Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved:: That from this date to the end of the session, the House shalL meet on every sitting day at eleven o'clock in the morning, and that in addition to the usual intermission at six o clock p.m., there shall be also an interims-sion every day, including Wednesday, from one to three o'clock p.m.


Mr. SPROULE.: There are several Bills still on the paper and it can only he known to the government whether they intend to go on with them. If these Bills are to be gone on with and if others are coming up, it would necessarily involve changing the time of the meetings of the committees. I think that the right hon. Prime Minister should give us some information as to what Bills it is intended to go on with, because the committees must, if these Bills, are to be gone on with, do their work at some time and this will be taking up a portion of their time. The Railway Committee, for instance, is said to be meeting to-morrow. I think it is at half past ten, but it usually meets at eleven. If there are any of these Bills that have to go to' these committees, it will necessarily involve the changing of the time of the meeting of the committees.


Wilfrid Laurier: The intention of the government is to go on with the measure that is before the House with regard to the reciprocity agreement. Everything will depend upon the result of that. If we pass it in a short time we can take up other measures. If we were not to pass it in a short time the government would have to consider the course we would have to take.	[DOT]


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called:
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: I would like to repeat the inquiry I made yesterday as to the resignation of Dr. J. G. Rutherford.


Mr. FISHER.: Dr. Rutherford has handed me his resignation, which, however, has not been acted upon.



SOREL SHIPYARD-OFFICIAL INQUIRY.

Mr. MONK.: Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up the inquiry I made yesterday respecting the report of the commissioner who was appointed to inquire into the state of affairs at Sorel. Has my hon. friend received the report, and would he deposit it on the table of the House?


Mr. BRODEUR.: I made inquiries and I found the following: Immediately after I gave instructions to hold that investigation, Mr. Boyle, inspector of agencies, went to Sorel and he has been there for more than a month. Mr. Boyle, who is now absent, will return in a few days and his report will likely be ready then.



PREPARATION OF VOTERS' LISTS.

Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask the government to lay upon the table of the House a statement as to the voters' lists. A representation has been made to me that the voters' lists for a number of constituencies have been printed and have been delivered to the members or to the defeated candidates. I have no complaint to make in the matter in regard to my own case because the lists were sent to me, I think, about four weeks ago, but there are some complaints in regard to others. I would like to have laid on the table of the House a statement of the ridings for which the voters' lists have been printed, completed and delivered and a further statement as to when it is expected they will be ready for those ridings which have not been served in that way up to the present time.


Mr. MURPHY.: I will have much pleasure in having a statement prepared and submitted such as my hon. friend has asked for.



NEWSPAPER STATEMENT WITH REGARD TO QUEBEC MEMBERS.

Mr. TALBOT.: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to a report which was published in the Montreal ' Gazette ' on Monday as a special from Ottawa, It reads as follows:
Ottawa, July 23 (special).-The revolt of the supporters of the government from the province of Quebec against the calling of the extra session in midsummer for the sole purpose of carrying on a hopeless attempt to put through the reciprocity agreement, does not show any signs of dying down.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: 


Robert Laird Borden: Is he still discharging the duties of his office.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.
Mr. SMYTH (Algomai
Up to Friday a large number of French Canadian Liberal members had ignored the urgent call of the whips and failed to put in an appearance at Ottawa,


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: The indemnity has practically rup out, and they do' not see the imperative need of sitting day after day, gagged, in the overheated Chamber while Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. Fielding continued the farce of passing the reciprocity pact. It is well known that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was nettled at the result of the division on Tuesday-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: -when the normal majority was cut down to 16 on a straight party vote.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: We must consider that the applause coming from the other side is an indication that this article meets with the approval of these hon. gentlemen.
There were only sixteen of the rank and file of the Liberals in the House, when the vote was taken, and seven only were paired. With the opposition determined to bring up from day to day matters of public importance on the motion either to go into Committee of Ways and Means or Supply, and follow these up with motions of censure and want of confidence, a strenuous effort is being made to whip the Quebec men into line.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: The situation in which the government finds itself is decidedly unpleasant.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I am very glad to hear this applause. We will make good use of it in time.
There is demoralization in its ranks; Lau-rier's control of his solid Quebec majority is vanishing;-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: -discipline is lacking, and those who are in attendance are chafing under the action in bringing them back when they could be much better employed, according to their way of thinking, in canvassing their constituents in view of the imminent elections.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: The Montreal ' Gazette ' is a paper for which I have had, for a great number of years, a great deal of respect and admiration. It is quite evident that of late bad company has corrupted its good manners. I must now say to you, Mr. Speaker, that my comment shall be very short because this article is contemptible, malicious and untrue in every particular. I do r.ot know who is the author of this dispatch, but I hope that it is not the reporter of the press appointed to sit in this gallery and to occupy a place m the company of gentlemen.
It is quite true that French Canadian members of this House coming from the province of Quebec are not over burdened with wealth but there is one thing that I can say and which will appeal to the fair minded men on the other side of the House, and I hope they are many, that it is not money which brings us here in this House. We are under a strong feeling that we are discharging our duty before the country and I have to say that if the reporter of the 'Gazette', appointed in the gallery is the author of this article he deserves the censure of this House.


Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Kamouraska).: -(Translation.)-Mr. Speaker, the article of which the hon. member for Bellechasse complains is not an isolated one, but forms part of a plan of campaign. As a matter of fact, to-day's Montreal ' Gazette ' contains the same unpleasant insinuations. Quebec Liberals are accustomed to the calumnies of the Tory press, and this new exhibition does not disturb us; it will, however, serve to show the electors of the province what measure of justice they may expect from such opponents.
An analysis of the vote of the 18th July, Mr. Speaker, will show that at least as many French Canadian Liberals were in their seats on the first day following recess as members from other provinces, Liberal or Conservative.
There are in this House 220 members exclusive of the Speaker. The vote taken on that day gave the following result: 61 Liberals and 45 Conservatives. Only 106 members voted therefore, less than half of the whole House. The opposition mustered 45 votes out of a total of 88 members.
Allow me to call your attention to the fact that out of the Conservative contingent from the province- of Quebec two members only were present on that day, the member for Argenteuil (Mr. Perley), who is the party whip, and the hon. member for St. Ann's (Mr. Doherty); the ten other French Canadian representatives of His Majesty's opposition in the province of Quebec were all absent. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) was not there, nor was the hon. member for Drummond and Artha-baska (Mr. Gilbert), the champion of the new doctrine in the province of Quebec.
But the narrow fanaticism of the ' Gazette's ' views are more especially apparent in the vile insinuation that French Canadian Liberal members from Quebec weTe not here because they had no more indemnity to draw. I defy the ' Gazette ' and all the Tory press of the country to point out one single French Canadian Liberal member who ever publicly or privately made such a dishonest declaration. Such calumnies will not help to maintain among the voters of the province of Quebec that reputation.

for fairness and moderation which the ' Gazette ' had acquired. In any case there must be no misunderstanding on this point. The Liberal members from the province of Quebec are here, and here they will remain until the end of this important parliamentary struggle, and when the fight is transferred to another field, they will be found in the forefront of battle.



THE CENSUS-OMISSIONS IN ENUMERATION.

