend of Sir John Macdonald in his lifetime. He made this remark to me: You have made the best trade arrangement that could possibly be conceived in the interests of Canada; I would like to see my old friend, Sir John Macdonald jump with both hands outspread at such an arrangement if he had ever got the chance. I believe that that gentleman, who was an intimate friend of Sir John in his lifetime, gauged him pretty correctly. To-day if Germany or France could make an arrangement of this kind with the United States, either of these great commercial nations would jump at it.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Hear, hear.
, Mr. FISHER. We know that Germany was trying to secure better commercial relations with the United States. She has, ,to a certain limited extent, succeeded, but ,she has not succeeded half so well as we have, and we know that the disappointment at not having been able to go further in improving her trade relations with the United States is very acutely and keenly felt.
One word with regard to a matter brought up by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton). It may be a taking argument, and I dare say some people in the country have

been captivated by it. It is that we have no mandate to do this.
My hon. friend described the general mandate of the party and government in power. My hon. friend was a party to and endorsed the British preference of 1897. That legislation followed the election of 1897. I fail to remember a single statement on the part of the present leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), or any member of the party placing before the people of Canada the principle and details of the British preference brought down to this House in 1897. Did anybody at that time say that we had no mandate for that policy? I can remember well that when my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) announced his British preference in this House, it was like a thunderclap to the House and to the people; nobody expected it; nobody dreamed of it. The secret was well kept, so that, with the exception of the men who sat at the council board of that day there was not a single individual in Canada who knew that we were going to bring down a proposal for a British preference on the lines that were announced. My hon. friend from Brandon was one who knew it, and he accepted the responsibility of that step without a mandate from the people, just as we to-day have brought down this arrangement, which he criticises on the ground that we have not the mandate from the people for it. I think we may fairly say that we have some mandate from the people for this arrangement. Reciprocity with the United States has been a demand of the people of Canada for years. Everybody in Canada has said: Give us reciprocity in natural products if you can get it. But people thought we could not get reciprocity in natural products without sacrificing our industry, because the United States would not give us reciprocity in natural products unless we included also a large list of manufactured articles. But in this arrangement we have secured reciprocity in natural products without sacrificing a single interest of our manufacturing industry. (I will speak, a little later, of the packing houses and some other matters to which my hon. friend (Mr. Sifton) refers. I say again, we have accomplished what the people of Canada have been asking for, but had almost given up hopes of. The propitious time arose in the conditions of the United States, and we should have been derelict in out duty if we had lost the opportunity to gain that for which the people of Canada have been seeking and hoping for for years. Again, we have a mandate in this: reciprocity has seemed to many people difficult, or impossible because it was said the Americans must come down to our range of duties before we can discuss things with them. The American tariff
has been high; our tariff has been lower but everybody in Canada was ready to trade with the Americans if they would come down to our range of duties. Under the present arrangement there is not an item in which the duties on the American side of the line are not made the same, or lower, than on the Canadian side. The Americans have come down to the Canadian range of duties, and we have taken the opportunity to fix them there and make an arrangement which is so favourable to us. There are two items in which we have not even come down to their duties. The first is the item of cement. The duty on the American side is 8 cents and on the Canadian side 12i cents. We reduced to 11 cents, but the American duty is still three cents lower than ours. In regard to coal, there is a slight discrimination-so slight that it is hardly worth going into. But the Americans have come down to our scale of duties, and we have clinched the bargain.
The hon. member for Brandon said we had no mandate, and that we had committed the country. Why, Mr. Chairman, the present debate, the hon. gentleman's own stand on the question-everything goes to prove that we have not committed the country. We have committed the country if the representatives of the people ratify our bargain, and only in that case.


An hon. MEMBER.: They won't do it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not intend to prophesy. My hon. friend from Brandon says he is obliged to leave his party on this question. We have a majority on this side of the House of about fifty, and even if the hon. member for Brandon votes against us we shall still have a majority of 48. I venture to say that the members on this side of the House are just as well able to gauge public opinion in this country as anybody on the other side of the House-


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: Am I to understand by the remark the hon. minister has made that it is not the intention of the government to put this arrangement into force until after they have appealed to the people? Did he say it was to be ratified by the people before it should go into fcrce?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I said ratified by the representatives of the people.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Is the hon. gentleman (Mr. Goodeve) a representative of the people?


An hon. MEMBER.: He sure is.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: On what ground does he say so? I suppose, because he was elected to this House. Hon. members on this side were elected also and in larger numbers

than hon. gentlemen opposite. If these hon. gentlemen opposite arrogate to themselves the honour of representing the people, then the majority in this House may fairly claim to represent the people.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: The hon. member for Brandon explained clearly that this question was not an issue in any previous election.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: And I have just pointed out to the committee that my hon. friend from Brandon himself was a party to putting through the British preference without any better mandate. It is true that, throughout this country, there is being worked up an agitation against this arrangement. It is true that there is very considerable talk of it in the press. I have even seen the names of gentlemen connected with this agitation, who, when that fact came to be known, repudiated what had been attributed to them. I had a rather remarkable instance in Hamilton the other day, when at a meeting, the names of two gentlemen were used as moving and seconding a resolution against this reciprocity arrangement, and the next day both these gentlemen came out and stated over their own signatures that they were not present at the meeting, had not authorized the use of their names, and had not drawn up the resolution. Hamilton is rather favoured in that respect. We have been told that the industries which came over to Canada from the United States and established themselves here to supply the Canadian market would all disappear, and that their big buildings would be emptied and their workpeople left out of employment.
But we had a day or two afterwards a statement that the Oliver Plough Company, which was one of those industries in Hamilton, was not only not going back, but was going to add a plant of $600,000 to serve the increased demand by the Canadian market under the tariff which has just been arranged in regard to agricultural implements. I might mention many other instances, but I will not go into details. Hon. gentlemen opposite may quote newspaper paragraphs and statements of individuals, but I am content to rest on the common sense and the intelligence of the electorate of Canada, and we know on this side of the House that we represent on this question the men of Canada to-day who sent us here two years ago. Hon. gentlemen opposite say:	Co to the country.
We have heard that cry over and over again. There has not been a parliament since this government came into power when hon. gentlemen opposite have not called upon us to go to the country on the most trivial occasions. But, Sir, we have
some responsibility, to the country, we Mr. FISHER.
have some responsibility to the electorate, and we do not propose to go to the country until we feel the need of a fresh appeal, or until this parliament ends. When we have gone to the country in the past, in election after election, this government has been endorsed by the people, and on the ground of its tariff policy perhaps more than on any other ground.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 105) to incorporate the Imperial Steamship Company.-Mr. McKenzie.
Mr. MACLEAN (York).: I would like to ask the government whether any arrangement has been recently closed with any of the steamship companies in connection with carrying the mails from Canada to Great Britain?


Wilfrid Laurier: None.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


SECOND READING.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 130) for the relief of Matilda Emo.-Mr. Hodgins.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Ways and Means.
Sydney Arthur Fisher: Mr. Chairman, before dinner I dealt with some aspects of this question, and with some of the remarks of my hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Sifton). Amongst other things he took exception to the manner in which this arrangement has been made, and gave it to be understood that the representatives of the government of Canada had taken no care or pains to inform themselves as to the point at issue, and as to the details of the trade of the country which would be affected by this arrangement. I take direct issue with the hon. gentleman and I tell him, and I tell the country, that the government . did consider these things, went into them carefully, that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and my hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) employed those advantages which, as ministers of their departments, they had to obtain information, that when they went to Washington and met the representatives of the United States, who were assisted by their tariff experts, they too had tariff experts