Mr. MACDONELL.: Is the Minister of Agriculture aware that in Toronto, in addition to many incidental and individual inaccuracies in the census, a whole section of Rosedale has. apparently been omitted, a very large part of North Toronto. A full account of this is given in the Toronto News. I would urge that the minister take the necessary steps to have that omitted district visited by the census people so , that it may be included in the census. The newspaper states that they have gone to much pains to ascertain and verify the correctness of that statement.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I need not say that any such inaccuracy as that will be carefully investigated and if the statement is found to be correct immediate steps will be taken to remedy the omission.



IMPORTATION OF AMERICAN FARM LABOURERS.

Angus Claude Macdonell: Has any order in council been passed suspending the immigration regulations between ourselves and the United States so as to permit agricultural labourers to come into this country without being handicapped or bothered with _ the usual immigration questions und interrogations during the harvest so as to permit American labourers to enter Canada to assist in reaping the harvest.


Mr. OLIVER.: There is no order in council necessary. We admit agricultural labourers coming from the United States during harvest or at any other time. There are no restrictions in regard to money qualifications upon people coming' from the United States or any other country into Canada for farm work.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I understand that farm laborers are subject to certain restrictions. Have those restrictions been suspended recently for the purpose of permitting those people, as well as any other American people, to come into this country?


Frank Oliver: There are no restrictions as far as I am aware in regard to farm laborers coming in, except the restrictions imposed by statute, which are not removable by order in council Mr. LAPOINTE.


Angus Claude Macdonell: There has been no order in council recently?


Frank Oliver: No.



ELECTIONS IN NORTHERN ONTARIO.

Mr. ARTHURS.: I wish to call the attention of the ministry to an article appearing in the Montreal * Star ' entitled:
To-morrow's caucuses expected to determine question of election.
The last clause of this article reads:
While till to-morrow nothing will be conclusively known, the present outlook is for a speedy termination of parliament and polling at the end of August or beginning of September. In that event it is quite probable that elections in the Ontario constituencies with unorganized districts would be deferred. The seats are now all held by Conservatives. Under the statute, the lists for these districts are to be revised annually, between August 1st and October 15, unless otherwise ordered by special proclamation. The latter appears in Saturday's 'Canada Gazette' and it fixes the time for revision between July 18 and September. 18. This is significant of what is coming.
I would ask whether there is any truth in this article, whether it is the intention of the government, in the event of an election coming on immediately, to defer the elections in the northern part of Ontario. There is absolutely no need for doing so, the people of northern Ontario should have exactly the same rights as any other citizens of Canada. They have already been put to the trouble of having special lists prepared where the ordinary lists are quite sufficient. I spoke to the enumerators in my own district after the last revision, and I found that in seven polling subdivisions there were only two changes, and these two were of men moving from one polling subdivision to another. It is also true that large numbers were added in bush polls. The Ontario lists are prepared on a far better system than the enumeration made by this government. There is absolutely no reason, legal or otherwise for deferring the elections in northern Ontario. The people of northern Ontario are willing to have an election, we are prepared to go to the country on the issue now before parliament, but we desire to have an absolutely fair chance.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is absolutely no occasion for such a question. My hon. friend knows that the election when it takes place, in northern Ontario, and everywhere else, will take place according to law.


Mr. CURRIE (North Simcoe).: The answer of the Prime Minister appears to me to be entirely non-committal, it does not convey anything. The right hon. gentleman was asked if the elections would be

held in the ridings in northern Ontario before the lists were prepared. His answer was that the elections would be held according to law. What we want to know is: Will the elections in those ridings be held before the lists are prepared, or will the elections be deferred-yes or no? If the elections are going to be deferred, the Prime Minister can take refuge in the quibble that that is according to the law; but if it is according to law it is not according to justice, and I think, in justice to the House, and the country he should state distinctly whether the elections in those Tidings are going to be held at the same time as the other elections, or are they going to be deferred?


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend knows that under the statutes elections can be deferred in certain constituencies and not in others. The constituencies of northern Ontario are not among those in which the elections can be deferred.


Mr. BARKER.: I wish to call the Prime Minister's attention to important changes which have taken place in east and west Hamilton since the last election. I called the attention of the Secretary of State to this months ago, because it seemed to me that it was necessary that some legislation should be passed to remedy what may be an evil. Since the last election there has been taken from the county of Wentworth and added to Hamilton West a considerable district, and a considerable population. In East Hamilton there have been other changes of perhaps much greater extent. There has been taken from the county and added to the city what was perhaps equal to 50 per cent of the old riding of Hamilton East. The description of Hamilton East as it is in the Revised Statutes is made impossible to' be understood. According to the statute Hamilton East consists of wards 1, 6 and 7. There is another ward added now, and wards 1, 6, 7 and 8 constitute Hamilton East; but ward 7 as it is referred to in the statute no longer exists; it has been cut in two, and one-half of the old ward 7 remains as ward 7. The other half of ward 7 and the new district from the_ country now constitute ward 8. According to the reading of the statute, all of ward 8 is out of Hamilton East. Then, a part of ward 7 having been put into ward 8, the people so removed into ward 8 are probably disfranchised. When I called the attention of the Secretary of State to this matter before Christmas, the answer I got from him was that there would be a redistribution before another election, and, therefore, no immediate legislation was necessary. I understand that the position is somewhat reversed to-day, and that we are likely to have an election before a redistribution, and, therefore, I think the matter should
receive the attention of the government, because it may cause a serious difficulty in the three districts-the county of Wentworth and the two Hamiltons.


Wilfrid Laurier: I would like to know exactly what my hon. friend means. The ridings of Hamilton have been settled and decided by legislation of this parliament, As I understand, the new legislation to which he refers is legislation of the province of Ontario, and I do not see what effect it can have upon our own definition of our own ridings.


Samuel Barker: The Revised Statutes simply declare that wards 1, 6 and 7 under the laws of Ontario constitute Hamilton East.


Wilfrid Laurier: As they then existed.


Samuel Barker: Ward 7 is not at all the same area that it was in 1906. Then where is ward 8?


Wilfrid Laurier: They are exactly where they were when our statutes were passed. They cannot be changed by any legislation of Ontario.


Samuel Barker: I doubt that very much, and there is a great difference of opinion upon it. When in 1907 changes were made in the districts of Alberta and Saskatchewan this government immediately passed an Act amending the Revised Statutes in regard to thoise districts. Our statute speaks of ward 7, not as having particular dimensions, but as ward 7. Read that statute to-day, a statute is read as now speaking, and it refers to ward 7 as ward 7 is. I take it, that would be the legal effect of it, and ward 7 now omits a large portion of what was ward 7 in 1906. That portion, together with an addition from the county, is now ward 8. Those people from the county are not assessed in the county of Wentworth, and cannot take the oath as being residents of that country, because they 'are residents of Hamilton. I submit, with all respect to the right hon. gentleman, that therp is great need of making this matter _ perfectly clear so that there will be no dispute as to what those constituencies consist of.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In that particular case, who would be authorized to divide the voters in that portion of the city which was originally in the county of Wentworth? The Act provides that it shall be done by the municipal authorities. Who would be authorized to divide the voters and establish the new polling subdivisions?