from Canada in the person of Mr. Mc-Dougald who has now been for about twenty years, I think, Deputy Minister of Customs, and therefore, has at his fingers ends every detail of the customs administration and all the incidents of the customs tariff, and in the person of Mr. Russell who is an expert in these matters, he having been also for many years in the Customs Department, and having been transferred, some years ago, to the Finance Department as a special expert and adviser of the department on the details connected with the tariff administration. Therefore, I say that the hon. member, in making this accusation against the government, did so without full knowledge or without thought and absolutely without foundation in fact.
The hon. member referred to my following him to-day, and said that no doubt as a farmer the Minister of Agriculture knew something about these things. I do not presume to say that I do ; I prefer to leave it to the farmers of the country themselves to put their side of this question to the public at large. Hon. gentlemen who have approached this question on the floor of this House and elsewhere have been very willing and glad to accept the statements of various interests in the country as being the obiter dicta with regard to their particular interests, but they assume to themselves and to everybody except the farmers to give information with respect . to the interests of the farmers. Personally ' I prefer to let the farmers do that for therp-selves. We had here a little while ago a iarge demonstration of farmers.
It is the custom to say that they were solely representatives of the Northwest, but as a matter of fact of the 800 delegates, probably 200 were from Ontario, 100 from the Quebec and the eastern provinces, and 500 from the Northwest, and they were not merely individuals expressing their views but most of them represented organizations of farmers throughout the country anil came to place before the government the resolutions of representative agricultural bodies. I believe that this great delegation truly represented the farmers of the country. I do not pretend to say it represented the manufacturers, I do not pretend to say it represented the transportation interests, but I can safely say that it represented the agricultural industry of this country, and its views and aspirations, far better than any man not engaged in agriculture himself, possibly could. The farmers of Canada have ever had the advantage of free entry for their goods- into the British market, it is the glory of the mother and that she allows food products to enter her market without discrimination or customs duty. There is no good reason to believe that our farmers will in future lose that advantage in the British market be-140
cause Britain has decided to keep to free trade, and even though she did resort to certain customs duties, those who advocate such -a policy, at all events pretend that the products of the dominions beyond the seas would still have free entry. Well, Sir, there is not in this arrangement -a word or a line, and there is nothing in the spirit of it, that would tend in any way to cut us off from entering the British market under the same conditions as in the past. The hon. member from Brandon (Mr. Sifton), said in effect that we were throwing -away the British market for the purpose of getting the American market, but that is an absolute misrepresentation of the fact-. We are not throwing away the British market; we -are simply adding to it the American market for the products of our farms, and, we have -still the home Canadian market which nothing can take away from us. Again, there is strong evidence that in the near future, if not actually to-day, the American market will be, or is, the best market in the world for agricultural products. My .view in this respect may be disputed, but having for some years investigated agricultural problems and the markets of the world, in respect thereto, I believe it is coming about slowly, but surely, that the market of the North American continent is the best market of all markets. The prices on the British market -are not -so superior as they used to be -over the prices in our own market, and they are not in most instances as good -as the prices obtained in the United S-tates,


Mr. SEXSMITH.: Is it not -a fact that you are practically -throwing open to the whole world, the home market which the farmer of Canada formerly possessed?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will deal with that in a moment. My h-on. friend from Brandon, speaking of the province of Quebec, did me the honour of saying that I knew as much of the agriculture of that province as anybody else, but I may tell the hon. gentleman that the farmers of Quebec are quite well able to speak for themselves, and the farmers of Quebec are not objecting to the free entry of their hay and dairy and other products into the New England market; on the contrary, they are delighted with the opportunity which this agreement gives them. My hon. friem-d from Brandon stated, as is quite true, that he has lived in the Northwest during a large portion of his life, that he knows the Northwest, and that he has been enthusiastic for its welfare. That may be, but I venture tb sav. that he does not to-day so truly represent the feelings and opinions of the Northwest as he did, before he left there. For many years he lived in Ottawa, as a minister of the Crown, and since he left the government



he has continued to live here, and I am inclined to think from the information I have received from the Northwest, and from the public expressions of opinion by western farmers, that the hon. gentleman has got out of touch with his people and that the views he expressed in his speech to-day, did not represent them as well as do the views of others whom I could name. I have in my hand an interview with Mr. James Bower, the first president of the Canadian National Council of Agriculture and of the United Farmers of Alberta. Mr. Bower was. a member of the great delegation that came here some time ago, and he has come again to Ottawa to specially represent the farmers and to deal further with the government and parliament in regard to their interests. Mr. Bower said, among other things:
The agreement is a good one and a wise one. By opening up new markets it will without question give a great impetus to the agricultural industry, particularly in western Canada, and will prove equally advantageous to the farmers of eastern Canada, especially in dairy products and hay.
The speeches I have heard in the House of Commons during the past week by those who are opposed to reciprocity indicate to me that the speakers are either entirely ignorant of how the agreement will affect farmers or they are trying to mislead the public. They appear to be very solicitous as to bow it will affect the welfare of the farmers, but the farmers have a few ideas of their own about tliis matter. At any rate, the anti-reciprocity speakers are absolutely wrong as to how it will affect western farming conditions.
But perhaps the greatest boon reciprocity will confer upon the farmer of the west will he its indirect results in reducing freight rates, which will mean increased production all along the line. This will, of course, mean a greater demand for manufactured articles in the west, and a greater ability to pay for them.
As far as the agreement goes, it meets with the unqualified approval of the western farmers, but much dissatisfaction is expressed at the smallness of the reduction in the duty on agricultural implements.
' What do the western farmers think of the annexation talk?' Mr. Bower was asked.
' They think it is all nonsense. If there was any danger of any of the western farmers wanting to be annexed by the United States, it would be because they did not get what they wanted. We want reciprocity, and we shall not be any less loyal if we get it.'


Mr. BRODER.: Bid the members of that deputation ask for reciprocity when they were here?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes,


Andrew Broder: I do not think they did.


Wilfrid Laurier: Certainly they did; the largest measure of reciprocity.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Now, with regard to the general situation of our agricultural pro-Mr. FISHER.
ducts, my hon. friend from Brandon said to-day that we had not investigated these matters, and had given no facts to the House and the country. I will, if the House will be patient for a few moments, give some facts, and I think I shall be able to show that hon. gentleman, and the rest^ of the country that we have done this with our eyes open and for good and sound reasons. There is an effort being made at the present time by certain interests in Canada to influence the farmers against this arrangement. I do not wondeT at it- why? Because this arrangement interferes with the control and monopoly which these people have over the purchasing of our agricultural products in Canada. By this arrangement there will be competition with them in their present preserve. They will have in future the competition of the American buyer, who'will come in here and buy from the farmer what he has to sell if he can give a higher price for it, and these gentlemen will have to meet that higher price or go out of their business. I do not think, Sir, that the farmers of Canada will object to having two men coming to buy his products instead of one. My hon. friend from Brandon spoke particularly about wheat; he also spoke about the packers; he did not speak, but I will, about the dairymen and those who have to buy the dairy products of this country. With regard to wheat, I do not profess to be an expert; but I am going simply to meet what the people who oppose this arrangement say with regard to wheat, and am going to point out what I think to be the fallacy in their argument. I do not intend to dispute the facts which they put forward. My hon. friend from Brandon spoke about our wheat being in future taken across the line, and he quoted Mr. James Hill as saying that the duty has nothing to do with the higher price of wheat in the American market, Now, I would just like to ask that gentleman and those who think with him, why is it that the American Congress made arrangements for the Minneapolis millers to grind Canadian wheat in bond for export instead of bringing in the wheat, paying the duty on it, and grinding it in the ordinary way? Because the duty is not only a deterrent and impediment, but an absolute prohibition of their getting the Canadian wheat and grinding it at Minneapolis, and mixing it with their own flour. If, as my hon. friend from Brandon and other opponents of this arrangement say, this is going to result in our northwestern farmers selling their wheat to the United States market, why will they do it? Simply because the price which the American milleT will pay for it will be higher than the price which the Canadian miller has been willing to pay for it-I do not say able to pay for it,

but willing to pay, in the present restricted market, in which the miller and his representatives in the grain exchange of Winnipeg have controlled the purchase of all (the wheat in the northwest. What is the reason that the American millers will want our wheat and be willing to pay for it? The reason is, first, that it is a stronger wheat which they need to mix with their own weaker wheat. It is stronger in the protein qualities, and makes a better baker's flour. They have been buying it and grinding it in bond, at the Canadian price; but when the duty is removed, they will buy it at the American price; and if they do not, others will come in and buy it from the Canadian farmer at the American price. The price will become equalized in the northwestern states and in Canada. It is a fact that the price is higher in the United States than in Canada. If the duty has nothing to do with it the hon. member for Brandon gave no explanation of it. I have no doubt that the two-fold result will take place, that the price will go down a little in the northwestern states and come up a little to the Canadian producer, so that the prices on both sides of the line will be practically the same. If that is the case, I can quite understand that the millers of Canada object to have the competition of American buyers in their preserve, which, with all due deference to them, they have worked to their utmost capacity. A well known miller in Montreal, Mr. Meighen, has written to the press about this matter. Mr. Meighen heads his communication:	* Preserve the Integrity
of the Empire.' That is a very common prelude to a very poor argument. I would rather head it on the part of Mr. Meighen:
' Preserve my market for the benefit of Mr. Meighen.' Mr. Meighen destroys his own argument, like some others. He says that the milling plants in Canada can mill for thirty million people. We are giving it an opportunity to mill for ninety million people. If the millers of Canada, who are well established in their business, who have modern up to date plants, as the Ogilvies and the Lake of the Woods and other milling companies have, they ought to be glad to get that market. They ought to be willing to compete, and they are, I believe, quite capable of holding their own in that market. But, like many others, they are timid and do not desire to change. The change could come about in a moment without our intervention, because the United States Congress have the power and the right to take off the duty on wheat at any moment they choose. We are only getting something sure in return for a thing we might have had to face within a month or two-it looked much as if we should have it without compensation. Mr. Meighen says:
140i
This preaching of the doctrine that by taking down the bars the Canadian farmer would receive a higher market value for his wheat is entirely erroneous.
That is a statement with which, I confess, I do not agree. It does not seem to me possible that if the farmer has two markets, one of them a market in which the price of wheat is higher than in his own, he is not going to get a higher price. Here is another thing Mr. Meighen says- and I suppose this is ' preserving the integrity of the empire ':
I again repeat that the governments of Great Britain and the colonies should grant to one another a substantial preference in duty, and that in so far as their respective revenues will permit the principle of free trade within fhe empire should prevail. If the Dominion of Canada takes a firm stand on that policy, we will yet see that system adopted in the near future.
I mould remind Mr. Meighen of the fate which met his resolution in 1909 in the ultraloyal, highly imperialistic Board of Trade of Montreal. Mr. Meighen is the gentleman who, with his friend Mr. McFee, on a certain occasion, secured the passage of a resolution embodying the principle of free trade within the empire. Just two weeks afterwards, the board of trade held an emergency meeting, and those who shouted imperialism-but took precious good care not to do anything for it-rescinded Mr. Meighen's resolution for free trade within the empire. But Mr. Meighen is not discouraged. I admire his pluck-perhaps a little more than I do his judgment. He still harps on this idea, though it was beaten in the stronghold of his friends, the Tory, imperialistic Board of Trade of Montreal.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: May I ask the hon. minister a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: If the hon. gentleman does not wish


Mr FISHER.: Yes.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Would the minister tell us what the 300 small mills in Ontario will do under this arrangement, and whether the flour milled in the large mills in the United States will not come into competition with that of the smaller mills in the markets of the world?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In the same way that the flour of Mr. Meighen and the other great millers of Canada comes into competition with that of the small mills, and just as the many small mills scattered throughout the United States live and flourish under the competition of Minneapolis.
Sir, we have and shall still have the English market. And let me point out that
+435

if this arrangement takes the duty off Canadian wheat going into the United States, it takes the duty off American wheat coming into Canada. Our mills can import American wheat and mill it, and they have the whole continent to draw from and to sell to, as well as the home market which will still be theirs as it has always been.
My hon. friend from Brandon spoke of the necessity of maintaining the purity of our wheat. He gave us credit for a Bill to improve the Inspection Act, an Act which has already been improved by this government. I cannot, for the life of me see why, >if the Inspection Act is enforced in Canada, exactly the same conditions in regard to Canadian wheat, Canadian milling and Canadian flour will not continue as exists to-day! The hon. gentleman says our wheat will go to the United States and be mixed and deteriorated. If so, it will command in the market the price of deteriorated wheat. But, if the Canadian grower, dealer and miller choose they can still keep and maintain the quality of Canadian No. 1 hard, and can send it forward pure and unadulterated, and we propose to give them an Inspection Act by which they can maintain that purity. And that wheat should, more than ever, outsell American wheat and Canadian wheat that goes through these channels, and is deteriorating. That is another of the ad capitandum arguments by which the handlers of goods are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of our farmers and cause them to believe that their interests are being injuriously affected.
As I am on the cereal question, I should deal with the point in regard to Quaker Oats which the hon. member for Brandon brought forward. The present arrangement allows oats to go freely either way. There are oatmeal mills in Canada, Their complaint is not that they object to buying American oats, or that they object to the competition in the Canadian market for the purchase of Canadian oats, but that the offal of their mills, the by-products of their manufacture of oatmeal, is not allowed to enter the American market free. Well, while we think. we got a most complete arrangement in the interests of Canada, we could not dictate to our great neighbours, every detail of the agreement. In some cases, we got all we asked for, and in some cases only part; while in some cases-very few-the Americans insisted upon what they wanted, which, had these been the only points at issue, we might not have granted. They did not grant us the free entry of this offal into the United States. The plea is not that our people cannot make oatmeal as well as those of the United States, but that they will not have as good a market for the sale of their offal. I believe the duty is 12} cents per


Sydney Arthur Fisher: one hundred. The American maker of oatmeal will be able to sell his offal to the American farmers, our rivals in stock feeding. I venture to say that there are no people in the American union who are as capable and successful stock feeders as the farmers of Canada. We have proved this over and over again when we have gone into competition with them in the great exhibitions of the world and have carried away prize after prize. It is true that there is not, at the present moment, as good a market for that offal as in the United States. But I venture to say that, if this arrangement goes through in its entirety, the encouragement to stock keeping in Canada will, within a year or two, develop as good a market for that offal in Canada as in the United States. Our people will want to feed ten, fifteen or twenty head of stock where to-day they feed one, and they will be able to consume all the offal of the mills in Canada, and will afford as good a market for this by-product of the mills as the American farmers afford for the similar product of the mills of the United States.


Mr. STAPLES.: Why does not the minister apply that to hay and barley?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Hon. gentlemen opposite are very anxious to make my argument for me, and to arrange it to suit themselves, but I propose to go through it in my own way.	,
To-day, Canada does not produce anything like the quantity of agricultural products, especially of wheat and other grains, that the United States does. But I wish to give a few figures to show what the development of our Northwest will lead to in a few years. In 1909-I have not the figures for last year-about 1,000,000 people in our three prairie provinces produced 147,000,000 bushels of wheat off 7,000,000 acres. In passing I may say that in comparison with other parts of the world, our production per acre was far ahead of any of them except the intensively cultivated countries of Europe. In round figures, we have in the hands of settlers 58,000,000 acres; last year something under 14,000,000 acres were cultivated-about one-quarter of the total in the hands of settlers. Then, we have 32,000,000 acres in the hands of railway and other corporations; and 39,000,000 acres surveyed and still owned by the government. Then we have, roughly speaking, about 84,000,000 unsurveyed within the area of possible wheat production. This makes a total acreage in our Northwest of 213,000,000 acres within the wheat producing area. I do not mean to say that all this land will produce wheat, or will ever be under wheat, but I do not think it would be out of the way for me to say that, in the course of 15 or 20 years, one-quarter of that land, say 50,000,000 acres, will be producing

wheat. Well, if 1,000,000 people in 1909, cultivating 7,000,000 acres of wheat, produced 147,000,000 bushels, what will the people of the Canadian Northwest produce when that country is fairly filled up and we have 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 between the Great Lakes and the Rocky mountains? That estimate of the future population of the Northwest is not an extravagant one, nor need we look very far ahead for these results. When that time comes, the Canadian Northwest will produce 1,000,000,000 bushels of wheat. I venture to say that the farmers will need not only the home country and the American market, but also the European market in which to sell that wheat. It is all very well for hon. gentlemen opposite to say:	' Let well enough
alone ', because, for to-day, and for the moment, we have markets for what we produce, But the acreage of Canada is capable of producing so enormously that we must see to it that we have every market of the world open to us for the sale of our surplus production. When that time comes, there is no doubt, there will be in the United States from 150,000,000 to 200,000,000 people, and they will need at least 250,000,000 to 300,000,000 bushels of wheat from us. Are we to forget the future? Are we to slap in the face that great nation, and tell them that we will have none of them and their market, when, in the not distant future, their market will be an essential to the consumption of our surplus production? In the last three years we have increased our population by 273,000, or 35 per cent. At the same rate, in 10 years, we would increase by about 2,500,000 people. And our increase of crops has been commensurate with our increase of population.
Now, I wish to say a word about barley: Everybody knows that before the McKinley Bill of 1890 barley had cheap entry into the United States and that our Ontario farmers were then growing barley with large profit and gratifying success. We have the report of the United States Department of Agriculture that the Canadian barley in quality was the best in the world with the possible exception of some grown in Bavaria. It is well known that the American brewers and malsters wanted our barley.' The old duties imposed by the United States on barley enabled the farmers of Canada to send to that country in 17 years, from 1876 to 1892 inclusive an aggregate of
135,250,000	bushels of barlev, valued at $90,000,000. But the high duties of the succeeding 17 years brought the aggregate export down to 7,000,000, valued at a little less than $3,000,000. In the first period, the average price was 67 cents under a tariff rate of 15 cents a bushel. But, in the second period, under duties varying from 30 cents a bushel to 30 per cent, the average price was 42 cents. Under this arrangement, we
shall have free entry of Canadian barley into the United States market. The farmers of Ontario who were struck by that McKinley Bill, with the pluck, energy, selfconfidence and natural pride of a people whom I respect, and whom I consider to be the backbone of this country, took that blow -complained a little, I grant you-but buckled to and overcame the difficulty.