Wilfrid Laurier: But for the authority of my hon. friend from Hamilton, who is a legal light, and for whose judgment I have great respect, I should say

that there is no question at all in this matter that the riding of Hamilton or West Hamilton to-day exists just as it existed when the statute was passed in 1906.


Mr. MACLEAN (York).: I have had considerable experience in the matter, and I must agree with the right hon. the Prime Minister. The impression has been in the ridings _ I have been interested in that the riding is, what it was on the day the statute was passed and it has been left to the returning officer in conjunction with one of the government officials to divide up the voters lists.



WAYS AND MEANS-THE IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr FIELDING moved that the House go into committee of Ways and Means.
['If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Boyce) reiterates in .spite of what I said that I attempted to mislead the House, I have only to give that statement an unqualified denial.']
Frederick Debartzch Monk: I regret to intrude upon the discussion of matter which appears to be not yet exhausted, but I think I am justified in presenting to the House the motion which I have in my hand respecting another matter not less important- a matter which I think deserves the immediate consideration of the House.
Hon. members will recollect that not many weeks ago we adjourned for the purpose of allowing my right hon. friend the Prime Minister to attend two very important functions in England, the Coronation of His Majesty King George and the Imperial Conference. I think the House agreed unanimously that it was absolutely necessary to suspend work here, and permit my right hon. friend and his two colleagues, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) and. the Minister of Militia (Mr. Borden) to attend these functions. That conference has taken place and decisions of the utmost importance to our country have been arrived at, . As the House is aware the policy of the Dominion is largely directed according to the decisions arrived at by our ministers attending these conferences. It seems to me this alone would be a sufficient reason to justify us in knowing what proceedings took iplace .at the conference and what decisions were arrived at. I will even go so far as to say that I think it would be out of place for an assembly such as ours, not to show some solicitude under the circumstances as to exactly what conclusions were arrived at by the conference. If the presence of our ministers was absolutely necessary there, if numerous decisions were arrived at on questions which greatly affect the future policy of this country, it seems to me that these ministers should be anxious to place before the House the result of what transpired during the sittings of this conference. Delegates to a meeting of this kind act under ministerial responsibility. They are responsible to the House Sir WILFRID LAURIER
for the opinions they give at these gatherings, and for the votes they cast. Under the circumstances I think it behooves them, upon their return, to give the House a full, complete and sincere account of all the transactions of the meeting.
There has been an impression existing that the meetings of the conference are private. That is not by any means correct. It is sufficient to refer to the precis of the meetings of the conference, which was placed before the British House of Commons last June, to see that that is not the decision of the conference. The question of the procedure at the meeting came up for decision on March 23rd, and the proceedings of the conference on the point will be found at page 10 o<f the precis. It was decided that the deliberations would be private but the decisions would be published. As a matter of fact the decisions were communicated to the public press, and formed the basis of this precis, which contains many subjects of great interest to the House of Commons, and it is a matter of surprise to me that my right hon. friend and his colleagues have not found it possible to lay a similar resume before this House. There is no valid reason, so far as I can see, why we should not have had such a resume and a report of the proceedings of the conference. My right hon friend the Prime Minister admitted in this House the other day that we were entitled to have such a report, and told us that we would have it shortly. Hon. members will find in this precis numerous decisions concerning the declaration of London-a point of controversy most interesting to ourselves and to the entire British Empire. It also contains the decisions of the conference in reference to 35 or 40 other subjects of general interest. However, what I wish to point out to the House is that the precis in question throws no light whatever on naval or military matters. There is not a man in this House who will deny that these are matters of the most vital importance, or that they have been the subject of acute controversy throughout the country since the Imperial Conference on defence held in 1909. The matter was discussed at that conference and at the subsidiary conference held during the summer of 1909, and a new policy was agreed upon; yet there is scarcely any allusion to the important decisions arrived at upon these matters. The reason for the withholding of this information appears to be that military matters and naval matters were deliberated upon in the Conference of Imperial Defence, sitting apart from the conference, but there is proof abundant that the decisions of that committee were brought before the conference, submitted to it and approved by it.
Let me briefly refer to these allusions. At page 11, the president, the right hon.

Prime Minister (Mr. Asquith) in defining the procedure to be adopted at the conference gave indications of how the proceedings would be had in regard to these important matters:
Mr. Asquith explained that naval and military matters would be discussed in the Committee of Imperial Defence where they would have the advantage of the presence of experts. Certain other technical matters it would probably he found desirable not to bring before the conference until after preliminary discussion by the representatives of the Dominion governments interested with the departments of His Majesty's government immediately concerned.
Then there is a short reference, at page 79, to the reports of the committee on defence. It is stated that:
The conference received and approved the report of the committee on Military Imperial Defence, which had held two sittings in the War Office under the chairmanship of the chief of the general staff.
Finally, closing the proceedings, the right hon. Prime Minister, president of the conference spoke as follows:
So again our discussions, conducted also and necessarily under the same veil of confidence in regard to co-operation for naval and mill-tary purposes, have resulted, I think, in a most satisfactory agreement, which, while it recognizes our common obligations, at the same time acknowledges with equal clearness that those obligations must be performed in the different parts of the empire in accordance with the requirements of local opinion and local need and local circumstances.
Now, what I submit to this House is that there is no possible question as to the right and propriety of parliament to be informed on military and naval agreements which may have modified in some respects- in important respects-the agreements arrived at in 1909, and which have been communicated, as properly they should be, to this House. Surely, the right, the absolute necessity, of parliament being informed of these decisions and agreements cannot be called in question. We have the control of our own military matters; we furnish the money with which the whole militia of this country is maintained; what navy it is proposed we shall have is to be built with the people of Canada's money: and it seems to me there can be no possible reason for refusing to this House the full details of the agreements and arrangements made at this conference which will be the foundation of the policy of this country in respect of these two most important matters. It would not be pretended for a moment, I suppose, that these matters fall into the category of war secrets, of state affairs; that they are to be assimilated to undisclosed plans of mobilization on sea or land, plans of foTtifica- 1 tions or any of these matters which under 1
common agreement, under the law of every country are kept absolutely secret. These are agreements of a public nature, given over to the people of the great British dependencies, discussed in their parliaments; and surely nobody will pretend that we are to be refused communication of these decisions arrived at, for instance, on status with regard to the Imperial Admiralty authorities. But the conduct of my right hon. friend and his friends indicates that they have that intention; and I wish, for my part, to know if the House will uphold them in carrying out that intention.
The arrival of my right hon. friend and his colleagues returning from the conference was heralded throughout the ministerial press of this country, and details were given as to what had been transacted at that conference. Indeed, long before the conference was ended, the Ministerial press and other newspapers handed out to the public information respecting the decisions of the conference, which, under the circumstances, it seems to me, it is our right to have corrected. We have the right too to have before parliament the decisions arrived at on the matters laid before that important gathering. As early as the 26th of May, the 'Montreal Herald,' the official organ of the government in Montreal, said:
The difficult problems of the immediate authority of generals and imperial admirals, upon the armies and navies of the empire in time of war.	,
Surely, if that question has been solved at the conference, we are entitled to know in what sense it has been solved.	A
despatch appearing in the 'Star' of the 15th of June, stated that at Pontypool in England, the right hon. the First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. McKenna, .stated that at that conference 'most satisfactory arrangements had been concluded between the colonies and the British government, and that the dominions had united in order to furnish and maintain the necessary means of defence.
But it is in the ministerial press of this country more particularly that we have an interpretation beforehand of what was done at the conference, and in a sense, I submit to the House, at absolute variance to what is disclosed by this short precis which has reached us since the conference. Let me give some idea to the House of how public opinion, at any rate in my own province, and I think very much in the same way everywhere, has been instructed in regard to the decisions of the conference. Just as my right hon. friend arrived, a special souvenir album was published in the city of Montreal, giving to the public the transactions of the conference, and bestowing unstinted praise upon my right hon. friend because, at the