An hon. MEMBER.: Hear, hear.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend says, hear hear. But they have overcome it, and they are quite ready to take the advantage again, to reap the profit, and to make the immense sum of money they would have made in the past if free barley had never been taken away from them.


Mr. SPROULE.: Do you think that nearly all the barley raised in Canada would not have been kept at home instead of exported?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think the farmer who raises barley knows enough to sell it to the best advantage for his pocket. If he finds that he can make most by selling it for malting and buying American corn for his stock he will do so. If he finds that it is more profitable to feed it to his stock instead of selling it for malting he will feed it to his stock. But I want to give him an alternative, and I trust to his judgment to make use of the best alternative.
Now, I want to say a word about potatoes and fruit. In twelve years of high duties the United States accepted from Canada $11,000,000 worth of potatoes more than they sent into Canada. Surely if we can get those potatoes into the states without duty, it will be to the advantage of our potato raisers. We sent a large quantity of fruit to Great Britain, which she accepted free, and as the United States had a heavy duty against it, the consequence was that we only sent to the United States $3,000,000 worth of fruit. We imported from the United States two and a third million dollars worth of apples, and we sent her in the same time a much larger quantity.
I would like to contrast the condition of the market gardeners and fruit growers with that of barley growers. The market gardeners and fruit, growers, in the last twenty-five years, increased their exports of these articles to the extent of $70,000,000. The farmers in seventeen years lost $90,000,000 on the one export of barley alone. I give this as an instance of what the two peoples suffer.
Now, I want to say a few words with regard to the meat trade. My hon. friend from Brandon says that the packing industry will be destroyed. I say emphatically, no. Why should it disappear? My hon. friend says that the meat trust of the
44.39

United States will come in and control the packing industry of Canada. He forgets, or does not choose to realize, that while, I grant, the meat trust of the United States seems to be able to defy the courts of that country; no trust in Canada can defy the courts of Canada. We have on our statute-book a Combines Act which forbids the operation of trusts like the meat trust of the United States. We have the machinery by which we can easily deal with them. I will give an instance of what it can do, and it is in regard to a United States organization. Just the other day a court in the city of Quebec declared that the United Shoe Machinery Company must submit to a decision of a board as to whether its actions as a trust are illegal. The United Shoe Machinery Company is one of the most powerful organizations in the United States, it controls the machinery which is used in the boot and shoe trade. They have patents, and a practiqal monopoly of certain machines. They do as they like in the United States. They came into Canada and tried to do as they liked here, but some of their victims appealed to the courts, and the courts of Canada have ordered them to show reason why they should not be compelled to deal fairly, and not as a trust, with the users of their machinery in Canada. This shows what the meat trust or any other trust in Canada will have to contend with in the future. I can only say to my hon. friend that if the meat trust of the United States undertakes to come into Canada and to act as trusts are generally supposed to act, they will be hauled up short by the Act. The courts of Canada will see to it that they do not carry on the nefarious practices which they are said to carry on in the United States.


Mr. AMES.: Is it not a fact that the United Shoe Machinery Company is a Canadian corporation, and that it is against a Canadian company that these proceedings are taken?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, but they are an offshoot in a way of the American company.


Herbert Brown Ames: They have absolutely nothing to do with the American company, so far as their business in Canada is concerned.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: But so far as their patents and their machinery are concerned, they are all one. It is their operations in Canada, which are the exact counterfeit of their operations in the United States, of which the courts are taking cognizance, operations of which the American courts do not take cognizance and do not control.


Herbert Brown Ames: Does the minister imagine that the beef trust will come into Canada Mr. FISHER.
and be incorporated so that it can be reached by the Canadian courts?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: When they do come into Canada and operate, they will be subject to the laws of Canada.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What about the Standard oil trust that has been carrying on operations here for years?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Act I refer to was only passed last year. I said a moment ago that the packing houses would not disappear. I think my hon. friend had in mind particularly the packing houses in Winnipeg. I have heard it said that the packing houses in Winnipeg would disappear, because Chicago would swamp them when the whole west is thrown open and made subservient to the Chicago market. What is the condition of affairs to-day in the United States? Does the Chicago packing business swamp the packing houses in Kansas city, in Omaha or in South St. Paul? We know, if the hon. gentleman does not know, that these cities are doing a large packing-house business. I have here some figures to show what that business is in comparison with the packinghouses of Winnipeg. In Kansas city last year the local killings of cattle were 1,-
284,000	; of sheep, 1,186,000 ; of hogs, 1,900,000. The local packing and abattoir establishments. of Kansas city showed, of cattle,
773.000	; of sheep, 1,256,000 ; of hogs, 1,656,000. In South St. Paul, the local killings were 169,000 cattle, 207,000 sheep, and
823.000	hogs.
Compare Winnipeg:
Cattle-80,000; half of those in St. Paul; one-tenth about of those in Omaha; one-fifteenth of those in Kansas City.
Sheep-30,000; one-seventh of those in St. Paul; one-fortieth of those in Omaha; one-thirty-fifth of those in Kansas City.
Ho'ts-91,000; one-ninth of those, in St. Paul; one-twentieth of those in Omaha; one-twentieth of those in Kansas City.
Sir, I believe that with the same price and with the same opportunity of supply, the Winnipeg packers can do as well as the Kansas City, Omaha, or St. Paul packers. I believe they can compete with Chicago just as well as these others can, and I see no reason to suggest that our Winnipeg men are not quite the equals of the business men of these three great American western cities. Why are these cities able to do so well? Because they have a tremendous field to draw upon, because they have the cattle ranges of the whole western states. Our Winnipeg men to-day have only the ranges and farms of cur own northwest, and their supply is limited and small. With the opening of the American market, one of two things will happen. Either the price of the rvestern cattle to these killers in these cities will be higher

and the Winnipeg men will have to come up and pay a higher price, or if it is not higher, the Winnipeg men, with this arrangement, can go across the line, compete there, and draw cattle from there to Winnipeg just as well as they can be drawn to St. Paul or anywhere else. Our Winnipeg packers are flourishing in a local way. Practically the whole of the 80,000 head of cattle in Winnipeg are slaughtered for local consumption. There is no export of meat from the Winnipeg packing houses. The whole is for local consumption, and the reason why they are not able to do an export business, the reason why they are not able to increase their work, is because of the short supply of cattle in our own northwest. I will deal with that in a few minutes. But. with this arrangement there is no reason whatever why Winnipeg, instead of staying where she is, away down in the list of those cities west of Chicago, should not be able to keep up and range herself with them. Chicago is and will be probably forever the great centre of the trade of the middle of this continent. Her geographical position, her start and everything else have taken her far ahead of the other American western cities, and there is no doubt that she will stay there. But the fact that Chicago is at the head of this great business is not inimical to the chances of a great number of other cities doing well, flourishing and advancing. I believe that Winnipeg and the Canadians in Winnipeg and other cities in Canada are quite as well able to do that as those cities which I have named.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would the minister be good enough to tell us the profits made by these American firms last year. They are given in their annual reports.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: You mean in those American cities?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, I have not got that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I notice that in some cases they made 25 per Cent.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Order. As the hon. the minister has not permitted the question, I cannot allow it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) talks about the profits they make. With a greater market and with more competition their profits might probably be a little less. I grant with regard to these different interests that are objecting to the farmers getting competition from buyers from the United States that they may have to raise their prices, and, therefore, the
farmers of Canada will get the benefit of it. I do not wish to set class against class, but I think the farmers have as much right to a free show and a good opportunity of selling in any market in which they can get more, as the people have who wish to buy from them, and who claim a monopoly of purchase.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Mr. Chairman, do I understand you to object to me asking the minister a question?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will allow you.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I merely want to ask the minister if it is not a fact that these large meat packing firms in Kansas City, Omaha and St. Paul are a part of the meat trust. I have visited these cities frequently and I know what I am talking about.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If my hon. friend says that he knows they are I will not dispute it. I do not know that they are, and I, therefore, will not say whether they are or not. But that does not make any difference. They exist outside of Chicago, and it is the Chicago market that hon. gentlemen are holding up as our bogey. My hon. friend from Grey, earlier in the session, spoke about our live stock trade going down. We have the Canadian and the British market. We have had a great many conditions favourable to our development otherwise, and yet the hon. gentleman made a long speech to prove that the Canadian live stock trade was going down. If that is the case I think the Canadian live stock trade might very well answer hon. gentlemen opposite when they say: * Let well enough alone ' by saying: It is not well enough. My hon. friend, when he says that the Canadian live stock trade is going down, says that it is not well enough. We want to give them another market, we want to give them a better opportunity, we want to give them competition for the things they have to sell, and this arrangement does that. If my hon. friend is correct in saving that the live stock trade is going down then I say it is well that we should help those engaged in that trade in this way.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The minister says that he proposes to give them another market. Is he aware of the fact that $160,000,000 worth of meat products are shipped out of the United States annually?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am sorry, but I am afraid that I will have to refuse to respond to these interruptions. I do not object to being asked a pertinent question, but when they are foreign to what I am talking about I cannot allow myself to be interrupted any more. The farmers of the northwest wiil sell to the American buyer, if he will give them a better price than the Canadian