1010S
conference, and so to speak alone, he withstood all those who were inclined to imperial confederation, those who would attack the autonomy of the dependencies. This article was reproduced with approval on the 13th of July, by ' Le Canada.' in Montreal, the ministerial organ. Let me give to the House some samples of the statements that are made there, and I think when the House reads these statements which have never been controverted in any way by the right hon. gentleman, they will agree that we are entitled to have the true version of what took place at that gathering. I will now read from ' Le Canada
Upon the occasion of the return of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, a souvenir album has been issued which contains a substantial article upon the work and career of the Prime Minister. We reproduce the following:
This popular ovation is but the just return for the work accomplished by Sir Wilfrid Laurier during his entire political life, and which he has just magnificently crowned at London, of work of harmony, of peace and of progress.
Speaking of one of the proposals made at the conference, the paper says:
Another proposal which at first sight seemed most attractive hut in reality was fraught with danger, well understood by Sir Wilfrid, was the suggestion that the Imperial government should consult the dominions upon its foreign policy. . . A painful and even perilous situation which Sir Wilfrid, ever solicitous of the minutest particle of our perfect autonomy, wished to preserve us against, and he succeeded as well as on the preceding occasions.
Does my right hon. friend find this report exact and correct? The precis shows us that my right hon. friend took at the conference an absolutely different position from that which is laid to his credit in these lines of his own newspaper. Does he not admit that under those circumstances we are entitled to have the true version of the proceedings at that gathering? My right hon. friend knows perfectly well, in the first place, that no attempt was made, so far at least as the precis shows, to invade our autonomy. My right hon. friend did not on any occasion stand alone, and he acquiesced absolutely in a proposal under which a consultation of the Dominions should take place. Does my right hon. friend deny that? He admits it. How then can he take unto himself, as he is given in this newspaper, and in many other in our own province, credit for having withstood the adoption of a proposal which he himself acceded to very williingly? Continuing ' Le Canada ' says:
We now come to the naval questions discussed at the conference. These questions have for us a lively interest, inasmuch as they permit us to better appreciate in what spirit the Canadian navy was created.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If that is a question of a lively interest for us why should the conclusions of the conference be withheld from us? Why should they not be given to us at once, as I maintain that the government should give them to us? The paper continues:
At a preceding conference, a discussion took place as to the share which each dominion would take in general defence. Canadian representatives had objected to every proposal of direct contribution, and, in general way to any control exercised by the metropolis on the Canadian parliament which must remain, according to them, masters and free to decide in the matter.
The Canadian parliament, in 1910, approved of the creation of a naval service as the best and only means of contributing to the general defence without breaking local autonomy, that is to say, to take unto the charge of Canada gradually, the defence of its own territory. It is in this very sense that the government presented its Naval Bill, that parliament adopted it by its Liberal majority, that Liberal speakers and the Liberal press favourable to the project explained it to the people.
Shameless adversaries, desirous to gain some party advantage upon a question so near to the nation's heart have tried to falsify the meaning of the measure, some using it as a proof of disloyalty and treason, others in denouncing it as imperalism and death to our race. These dishonest and blind talkers have now exhausted their prose and comments; the people, a moment disturbed by their noise, now knows the matter in its conception and principle. They know that the government has not deceived them. Their last doubts have vanished during this conference of 1911, wherein the autonomous character of our navy has been marked in indelible manner.
In order to set at rest all question as to the freedom of action of our navy and the control which we intend exercising upon it, Sir Wilfrid has established a free maritime zone both on the Atlantic and the Pacific, which zone shall be absolutely under our care.
In this is the confirmation authentic, definite and unanswerable of our autonomy in regard to our navy.
There was also the question of the flags. What will be our naval flag? It was strictly necessary in order to accredit us in the different seas of the world, and with foreign countries that we should carry the ensign of the English navy:
Canada, whilst gradually conquering the attributes of a nation, is not yet quite, in the eyes of other countries, an independent nation. But while maintaining its character of a British possession, Canada will hoist its flag upon its navy.
The Canadian navy will use, at the same time, the white ensign which will procure for its ships the freedom of all the seas, and the flag with the Canadian arms. In the British navy, there are the White Ensign and the Union Jack; in the Canadian navy the latter will be replaced by a flag with our arms.
The drift of these decisions is obvious; they settle the field of action of our navy, and the flag which must be unfurled at our masthead.

It affirms our autonomy and the perfect cou-trol which we exercise over it. . .


Mr. DEVLIN.: Will the hon. gentleman allow me a question? Is the hon. member opposed to the attitude taken by the right hon. the leader of the government before the Imperial Conference?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If my hon. friend (Mr. Devlin) will give me the decisions arrived at by that conference, I will say what I think of the attitude of the right hon. gentleman. I am sorry that my hon. friend does not quite understand the gist of my argument.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: If the hon. member declares he is not a dissentient, what is he objecting to in connection with the attitude of the Prime Minister?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Objecing to nothing; 1 am asking for something that I know the House will sanction and it is a reasonable and legitimate demand. I am not going for a single moment to discuss the merits of the question.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: If the attitude of the Prime Minister is such as has been declared in the press is the hon. gentleman in favour of it?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Well, that is a hypothetical question. It seems to me that we have held sufficient public meetings in Quebec, to many of which I saw my hon. friend come as a spectator, to enable him to know what our opinion is.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Answer, answer.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Without discussing the merits of the question, will anybody deny having regard to the justice of what I am claiming we should be refused fo'r a single moment information as to the decisions arrived at by the conference upon these two very important points? We know what was the decision arrived at with regard to naval matters in 1909. The right hon. gentleman told us, when he introduced the Naval Bill, that the object he had in view was to carry out the policy of the conference of 1909. Surely, when a conference has been held since and these matters have been touched upon, when we are told that a further solution has been arrived at, we are entitled at this moment and under these circumstances, on the eve of a dissolution of this House, when it is in the power of these hon. gentlemen to give it to us, to have this report upon these questions. We have stated time and again upon every occasion in the meetings we have held in our province that we were prepared upon all these questions to accept the verdict of the people of this country. What we claimed was that the people were entitled to such a consultation. No position could be franker, could be fairer and in face of
the calumnious statements which have been circulated, I think it necessary to recall the attitude to which we have constantly adhered. I believe that we have in the past received the support of those who sit around me here upon this side of the House in our insistence upon the right of the people to pronounce upon these questions. Will the right hon. gentleman state in the House that it was not possible for him to lay that report before the House upon his arrival? Were not the proceedings of the conference taken down as ,its sittings proceeded? Did Sir Wilfrid Laurier state to the House the other day that he had taken any step whatever to procure that report for communication to our parliament?	In answer to the last
question I put to the right hon. gentleman on this subject, he said in a scoffing manner that I knew as much about it as he did himself. If the right hon. gentleman today, when these proceedings have been fully transcribed, cabled to have them, we could have them here and have a copy laid before the House before the adjournment. Will the right hon. gentleman deny that? We could have them within a week and they could be laid before the House. The right hon. gentleman stated the other day that as far as he knew they were on the way out. The right hon. gentleman seems to have lost consciousness of the fact that the House unanimously adjourned in order that he should represent us at that important gathering. Nothing whatever in his conduct shows that he took any steps whatever to bring to us a report of what he did there. He returned to the House, took his seat in this House, he gave no statement whatever of what had been done at that conference, and he only learned from those members sititing on our own side that the precis had arrived. I am loth to believe that the two ministers most directly interested, the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden) and the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) have come back without notes of what was decided with regard to their own departments. Every day the proceedings were written up and placed in the hands of the delegates. Why should we not have the decisions arrived at in regard to those zones. We are going to be called upon in a few days, to vote the beginning of vast sums of money for naval purposes. Will the right hon. gentleman pretend that these definitions of zones are private matters? The House is aware that it was an open question for over twenty years in the important dependency of Australia. First, the delimitations of the zones were fixed for the Commonwealth of Australia and a subscription of, I think 1100,000 sterling was granted. That zone was continued for some years then it was altered, the amount of the sub-

scription was 'altered and then the zone was altered again. There never was any thought at any time that this was a secret matter; it was laid before the parliament of this dependency and was discussed, everything was published and above board. Why should not we be made aware of the decisions which were arrived at upon these subjects, when it is absolutely in the power of the government to give us this report and when we are entitled to it? I therefore move:
That all the words after the word * that ' in the main motion he erased and replaced by the following:
That in the opinion of this House a complete report of the proceedings of the Imperial Conference of 1911 should be communicate!! to parliament forthwith.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker, to a great many of the propositions which have been asserted by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) 1 have no exception at all to take. In many statements which he has made I altogether concur. With the statement which he has made that the House is entitled to be apprised of what took place at the conference I altogether agree. With the statement which he made that myself and my colleagues, when we represented Canada at the conference, acted upon our ministerial responsibility, I also altogether agree. My action is not to-day before the House. It will be, I hope, before many days. The report of the conference will be placed not only before this House but before the Canadian people and then it will be open to the criticism of every one of His Majesty's subjects in this country. I may say to my hon. friend that I have no intention whatever of shirking the responsibility which I incurred on that occasion. The duties with which I was entrusted, I discharged to the best of my ability and judgment and so did my colleague. My action may command the approval of some; it may suggest the criticism of others. That is incidental to the duties which I had to discharge upon that occasion and to the duty which I have to discharge whenever I act in my present capacity.
And, therefore, upon this occasion my hon. friend has laid down a principle which lies at the base of parliamentary government. He only finds fault with me because the proceedings of the conference have not been laid before parliament. The objection of my hon. friend would have greater force if he could say that the Canadian Ministers who had attended the conference had been in any way derelict in the duty they owe to parliament in this respect. If the report of the conference had been placed' before the Imperial House of Commons, and not before this House, my hon. friend would Mr. MONK.
have legitimate cause for complaint, but, Sir, the fact is that at this moment I have no reason to believe that the report has yet been placed before'the Imperial parliament so surely no one in this House can blame this government because the report has not been placed on the table of this House.


Mr. LANCASTER.: I would blame tire government if it had been given to the newspapers instead of to this House.


Wilfrid Laurier: What newspapers have got the report? Here is the report which has been obtained by the newspapers, it is the precis and nothing else.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is our obtaining the report of the conference contingent upon its being laid before the British parliament?


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend and every member will expect that the full report of the conference will be placed before all the parliaments represented at that conference. The organization of the conference was under the control of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and the officers of the Colonial Office were the secretaries of the conference; it was they who prepared the precis to which my hon. friend has alluded and who were charged with preparing the full report. At page 78 of the precis will be found the report of the sitting of June 20.
The conference discussed the question of the publication of the proceedings and decided they should be published at as early date as possible.
The publication of these proceedings was entrusted not to the representatives of Canada or any other Dominion, but to the officers of the Colonial Office.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Are we dependent for that report of the conference upon what may be done at the Colonial Office? Have we not an inherent right to these proceedings?


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend surprises me. Somebody must do that clerical work.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Where did the newspapers get the report?


Wilfrid Laurier: I am sure I cannot answer that question, they did not get it from me.


William Findlay Maclean: The precis was made and published in London, it was distributed among the press.


Wilfrid Laurier: The other day my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) brought to the attention of the House a statement that the proceedings of i- the conference had been placed before the

Imperial parliament. I was surprised at this, but it turned out that it was the precis which had been placed before the British House of Commons.


William Findlay Maclean: Who prepared that?


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Just, now Sir Arthur Just.


William Findlay Maclean: Was he an official at the conference?


Wilfrid Laurier: An official of the Colonial Office, and placed in charge of the reporting of the proceedings by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. He prepared the precis which was given to the press every day, and which has now been published in book form. My hon. friend (Mr. Monk), is anxious to have not only this partial report, but the full report of the proceedings. His motion specifically calls for the full report, and I have read the decision of the conference to have that full report published at as early a date as possible. It is not my business or the business of my colleagues who were at the conference with me to arrange for the publication of that report.


William Findlay Maclean: It is his business to see that equal treatment is accorded to Canada and the other portions of the empire in the distribution of that report.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is exactly what I say, that if there had been any dereliction on our part hon. gentlemen would have a right to complain, but nothing of that kind has taken place.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Do I understand that we must wait until the report is placed on the table of the Imperial House?


Wilfrid Laurier: 
Frederick Debartzch Monk: You won't give us what we want.


Wilfrid Laurier: This is not the time nor the occasion to discuss the question, but the time will not be long coming, I hope, and it will come sooner than my hon. friend wants. My hon. friend has not waited for the report to discuss it He has discussed it, and has condemned my course. This is not the time to discuss this question; but, Sir, I appeal to the fairness and the common sense of men on both sides of this House. Here is a motion in the form of a motion of want of_confidence, asking the House to censure us-for what? Because we have not put upon the table of the House a report which we have not, a report which has not yet been placed upon the table of the House of Commons in England so far as I know. I will make inquiry this very day whether it has been or not. If it had been placed on the table of the House of Commons in England, I suppose I would know that, because there would have been a despatch coming to us informing us of the fact.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Did my hon. friend cable
for it?


Wilfrid Laurier: I did not, but I will. I shall be happy to give that pleasure to my hon. friend. I shall have the pleasure of discussing that report with my hon. friend as soon as it is laid on the table of the House, and the sooner it comes the better for myself. But, I ask, has there been any undue delay in the matter on the part of the government? Who is to blame because this report is not on the table of the House? Is the Canadian House of Commons entitled to greater privilege than the Imperial House of Commons?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We are entitled to exactly the same privilege.


Wilfrid Laurier: Exactly-what I say also; and when the report is placed on the table of the Imperial House of Commons, if it is not placed on the table of this House, then my hon friend will have reason to complain, but not till then.