buyer will, otherwise they will not. They will sell to the Canadian buyer if he gives them a fair and just price-the best price they can get-and he will sell to whoever else will give him that price. The hon. member for Brandon (Mr.- Sifton) said that the only good market was the British market, that it was a stable and free market. I grant that it is a stable and free market. We have had it. The hon. member for Grey (Mr. Sproule) says that our live stock business is going down, notwithstanding our possession cf that market. I want to give the farmers something that will bring that trade up, and I believe the American market will do it.
Now, Sir, I am going to speak a little bit about the province of Ontario. The hon. member for Brandon said that in Ontario the prices were as good as in the United States. I take direct issue with him. Prices in the United States are higher than they have been in Ontario for the last year on these products that I have been talking about. The hon. member for Brandon reproached us because we had not given statistics, because we had not carefully compared the prices. I beg to tell him that we did compare the prices, that when we made this arrangement we knew what the prices were in the American market, and here, and that is why we wanted to get free entry for agricultural products into the United States. I will give some prices. I have here a few statements. I have a statement with regard to the cattle slaughtered in the west. X have a statement of market quotations for live cattle in Buffalo and Montreal each fortnight from January 5, 1910, to December 2. 1910:
I shall not read each price, but I may say that between January 5 and December 2, 1910 the market quotations in Buffalo every week were higher than in Montreal. It was not an occasional quotation, but taking the whole trade of the whole year, every week the quotations in Buffalo were materially higher for live cattle than were the Montreal quotations. I have another statement here which I need not trouble the House to read, but I will send into ' Hansard,' which gives the market quotations for live hogs in Buffalo and Toronto and Chicago and Montreal. Taking the price of live hogs from January 19 to December 2, for every week in the year with three single exceptions the prices were higher in Buffalo than in Toronto; and in those the difference was very small in favour of Toronto. On January 26 the Buffalo price was $8.75 to $8.85, and in Toronto it was $8.90; on February 2. the Buffalo price was $8.50 to $8.70, and in Toronto $8.65; on June 1 the Buffalo price was $9.75 to $9.85, and the Toronto price $10. Only on these three occasions during the whole year was the price of live hogs as high in Toronto Mr. FISHER.
as in Buffalo, and these figures, which 1 believe to be absolutely correct, and which are taken carefully from the market reports, contradict the statement of the hon. gentleman that the price of these is higher in Ontario than in the United States.


Mr. WRIGHT (Muskoka).: Before the' hon. gentleman leaves that point I want to ask a question.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. member who has the floor has been interrupted very frequently. I have allowed these interruptions because there was no indication on his part that he objected, but since he has objected I cannot allow the hon. member to be interrupted.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I rise to a point 6f order.


William Wright: I want to make an explanation.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman must resume his seat when the chairman of the committee rises.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I wish to ask whether it is proper to put in ' Hansard ' tables of figures that are not read to us and as to which we have no idea what they are like. The Minister of Agriculture has tables there which he says he will send into * Hansard.'


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I have no control over what may be published in ' Hansard,' but, I understand ' Hansard ' does report what is said in the House.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I suggested that these figures might be printed in ' Hansard ' without my reading them so as to save time, but since the hon. member (Mr. Armstrong) does not wish to know them, I will not ask that they be put in 'Hansard.' One feature of the live stock trade is worthy of notice, and it is that in recent years there has been a large decrease in the numbers of live stock in proportion to the numbers of people occupying the land. That is a very serious situation. There is more live stock in Canada at the present time than there was ten years ago, but after careful investigation, I have no doubt that there are now fewer animals in Canada in proportion to the population than there were then. The English authorities on the question point continuously to the fact that the supplies from America are decreasing and they are looking more to Argentine and to Australia and to New Zealand for their supplies of meat. Still, America, and the United States especially, send them large supplies. The reason for the falling off in the cattle export from America is that the continent of America

affords to-day a better market than does the old country for these products. It is, therefore, very important for us to see to it that the whole market of the whole continent of North America is open to our farmers, and if we do not do that we shall be face to face with the fact that our farmers will be flooding the English market with these supplies and knocking down the price of these products below what is perhaps a living price. Here is another statement which I have no doubt is absolutely correct:
The high prices prevailing during the last twc years have evidently not been determined by the prices obtainable for export bullocks, but rather by the strong and growing local demand. Packers and butchers have given expression to this conclusion in different ways and it is a fact that with prices in Great Britain no higher than they are at present there remains no particular temptation to shippers and exporters to direct their purchases across the Atlantic. On the other hand, packers in the east have found a very profitable outlet of late for their cured and fresh meat products in the growing markets of the Canadian west.
Sir, I shall now refer to another matter which affects particularly the province of Quebec, and to a large extent Ontario as well. The hon. gentleman from Brandon (Mr. Sifton) stated that in the province of Quebec there was some good farming, a great deal of bad farming, and some middling farming, but, I know the province of Quebec better than he does, and I may tell him that the fact that the farmers of Quebec export large quantities of hay is no proof at all that they are not good farmers. This may seem paradoxical because it is generally speaking true that the hay should be fed to stock on the farm, and in this way the fertility of the soil maintained, but, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sifton) is not aware of the fact that there are areas of land in the province of Quebec from which hay has been sold to the American and the English market for from 50 to 75 years steadily, and the crop of hay on these lands is just as abundant and as excellent in quality as it was half a century ago. These hay-growing lands are lands which are frequently flooded, and on which there is a constant succession of alluvial deposits, and the land is in that way specially adapted for the growing of hay. That hay has hitherto been shut out of the American market by a duty of .$4 per ton, and every one knows that the Quebec farmer, when he did send hay into the United States had to pay a large proportion of that duty, depending on the demand whether he paid more or less. I read in a newspaper a short time ago that a New England farmer told a newspaper reporter that if this arrangement were carried into effect he and his sons would
be driven out of their farming in New England, because the Quebec hay would undersell them and secure tne market in the New England towns. So, in New Brunswick and some parts of Nova Scotia on the dyke lands around the Bay of Fundy, hay has been grown for I do not know how many years.


Mr. BLACK.: Two hundred years.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Quite so ; these lands are periodically inundated by the overflow of the sea, and consequently with respect to these particular farms it is good farming, and not bad farming, to grow and sell the hay. Hon. gentlemen from the northwest will tell you that the northwest farmer would be foolish if he did not grow wheat after wheat and wheat after wheat and sell it, and so, in the case of the hay-growing lands I have mentioned it would be foolish for those who cultivate them not to grow and sell a crop of hay. If the farmer in the northwest were to manure the land the wheat would grow and grow and keep green, and would not ripen, and that would be bad farming, and in like manner it would be useless to manure the hay-growing lands in Quebec and the lower provinces because the hay would lodge, it would not cure as well, and the farmer would not get as good a price for it as he does now. Good farming is to avail of the natural conditions of the particular soil you are tilling to the best advantage, and what would be good farming in some localities might be very bad farming in others. Therefore, that is one point in which the member for Brandon maligned the farmers of the province of Quebec. He spoke as a lawyer about farming and not understanding the business he was unable to deal with it intelligently. Again, I want to tell my hon. friend from Brandon who was born and bred in Ontario and lives there now, and seems to identify himself with that province, that in the dairying business the province of Quebec has made more advance than any other part of the Dominion of Canada in fifteen years. The production of butter and cheese has increased more rapidly than in any other part of Canada, and the quality of Quebec butter and cheese stands at the top of the markets of the world. Dairying is very prosperous in the province of Quebec and in dairying I include the production of milk and cream as well as the manufacture of butter and cheese. And why is dairying in the province of Quebec extremely prosperous? It is because for the last two seasons the farmers living along the border -and this is true also of our counties in eastern Ontario which lie along the St. Lawrence river-have been selling cream to the American market, and not as formerly making it into butter and sending it to England. The farmers of the eastern town-

ships were visited the other day by some gentlemen from the city of Montreal, Messrs. Brice, and Maclagan and others, who handle the goods of the dairy farmers, and they told them how bad it would be if American buyers should come across the line and dispute with Messrs. Brice and Maclagan the purchase of dairy products in the eastern townships. Weil, the farmers of the eastern townships know their business well enough to know why these gentlemen came to tell them that, and the farmers of the eastern townships know their business well enough to appreciate the advantage of having somebody besides the dealers of Montreal in the market to purchase their products. We have been making butter and cheese in the province of Quebec for many years, and a good deal of it was sold in the home market and the bulk of it was sent to England, but for the last two years American dealers have been coming across the line, and purchasing the cream from our farmers, and taking it to the northern parts of New Hampshire and Vermont, and from, eastern Ontario into New York state, and making it into butter for the American market. Now, our farmers who sold that cream had full and free access to the market of Great Britain for their butter, but they found it more profitable to dispose of their cream in this way. These gentlemen opposite will tell you that our market in Great Britain is the. great market for Canadian produce. True, it has been, but during this year the price of butter in the New England and New York markets is so high that, they could afford to take Canadian cream across the line, pay five cents a gallon duty on it, then make it into butter and pay our farmers a higher price per 100 pounds for their milk than they could get by making it into butter at home, and selling it to these gentlemen in Montreal who forwarded it to the English market. The farmers in the eastern townships do not need any compilation as to the difference in prices on each side of the line to tell them what the truth is. They can see that with their own eyes ; they are selling their goods and pocketing the profits even though these goods have to pay a duty going to the American markets, and by this arrangement they will have free entry to the American market, and they will reap a larger profit. If cream can be bought in Canada and five cents a gallon duty paid on it, and made into butter in the United States, and sold in the great eastern cities, why cannot butter be made in the eastern townships, and eastern Ontario, and all *over Canada and sold in these same markets at the same price if there is no duty on either cream or butter? There, the hon. member for Brandon has the answer [DOT]of the farmers of the province of Quebec as to how they can look after their own Mr. FISHER.
interests. Last year there was sent from Canada to the United States $1,677,000 worth of cream, and we sent also a few thousand dollars worth ol cheese, and a few thousand dollars worth of butter. The average value of the cream was about one dollar a gallon, and a gallon of cream made about 25 cents a pound for the butter without any expense of make up. The United States have for several years past, imported of dairy products, butter, cheese and cream, to the following extent-in 1907 they imported $6,000,000 worth, in 1908 $5,000,000 worth, in 1909 $ 6,000,000, and for the 11 months of the last fiscal year $8,500,000 worth, which increase was largely accounted for by the importation of Canadian cream.
Cheese will now be put upon the free list. The United States last year imported nearly $7,000,000 worth of cheese. Now, I want to be perfectly fair. Most of that cheese was brought from Europe; most of it was what is called fancy cheese. But I am glad to say that the dairymen of Canada are rising to the occasion, and are making to-day a very fair quantity of fancy cheese; and under this arrangement they can expand and increase that product, which is the most profitable way to utilize their milk product, and there is no market in the world equal to that of New York, Boston and other large cities of the United States Atlantic sea-board for these fancy cheeses. They are dainty, appetizing things which the rich people want, and will pay fancy prices for; and, while I do not say that the whole of our dairy output can be turned into these products, there will be many opportunities for our scientific farmers to enter into that business, and, instead of being confined, as they are to-day, by a severe duty on cheese, to our own markets of Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto, they will have the cities of New York, Boston, Philadelphia and other large American cities to cater to, and the record of our Canadian dairymen which is writ broad on this continent, shows that they can carry on that higher kind of farming better than the Americans can, and beat them in their own markets, if we have a free entry into them.
Mr. hon. friend from Brandon intimated that the prices of butter and cheese were better in Canada than in the United States. 1 have here quotations of the prices of butteT taken on the same day of every month, from January to December, 1910, in Boston, New York, Chicago, Montreal, and Toronto, and in every month of the year in every one of these three American markets, butter was materially higher than it was on the same day in either Montreal or Toronto. The hon. member for Brandon wants statistics and information. Here again are the prices of cheese on the same

day in every month in Boston, New York, Chicago, Montreal and Toronto, and in every month the prices in Boston, New York and Chicago were higher than they were on the same day in either Montreal or Toronto. I took also eggs, and here our hon. friends opposite may get a little comfort. The egg prices vary. In January they were higher in the three American markets; in February they were a shade higher in Montreal and Toronto; in April, they were about the same; in May the price in Boston was higher than in the Canadian market, but Montreal and Toronto were both a little higher than New York and Chicago; in June and July the Canadian markets were a shade higher; in August, Montreal was a little higher, but Toronto a little lower than the American market; in September, they were practically the same; in October, Montreal was a little higher and Toronto equal; in November and December, all three American markets were higher than either of the Canadian markets. I also inquired as to dressed poultry, taking Montreal, Toronto and New York, and I found that in every month of the year dressed poultry was higher in New York from one cent to five cents pet pound, than it was in either Montreal or Toronto. I will not go into further details. I think I have given some information and statistics. I think I have been able to show that we did not enter into this thing with, our eyes shut, but were able to find a justification in the advantages to the Canadian farmer of a free entry into the American market.
The hon. .member for St. Anne, and I think the hon. member for Brandon, said: oh, but you do not say anything about the Americans coming in here. Well, I think I have disposed pretty well of the idea of the Americans coming in here, by showing that their own market is higher than ours. The Americans are shrewd, and are not going to send goods into Canada and knock down the Canadian prices, when they can get higher prices at home. But the hon. member for Brandon says: You allow goods to come to Canada from Argentina, Australia and New Zealand and other countries. Quite true, we do. But I would like to point out that for many years, in that free and stable market of the home land mentioned above we had the competition of Argentina, Australia and New Zealand, under conditions that were less favourable to us and more favourable to them, than they would have in attempting to sell their products in Canada, and we have been able to hold our own with them in the English market. We have been able, as a general rule, with the exception of live cattle, to command higher prices than Argentina has-why? Because
our products are better in quality, and I venture to say that in the future, as in the past, the Canadian farmer, educated, informed, clean-living, sensible, will be able to produce a better article than the Italian or the Spanish or the Portuguese or others farming in the Argentine. History has told us that we need not fear competition, and I do not think that we need fear it in the future. But my hon. friend from Brandon says they will dump their products on the Canadian market. Weil. Buenos Ayres has cheaper freights to London than to Canada, and it has with England, a large trade established, with a return freight, and it can take its goods and put them on the English market much cheaper than it can on the Canadian market. The Canadian has to send his goods to compete with them in England, where the price is regulated by the price of goods in the open stable market of England, and not where they are produced, and we have been able to meet the competition of these people there.
With a market at our own doors, does any person say that these countries can beat the Canadian farmer in his home market? It is absurd on the face of it. Hon. gentlemen opposite are simply raising a bogey to frighten the farmers into thinking that this arrangement is a bad one for their business. So far as cattle are concerned, the Argentine, for many years, has suffered, like ourselves, from an embargo on cattle going into Great Britain, by which their cattle allowed to land are slaughtered in the lair ages. This continued till 1900, when any landing was absolutely prohibited. In February, 1903, a change was made under which Argentina cattle were allowed to be landed for slaughter in the lairages. In consequence of disease being found, the embargo was reimposed in May, 1903, three months after its partial removal. Now, I would like to point out that this reciprocity arrangement does not interfere-no trade arrangement does-with quarantine. Under our quarantine regulations, Argentina cattle will be shut out of Canada as well as out of England. We cannot allow diseased cattle to come in alive-in England, they do not allow Argentina cattle even to enter to be slaughtered at the port of entry as Canadian and American cattle are. For the three months of which I have spoken, they did allow Argentina cattle, as they allow ours, to be entered and slaughtered at the port of entry. But they had to give that up, and at the present day, not a head of Argentina cattle is allowed to land on the quay in Britain. And I can tell my hon. friends opposite that, until the Argentine can show a cleaner bill of health than they have been able to show for some time,

cattle from that country will not be allowed to land in Canada. Not because my duty as administering the quarantine laws calls upon me to interfere with markets or trade arrangements, but because it is my duty to see to it that the flocks and herds of Canada are not contaminated by disease from any outside country.