Robert Laird Borden: I entirely agree with the Prime Minister that the attitude



of the government at the conference ought to be discussed with full information as to what did take place. I am not at all advised as to the differences which may make themselves manifest when we have the full report as distinguished from the precis. It may be that they will be important, though I would not have supposed they would be, because otherwise the precis itself would be misleading. I think it would be advisable in the meantime that the precis itself, which has been received, should be placed on the table of the House and become a part of the records of this parliament; and, as I understand, there is no objection to that.
Now, reference has been made to newspaper 'Comments. I do not propose to go into the merits of those comments, for the reason that I have already indicated. But I think it is a matter of some concern to this parliament as to whether or not certain reports of what was done at the conference, *which have appeared in the organs of the right hon. gentleman, have any foundation in fact or not. The right hon. gentleman says he did not communicate that information to those organs. It is perfectly manifest that they must have obtained the information either from himself or from some of his colleagues, because there was no one else to give it. There has been a good deal of reference to zones established on both the Atlantic and Pacific, and I think it is legitimate comment that the information in regard to those zones appears in the party press under the control of the right hon. gentleman, though it is not laid before parliament, and that its appearance in that press is for the purpose of assisting a political campaign on his behalf. I submit that that is not a fair use for any minister of the Crown to make of his position and of the confidential information which is given to him. I say that any member of that conference who uses his confidential position for the purpose of imparting to his party press confidential information of that kind for the purposes of a political campaign is not worthy of the position he occupies.
As far as the rest of it is concerned, I do not propose to deal with the question upon its merits, for the reason the Prime Minister has stated, that there may be important differences between the report which we have now and the full report which is to come later. We once more see the Prime Minister, according to his party press, in the well-recognized, but rather threadbare garb of the saviour of the autonomy of Canada. It is impossible for the right hon. gentleman to cross the Atlantic without saving the autonomy of Canada. He has been there in 1897, in 1902, and in 1907, and on every one of those occasions he came back after having saved the autonomy of this country.


Robert Laird Borden: 


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: It did not make any difference whether Balfour and Chamberlain were there, or whether Asquith and Haldane were there; it did not matter whether Selborne, Tweedmouth or McKenna were there; every one of these men was ready to destroy the autonomy of this country. That is the position that is cheered by hon. gentlemen opposite. If we are to believe these organs, Premier Asquith, Mr. Haldane, Sir Edward Grey, and all the other British statesmen at the recent conference were conspiring to destroy the autonomy of Canada, and the right hon. gentleman saved it; and the cheers which came from hon. gentlemen opposite just now indicate the character of the campaign which they propose to make. Well, Mr. Speaker, perhaps we had better have a little information later on as to what the assault was which Mr. Asquith, the great Liberal Prime Minister of Great Britain, made on the autonomy of Canada. The Prime Minister will no doubt make us acquainted with that later on.


Wilfrid Laurier: Both parties will have seen that Mr. Asquith was saving the autonomy of Canada.	[DOT]


Robert Laird Borden: Then the right hon. gentleman should rebuke his supporters, because just now they cheered to the echo the statement that Mr. Asquith, the Liberal Prime Minister of Great Britain had been engaged in a conspiracy to destroy the autonomy of this country. Not only did the supporters of my "right hon. friend cheer this statement, but a member of the government, the Solicitor General (Mr. Bureau) also wildly cheered it. I suppose Mr. Haldane, Mr. Lloyd George, Mr. Winston Churchill and the other distinguished members of the British government were all concerned in this awful conspiracy from which the right hon. gentleman with his sword 'and his shield, and his white plume saved the autonomy of Canada.
I have got down as far as 1907, and on every one of these occasions the autonomy of Canada has been preserved by the Prime Minister. It must be pretty well preserved -iso much so that I think it might foe put away in cold storage for a while, so far as debate is concerned. In 1909 the right hon. gentleman did .not personally pave thd autonomy of Canada, but he did it toy deputy. He deputed my hon. friend the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden), and my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur); and the autonomy of Canada was saved by deputy, and not by the right hon. gentleman in person. In 1911 the right hon. gentleman- was again to the tore, and I would think that my hon. friends opposite would

be grateful to us on this side of the House, because, as every one in this country knows, the right hon. gentleman did not intend to go, and did not want to go, and ' would not have gone had it not been for the offer that was made from this side of the House. So, so far as the efforts of thought hon. gentleman on this occasion are concerned, the opposition may be regarded as the direct and proximate cause of the saving of Canada. Perhaps this particular cry has about survived the usefulness which it has served on so many occasions. At all events, when we get the information which the right hon. gentleman promised us we shall learn what was the real character of the bloodthirsty assaults upon the autonomy of Canada made by the Prime Minister of Great Britain and his colleagues.


William Findlay Maclean: I have before me the London ' Times ' of Saturday July 15, which deals with the Imperial Conference report. In it I find the following:
The issue yesterday afternoon of the minutes of proceedings of the Imperial Conference. 1911 (cd. 5745) come opportunely, before the conference itself has passed from memory, and when the last overseas member of it lias only just left our shores, to remind us of the great issues debated in it, and the real work it accomplished tow ards the knitting together of the empire. The blue book contains a verbatim report of the proceedings of the conference, which have hitherto been published only in the condensed form of the official precis; but as was expected, it includes no record of the joint session of the conference and the committee of defence.
This blue-book was issued in London on July 15th, eleven days ago, and contains a, verbatim report of the proceedings. Yet, Canada is not in possession of that blue-book to day; and, so far as the right hon. gentleman is concerned, he has never seen it. Now, there should have been equal treatment meted out to Canada in that respect, and if London was supplied with copies of that blue-book, why was not an arrangement made whereby a certain number of them should be sent over here?


Wilfrid Laurier: If the report has been placed upon the table of the House, I have no doubt it is now on its way here.


William Findlay Maclean: It was placed on the table in London on the 15th July, eleven days ago. There is a two column summary of the blue-book in this article, and hon. gentlemen can derive a good deal of information as to how much progress was made in the direction of imperial unity at that conference by reading this summary. This progress may have been made with the aid of the right hon. gentleman- perhaps it was made in spite of him. Any way the reading of these proceedings is 3194
satisfactory, and notwithstanding what was done to disturb the unity of that conference and to prevent its drawing the empire together, it was a most successful conference, according to this report, and it shows in what direction the empire is reeving.
The other day the hon. Postmaster General referred to what had taken place in this conference in regard to state ownership of telegraphs and cables, but I am not able to find in the summary of that report that the representatives of Canada at that conference joined with the representatives of Australia in favour of public ownership of cables and telegraphs. If they had done so perhaps we would have had it. It was probably because we had as representatives there, men who were more or less reactionary that a decision was not reached in favour o'f state ownership of cables.
In order that the House may have full information as to what took place there, I propose to read part of the summary of the minutes of proceedings of the Imperial Conference:



[Stage Direction]
On June 15 and 16 the conference devoted itself mainly to considering proposals for the improvement of communications between the various parts of tbe empire. In this Australia and New Zealand, as farthest from the centre, were especially concerned, and were agreed on one point-that communication by cable should be made less difficult and less expensive. Since an improvement in this direction had been made ten years ago by tbe laying of a state-owned cable across the Pacific (which lowered rates to Australia by nearly 40 per cent), it was natural to suggest that a similar state owned cable across the Atlantic would produce a similar effect.
A state-owned cable across the Atlantic would reduce telegraph rates by 40 per cent, yet, so far as I know the representatives of Canada did not insist on that proposal being carried out nor on the state-owned cable across the Atlantic being constructed by Canada by Great Britain or by the United States jointly. When the hon. Postmaster General gave us his account of the proceedings the other day, he did not give us all the facts because I find:
The British Postmaster General, however, brought forward another plan, depending partly on negotiations with the private companies that own existing cables-such as, he pointed out, are already securing a 50 per cent reduction in the cost of uncoded messages: partly on the establishment of effective government control over rates charged on lines which land on British territory. The Australasian representatives were still inclined to press for a state-owned cable, but were persuaded by the other members of the conference to accept a compromise whereby, if Mr. Samuel's methods did not secure consid

[Stage Direction]
erable reductions, the state-owned cable could still be advocated at a subsidiary conference.
My contention is this-if the representatives of Canada had backed up the representatives of Australia we would have had state owned cables on the Atlantic, and a resulting reduction of 40 per cent in the cost of cable messages.
In order to show how much progress has been made I would like to read another paragraph relating to the results of the conference.
But these somewhat ineffective discussions were immediately followed by a striking demonstration of the empire's real unity. For three days the overseas members of the conference, sitting with the Committee of Imperial Defence, were initiated into the secrets of Britain's foreign policy
[Stage Direction]
There is Imperial progress. The representatives of the various overseas dominions, were, for the first time, made parties to the foreign policy of the Empire.
' Hitherto,' said the Australian Prime Minister, at a later date, ' we have been negotiating with the government of the United Kingdom at the portals of the household.'
You have thought it wise. Sir, to take the representatives of the dominions into the inner councils of the nation. . . I think no better step has ever been taken or Can be taken by any responsible advisers of the King. I hope, as I feel, that there will be no going back on that sound principle.
And the summary goes on to say:
It is unnecessary here to dwell on the arrangement of ideas about the empire which must have preceded the taking of this step; but it must exert considerable influence both on the status of Dominion cabinets and on the scope of their discussions. No responsible Prime Minister can in future admit among his colleagues men unfit to be the depositaries of imperial secrets, and no oversea cabinet can construct its own policy without considering the effect of it upon the foreign relations of the empire as a whole.
Now, there is the first declaration of the unity of the whole empire, a joining of the empire for purposes of defen ie and the maintenance of the common cause; and that fact alone shows how important that Imperial Conference was, what great results have been attained and what greater results will come in the future when it is better established and there is a better understanding between the different members. Now, when there is so fuLl a summary of these proceedings and when the full report has been published in London, I contend that we in Canada ought to be put in possession of the facts and ougnt to have that official report at the disposal of this House, and this country as soon as they have it in London, less the days it takes to cross the Atlantic. If the 'Tim;s' cm have that report and digest it, and if there Mr. MACLEAN (York).
is time for that newspaper summary to reach us, we are entitled to have the full official report here at the same time. In fact it ought to be here a little before, because it could leave before the ' Times ' got it. But we know nothing about it; the Prime Minister does not even know whether it has been printed. Perhaps the gentlemen in the colonial office still regard Canada as a colony as in the old days of Downing street. It would be a good thing to wake them up and give them to understand that in handing out these documents Canada is not to be forgotten. The way to work that out was for those who represented us in the conference to have made arrangements before the conference separated that copies of the proceedings should be forwarded to this country. And I hold that it is the duty of the Prime Minister to set the cables at work so that this House may be put in possession of this document which was distributed in London eleven days ago.
Mr. HAGGART (Lanark).: The question now before the House is one of importance. The right hon. Prime Minister was appointed to go to the Imperial Conference as the representative of Canada, and tile House adjourned for the very purpose of allowing him to go. His first duty on returning here was to give a full report of the proceedings. He says it has not been printed. Well, it ought to have been printed. The precis was printed from day to day and every newspaper in London knew what was going on every day. And, at the end of the conference it was complete. I heard reports about what action the right hon. gentleman had taken in the conference, and i wanted to be fully informed upon the subject. 1 spoke to Mr. Foster about it and he told me he had a copy of the precis. I 'asked him where he got it. He said, ' I am entitled to it -as a privy councillor, an-d I went and got it.' He was in possession of it on the 11th July. It is now the 25th of July, and we have no information before the House on this subject. That is a ridiculous position. But it is the same as in many other things, this parliament is completely ignored by the government. Surely, it is a matter that concerns Canada more than anything else-the arrangements made by the government of this Dominion in reference to imperial matters. It is no excuse for the right hon, gentleman to say that the report has not been printed in London. He ought to have seen that it was printed. But had he made inquiries ne would have known that it was printed and at the disposal of every newspaper in London. The right hon. gentleman shakes bis head


Wilfrid Laurier: The precis was printed, but the other was not.


John Graham Haggart: Is the right hon. gentleman certain about tnat?


Wilfrid Laurier: I am certain of one thing, we have not yet received it.


John Graham Haggart: I was very anxious to get the information, and 1 have already shown that my colleague had secured possession of it. Livery one in London knew about it and knew of the position taken by the right hon. gentleman who represented Canada in the matter. It was public knowledge in London, yet fourteen days after that we have no information on the subject presented to this House.


Robert Laird Borden: The right hon. gentleman will


Wilfrid Laurier: I may say to my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) that His Excellency the Governor General has been away. He is due here to-night. If the information has come, I shall know from His Exceellency and will communicate it to the House to-morrow. I do not think, however, that anything has come yet. So far as I have been able to follow the article in the ' Times ' it is the precis-


William Findlay Maclean: No, the full report. The price is given at which the public can obtain it.


Robert Laird Borden: The right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) will see that he is mistaken. I have here the 'Times ' of Saturday,-July 11th, which says:
The issue yesterday afternoon of the ' Minutes of Proceedings of the Imperial Conference, 1911 ' (Cd. 5745)-
The precis is numbered 5741.
-comes opportunely before the conference itself has passed from memory, and when the last oversea member of it has only just left our shores, to remind us of the great issues debated in it and the real work it accomplished towards the knitting together of the empire. The blue-book contains a verbatim report of the proceedings of the conference, which have hitherto been published only in the condensed form of the official precis; but as was to be expected it includes no record of the joint sessions of the conference and the committee of defence.
It is apparent that it is the fuller report to which the Prime Minister alluded; therefore, we have been ten days or more without it. Last Saturday was the 22nd, and this was on the 14th, eight days before. It should have been here last Saturday.


Wilfrid Laurier: As I have said, His Excellency will be here, and if he has received it, it will 'be laid before the House to-morrow.
Amendment (Mr. Monk) negatived.