Herbert Brown Ames: Does the minister


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. minister (Mr. Fisher) has objected to interruptions.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I rise to a question of order. Mr. Chairman, is a member of parliament not allowed to make any observation when a gentleman is speaking? I wish to know what are a member's rights?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman has the right to rise to a point of order, but not to discuss it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have the right to make an observation, and I distinctly refuse to be controlled by anybody


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) has the floor, and no other member has the right to speak while he has the floor. He has been interrupted very frequently. I have told the committee that I allowed these interruptions because the minister did not himself object to them. .But when he objected, it became my duty to prevent any interruption. No member except the hon. gentleman who has the floor has the right to speak. The point of order raised is not a sound one.


Haughton Lennox: May I ask a question of the Chair? Are we to understand that a member of parliament has not the privilege of asking a minister of the Crown a question while he is addressing the House?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: A member has not the right to ask the minister a question while he is addressing the House unless he has the permission of the minister. The ministi r has distinctly refused to be interrupted, and no member has the right to interrupt him.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: May I ask


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Order. There is no point of order before the Chair. The Minister of Agriculture has the floor. Unless a point of order is brought before the Chair, the minister must be allowed to . continue his address.


Haughton Lennox: Mr. Chairman


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Unless the
hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) arises to a point of order, I cannot hear him.


Haughton Lennox: I rise to a point of order. I want information for my guidance. I Mr. FISHER.
have no question to ask the minister at this time


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Unless the
hon. gentleman has a distinct point of order to raise, he is not in order in speaking.


Haughton Lennox: It is a distinct point of order. I want your ruling distinctly. Am I to understand that, if I have a question to ask the minister, I am not at liberty to ask it?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: While the
minister is addressing the committee, no member has the right to interfere with question or interruption. With the permission of the member addressing the House, it may be done, but, the hon. member having distinctly stated that he desires no more interruptions, it is my duty to see to-it that he is not interrupted.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think I was patient under interruptions. I would be glad to answer questions, but, on several occasions, questions have been put to me almost in the middle of a sentence, and in a way to interrupt the thread of my remarks- questions sometimes entirely irrelevant. Therefore, I feel I must decline to be interrupted. I do not desire to appear discourteous, but I am afraid I shall have to maintain that position.
Adding to what I was saying with regard to quarantine, I may point out that we have dairy laws for this country which have the same effect as quarantine. I do not know that anybody has raised the point in the House, but in different places it has been raised that, in consequence of the free entry of American butter into our markets, oleomargarine, butterine and other things of that kind may be introduced into the country. I have only to say that the Canadian laws which forbid the manufacture, importation or sale of these articles in Canada are as much in force and will be as much in force after this arrangement goes into effect as they are now and have been for years past.
My hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Sifton) did not say much about conservation, but the question has been raised by some hon. members opposite on several occasions. Conservation at the moment is an attractive and rather popular appeal. We are all anxious to preserve the natural resources of Canada. I think I may say that I have been as prominent in that respect as anybody in this country. I was one of those, with my hon. friend from Brandon, who attended the international conference at Washington called by President Roosevelt to discuss this ouestion. It was I who introduced and put through the Bill for the creation of the Commission of Conservation, and have encouraged, and am a member of, that commission. As I said a moment ago

about our animals and dairy products, so the question of conservation is a question of regulation and administration within our own country of our own resources. Conservation is the preservation of our resources from waste, the utilization of our resources under wise and proper management. My hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) gave a very good illustration of conservation when he talked about the steers and * what we have we'll hold Conservation of forest resources, for instance, does not mean to forbid the cutting of any tree in Canada; it means the cutting of the trees that are ripe to be cut and the proper preservation of those that are not yet ready for cutting from the destructive influences of fire, insects and other enemies of our forests. If conservation means that we are to stop lumbering operations in this country, if it means that we are to keep our trees until they fall from age and rot upon the ground where they will be a hiding place and breeding place of insects injurious to the forests and a means of spreading fire, then, conservation means putting an end to the utilization of our forest resources. It does not mean anything of the kind. Conservation means that we shall so regulate the cutting of our trees that no tree too small to be cut shall be cut, that no tree when it is cut shall destroy other trees around it, that when the tops and the debris of the trees which are cut are left in the forest, they shall be taken care of so that fire may not spread among them, and thereby generate those destructive fires which are the worst enemies of our forest resources. Conservation means that we shall see to it that the insect pests that infect our forests and trees shall be fought and combatted, that fires shall not be allowed to spread, whether originating by settlers, or by hunters, or by trappers, or by railroads. Forest conservation means that forest areas shall be set apart as forest reserves, to protect the sources of our water supply, the sources of our streams, in order that water may be procured for agricultural and manufacturing operations and kept at a continuous flow. Sir, we have done all that. We have set apart large forest reserves. My hon. friend at Quebec the other day, in a conservation meeting, praised this government for the fact that the Minister of the Interior this very session is introducing a Bill to make statutory what was done last year by order in council, namely, setting apart the whole eastern slope of the Rocky mountains as a forest reserve, which will be the greatest on the continent of North America. I think we know fairly well how to conserve our natural resources. The regulation of all these things remains in the hands of the parliament of Canada, and it is only by parliament becoming recreant to its duty
in this regard that our natural resources can be depleted.
Hon. gentlemen opposite say, Oh, but these horrible Americans will come in here and eat up our natural resources. I do not know but that to-day a good many Americans own many of our forest reserves,
I do not know but that they own some of our mines and some of our water-powers.
I am quite sure that a Canadian who owns any one of these resources in fee simple, if ah American came along and offered him a higher price for it than he could get from anybody else, he would sell it to him. I think that perhaps our hon. friends opposite would do just like any of the rest of us in that respect. But if an American has bought a natural resource of Canada, he is just as much subject to the rules and regulations of Canada, and to any safeguards we may establish for their conservation and utilization, as any Canadian, or any Englishman, or anybody else in the world. When Americans come in here to invest in our natural resources and to operate them they will be controlled by the laws and regulations of Canada just the same as anybody else. This is the meaning of conservation, and this arrangement has no effect upon conservation at all.
' In speaking upon fruits and vegetables, the hon. member for Brandon said that the hon. member for Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell) had presented an argument in that respect which was unanswerable. I am afraid I must differ with him a little in that. That argument of the hon. member for Yale-Cariboo, like a great many others, is the argument of a man interested in that business alone. I am not going to attribute any selfish motive to the member for Yale-Cariboo, he is entirely in his right in what he is doing. He spoke of his own interest as a fruit grower, and he spoke of the interests of a majority probably of his constituents. Now I am going to say frankly that it is possible that the fruit growers of the dry belt of British Columbia may suffer by this arrangement a little more than any other interest that I know of. They are to-day growing fruit in the dry belt somewhat similar to the dry belts of Washington and Oregon to the south. They are starting out on a large scale in an industry which has been well tested and wed established on a small scale, and they are probably at a stage when for the moment keen and superior competition may stagger them. But I do not believe it will knock them down. I do not believe for a moment that my hon. friend from Yale-Cariboo himself is going to sell out his orchards and leave the business. I think he and his friends will con-

tinue to grow fruit. They have exactly the same opportunity under this tariff arrangement that their competitors to the south of them have. They are not at the moment quite so well established in business, but I am glad to say that they are becoming established. I am glad to see that for a year or two back they have adopted the best methods of packing that are known, and have been getting a good repute for their fruit, just as good a repute as the people to the south of them. The Okanagan Valley fruit has just as good a record as the fruits of Washington. They can grow just as good fruit, and probably a little better, and they can grow as much of it to the acre. They have beaten their American neighbours time and again in exhibitions by reason of the superior quality of their fruit. They have not had so many acres under fruit as their competitors to the south, and for the moment that competition may be felt. But I have confidence enough to believe that the people of that region, like other Canadians in the east, like the people of the west who have to compete on wheat, will hold up their head and enter into the fight, and show the same results that other people have been able to show in competition between Canada and other countries. I observe that some gentlemen in the fruit business take the same view as themselves. [DOT] A little while ago I read an article in regard to the fruit growers of that country, and I think the Minister of Customs has read it. It is taken from the Vernon ' Okanagan/ which I understand is a Liberal paper. The article is written by a Mr. Lee. Mr. Lee, this paper says in another number, is the secretary of the Okanagan Farmers' Institute. A few weeks ago he supported a resolution at the annual meeting of the central institute which strongly advocated that not only should the duty on fruit be retained, but that the duty should be raised to a parity with the United States tariff. Mr. Lee spoke warmly in favour of that resolution, which was carried unanimously and forwarded to Ottawa. They go on to say that he ought to be consistent. Mr. Lee, I think is consistent, and I think he occupies about the position many other people occupy in this country* When he moved that resolution he did not know the terms of the arrangement. When he moved that resolution for keeping the duties on a parity, he meant to raise the Canadian duty to the American duty. While the American duty existed that perhaps appealed to a good many people.
But we have put the duties on a parity, they have disappeared and, to-day there is no duty on our fruit going into the United States any more than there is on the fruit of the Americans coming in here.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: But later, when he knows the details, Mr. Lee writes an article of a page and a half, in which he points out the advantages of the American market to the Okanagan fruit grower. He says that he understands and knows the details of this arrangement and that he believes it is in the interests of the Okanagan fruit grower. That is the spirit of the'Okanagan fruit grower, which I anticipated and hoped for, and which I am glad to find in Mr. Lee, although we did not find it in the hon. member for Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell). Sir, we have in eastern Canada too, fruit growers who seem to be a little afraid. I will only speak in very general terms, but I will say this, that if anybody in the world can raise fruit and succeed in open competition with anybody in a good market, it ought to be the Niagara and Lake Shore fruit growers in Ontario. They have every advantage which their competitors to the south have. They have the advantage of teaching from the Department of Agriculture in Ontario, and the Department of Agriculture here, which is superior to anything that there is in the United States. They have quantity of production, they have every opportunity of co-operation and oi'ganization, and I am glad to know that to-day . the fruit growers of the province of Ontario are organized and are able to put their fruits on the markets either of the United States or Canada equally well, with the fruit of any other producers. Hitherto they have had the Canadian market alone. The Americans had to pay duty to come in here, and our people had to pay duty to go into the United States. Notwithstanding that duty, our people have sent hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of fruit into the United States markets of Buffalo, and places across the line every year. With a free market, with the opportunity of sending their fruit into Buffalo, down to New York and to other big cities south of the line, they will have an abundant market that will stimulate fruit growing in the Niagara peninsula. I have no doubt that it will do so, and that the result will be an immense increase in the business of fruit growing in this province. We have another fruit growing district in the Annapolis and Cornwallis valleys of Nova Scotia. They send out every year hundreds of thousands of barrels of apples. They have been looking with longing eyes to the New England market, but they have been forced by the United States duties to send all those apples across the Atlantic to the London and other English markets. They can do so still, but they will have in addition, free entry to this great market in the New England States. We know that the qualify of Ontario and Nova Scotia fruit, especially apples, is superior to that of the United

States producers, and that our apples, even with the duty, are sought for there, as being the daintiest, prettiest and the most tasteful of any apples that are put upon the American market.
The hon. member for Brandon stated that prices in the United States were lower than they were in Canada. He referred to the tables which have been published by the Labour Department as being most excellent. I thought I had a general table of the prices of products in Great Britain, United States and Canada, but I am not able at this moment to put my hand upon it. The table shows very clearly that the general trend of prices in Canada and the United States, while varying occasionally, is the same, but that as a general rule, the prices of the articles of ordinary life are higher in the United States than they are m Canada. It is a truth which I wish to impress, that the continental market is better in the United States than it is in Canada, and that if we can get entry into that market we have a better continental market than we have to-day. The same table shows that the genera] trend of prices of the same articles is lower in Great Britain than it is in the United States and that, therefore, the American market is one that we will be likely to cater for in the future. We will cater for it, because it is the best paying market and for no other reason.
This brings me naturally to the last thing that I am going to say.. Hon. gentlemen opposite and their press especially, have talked about this as being a movement which is going to lead to annexation. Perhaps what I have just said with regard to a continental market here, the American market and the English market, may confirm them in that. I have yet to believe that the people of any country are bound to their allegiance, to their King, or to their flag, by any feelings or influences of commercial ties. I do not believe it. I believe that Canada is loyal to herself, to the empire and to the King, from feelings of sentiment, of attachment to the institutions of this country and of the empire, and inspiration from the traditions of the empire, and consequently the people of Canada are proof against any relaxation with regard to their enthusiasm, loyalty or patriotism which might occur, because of any change in commercial relations. I do not* believe it, and I do not think that anybody else believes it. They raise this cry and they wave the flag because they think it is going to bring some votes. I cannot imagine for a moment that the hon. member for Brandon thinks that, because a man in the Northwest, or in Ontario, or in Quebec, gets a little higher price from a Yankee for the goods that he sells him, he is going to want-to join that Yankee country. On the
contrary, the free entrance of commerce into the United States market removes the only possible inducement to annexation. If we were going to be influenced by commercial reasons, the fact that we were shut out from the American market which we find to be the best market, might induce us to ask for annexation, but when we get free entry into that market without annexation, in the name of goodness, why should we think of annexation? Hon. gentlemen opposite did not think of annexation, or at any rate, they pretended that they did not think of it, and they continued to wave the flag when they were asking for reciprocity. Then they did not think it meant annexation. I did not think i't would mean annexation then and I do not think that it means annexation now. They have changed their minds, while we have consistently and continuously maintained our confidence in the loyalty and patriotism of the Canadian people.


George Taylor: What did Edward Blake say?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Edward Blake ; I have dealt with that and I am not going to go back to it now. My hon. friend from Brandon was not so afraid of the Americans a few years ago. Perhaps, if there is one thing more than another that is striking in his political and public career it is the magnificent inauguration and carrying out of the immigration policy into the Canadian northwest. I give him all' credit for it. I have always admired what he did, and I know he did it in the true interests of the country, and with an eye to the advancement of Canada. He succeeded beyond expectation, but the striking part of his immigration policy was the campaign in the United States, and the eSort directed to bring Americans into our north west. It was carried on against great obstacles but with magnificent success, and to-day we have in the northwest hundreds of thousands of American-born citizens ths great majority of whom, being here only a few years, have sworn allegiance to our King and our institutions, and are to-day good British subjects. That is the kind of annexation we want, and I venture to think that when those lormer American citizens, knowing that the only difficulty they experienced in settling in our country was exclusion from their old market, find that the barriers are thrown down, they will be followed by tens of thousands of their former friends, and in a few years we will have our northwest more and more filled by that class of immigrants which the member for Brandon over and over again has admitted were the most progressive and intelligent settlers. And why should they not come to Canada? They

tell us they have higher priced lands in* the United States ; they say they have harder conditions under which to live ; they say that their labour there costs them more; they say their transportation rates are higher, they say they cannot grow as good crops there; they come to Canada and henceforward they will have the same market exactly as they had before they left their own country. We are removing the last obstacle to the immigration of Americans into our northwest. I suppose some of our friends on the other side of the House may say that the immigration of Americans into the northwest, is dangerous, that it is disloyal, that it is improper. I ask them to take the view of their friend the hon. member for Brandon as to that. He has often told us that the American is the best settler in the northwest, because he comes there ready to go to work at once, and he is able to immediately add to the production of the country.


George Taylor: Nobody has ever said anything to the contrary.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 

many more to get the free entry of Canadian agricultural products into the great market to the south of us. The reasons, however, are obvious-I will not detain the House with them.
Sir, I appreciate that on a question of this kind it is quite within the judgment of any man to leave his party and divorce himself from his political friends. I believe this arrangement is in exact accord with the general policy of the Liberal party of Canada, that it is in full accord with the Liberal principles which have actuated us in our administration of the affairs of this country. 'I believe that this arrangement does not in any wav materially hurt or injure any class or any industry in the country. I believe that it does give an enormous boon to the agricultural class of the country; and, as it helps them and gives them more markets and more riches, it will affect favourably every interest in Canada. I appreciate, Six, that my hon. friend from Brandon does not view this arrangement in the same way. He has stated that in consequence of it he is obliged to cut himself off from his former colleagues and friends. Nobody regrets that more than I do. I had anticipated from him the ablest possible statement of the views of those who are opposed to this arrangement. I have no doubt that we heard that this afternoon. I know the hon. member foT Brandon well enough to know that there is no man in the Conservative party who can put a case better, abler, more intelligently and more clearly. We have seen what he has done. I can only say that I do not aeree with him that any of the arguments or any of the facts that he has put forward called upon him in any way to divorce himself from his former associates and from the party with which he has worked for many years. The thing that we are doing is not in any way antagonistic, but, on the contrary, falls in exactly with the principles in which be has been brought up and which he has followed for many years in his public life-the principles of Liberalism, the principles of freedom, the principles of seeing to the interests of the masses of the community, and at the same time trving. and I think succeeding, in doing no injury to any of the classes or interests in the country, and if the arguments which he has put forward, the details which he has given, have been sufficient to justify him in the course he has taken. I think thev will not justify him in the eyes of the great mass of the people of the country, who do not see eve to eye with him and will not follow him in that course.
On motion cf Sir Wilfrid LauTier, House adjourned at 10.43 p.m.
Mr 'FISHER.

Thursday, March 2, 1911.