NORTHWEST SCRIP TO OLD SETTLERS.
Mr. MEIGHEN.: Before you leave the Chair, I wish to call the attention of the
Hopse to a matter that I referred to on the 14th of last December. It has relation to certain claims that have been advanced by the pioneers of western Canada for the last 38 or 40 years. When I asked the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) on the 14th of last December as to the correctness of the report that the present government had finally denied all recognition to these claimants, I at that time gave notice that as soon as possible I would bring the matter up. Consequently he will not charge me now with being an obstructionist in carrying out my word. This'is a matter, as I say, that has been more or less under dispute ever since the year 1870, consequently it has all the merits that belong to antiquity. Now the parties for whom I speak are earlier settlers of the Northwest who arrived in that country between the first days of January, 1836, and the 15th of July, 1870. Every one in the House is aware that the Northwest Territories, that is to say, the Red River country, was ceded to confederation on the 15th day of July, 1870. By that cession certain recognition was made to those who had rights of occupancy and possession in the Northwest Territories at that time. Subsequently, on the 26th of May, 1874, the recognition that was made in 1870 was altered, and a more extensive grant was made to those to whom grants had been made before, and to others by the Act 37 Vic., chap. 20. All I need to tell the House is the final result, what recognition was made, who enjoyed it, and what others were left out. In 1813 the Selkirk colony was established. Up to the time that the final settlement was adjusted on the 26th of May, 1874, settlers of many descriptions had secured rights in the Northwest Territories. They comprised five classes. There were the original Selkirk settlers themselves, there were the other British settlers, there were French Canadians, and there were the Indians and the Halfbreeds. As to the latter two classes my remarks have no bearing. There is no complaint as to the recognition by the Dominion of Canada, by what is known in law as an act of grace, of the rights of occupancy of the Halfbreeds and Indians. I will only compare the rights of the Halfbreed children that existed at that time in Manitoba with those on whose behalf I present a case this afternoon. However, as to the first three classes, a settlement was made of a very strange and arbitrary character, that is to say, as to the original Selkirk settlers, the other British settlers not of that class, and the French Canadian settlers, an arbitrary settlement was made with them. A line was drawn at the 1st of January, 1836; as to all who had arrived in the Northwest Territories prior to that time a grant of 160 acres of land was made. In the first place,

when the adjustment was first made in 1872, a grant of only 140 acres was made, and that only to the original Selkirk settlers. But by the amended Act of 1874 a final adjustment was arrived at whereby the original Selkirk settlers, the other British settlers and the French Canadians were subjected to the arbitrary settlement arrived at, those who had arrived prior to the 1st of January, 1836, obtaining a grant of 160 acres, and those who arrived subsequent to that time being utterly ignored. Not only were those who arrived between 1813 and 1836 recognized by the land grant, but their children born prior to the 15th of July, 1870, were also recognized, and they received the same grant; in fact all the lineal descendants then living were entitled under that Act to the same grant as the original settlers. Not only did the Act of the 26th of May, 1874, go that far, but what is more astonishing, it went further, it made exactly the same grant to another class who were not even born at the time the territory was ceded to confederation, namely, to the descendants of the first settlers between 1813 and 1836 who were born between the 15th of July, 1870, and the 26th of May, 1874. So the ultimate result is this, so far as it relates to the British and ' French Canadian settlers, that those who came in at first between 1813 and 1836 and their lineal descendants born up to the 15th of July, 1870, when the territory was ceded, and all born after the cession of the territory prior to the 26th of May, 1870 received from the bounty of confederation this grant of 160 acres. Why the line was drawn I am at a loss to know, why it was fixed there, or fixed at all, I am also at a loss to say. Why it should be that those whose rights of occupancy and possession accrued between 1836' and 1870 should be ignored in the settlement, is at this distance hard to understand. The records of the department, I think, will foe searched in vain for any reason why the arbitrary line was thus drawn, or why any line was drawn.
I venture further to say that the records of -such settlements in other countries will also be searched in vain to establish the principle that any line should be drawn at any period. The rights of occupancy of territory should not be differentiated as to time at all, because all -rights of occupancy are the same for different classes, whether for the early settler or the late arrival. I do not intend to press that argument just at the present stage. I want to outline the state of affairs that has resulted first. The number of claimants is not large. Of the first class, that is those who received recognition, -being actual settlers between 1813 and 1836, the number, according to the Mr. MEIGHEN.
best compiled figures-I presume they are accurate-is 244.	But of their children
and descendants born prior to the 15th July, 1870, the date of the cession, there were 477, and of those who were granted the reward of occupancy, although indeed they were not born at this time, they having been born between the 15th of July, 1870, and the 26t,h of May, 1874, there were 128. So that, summing it all up, it will be seen that to 45 per cent of those who had established rights of occupancy and-possession at the time of the cession, grants were made and to 55 per cent no recognition was given.
This matter has been brought before this and previous governments. It has been a question involving considerable irritation in the west. I wish to trace the efforts^ that have been made to secure recognition, not -so much to bring home a case against the government, but rather to present what appears to me a good argument against what is usually brought forward as establishing the absence of any" right of these present -claimants. The contention of the government, when the case was last presented to them,, -rested on two positions. . The position, first of all, was that the claim is too old-, that it is of forty years standing now, and that -at thi-s stage we cannot review it. They said, secondly, that the policy of the government is thoroughly fixed and final; we shall make no -more land grants except to actual settlers. I do not purpose at this point to criticise the last po-sition. I -aim not asking that the demands of these men, if there is at this -stage a practical objection from that point of view, should be granted in toto, as they present them. W-h-at I argue i-s that some recognition is bound to be made to them before confederation has done its duty to them. What form that shall take or to what extent it shall go,
I do not propose to argue. But I do say that Canada has not discharged her duty towards a clas-s of her citizens, a class which is entitled to, I feel fair in saying, more than ordinary consideration. Why is that the case? When the United States made a settlement of claims under -similar circumstances I know of no in-stance where they did- not recognize rights of occupancy as complete and -deserving of reward even though those rights were established but shortly before the cession. I would refer hon. gentlemen to the Oregon claims when the United States not only recognized the Indian title, not only by way of legal recognition, but also recognized every right of occupancy however brief the period was prior to the cession of the country to the United- States. A right of occupancy is a right that does not depend upon time. A right of possession to a very -great degree

is the same. But, in this particular case there is more than the usual reason why time should not be recognized even in establishing rights of possession as well as rights of occupancy It has never to the best of my knowledge, been recognized in establishing rights of occupancy.
In this case it should not have been allowed t-o interfere as to any rights which many of these old settlers had' of both classes in the matter of a settlement of their claims upon their coming into confederation. Those who arrived in the country at an earlier period were not settlers in the usual sense of the word. They followed the trail, they were mostly employees of the Hudson's Bay Company, in the employ of speculators residing in the old land, and they did not at that time, as history will amply show, have the hardships to endure which subsequently were endured by those who came after them in the west. Between 1836 and 1870 the vanguard of the original Red River colony had to suffer hardships to a greater degree than those who preceded them and they suffered the hardships that are inseparable from early pioneer life. The case on this point is, at least prkna facie, established. No one has yet, be it of this government or of the prior government, ventured to give a logical explanation why the settler who came in 1835 was entitled to recognition and why the settler who came in 1836 was not. No explanation on that point has been ventured, and I understand that the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) stated that he himself saw no reason for that. Consequently, on the face of it, the indebtedness is there, the right is there, and the only question is, can we in justice to our country now recognize it, and if we can, then certainly we ought to do it. I can see no reason whatever, in the defence that because the claim is old it must be ignored. It is true that in the law of every civilized nation the principle is established that as claims advance in age they become' less and less deserving of recognition. Our statute of limitations is based upon that principle. The statutes of limitation of every civilized nation are based upon the same principle; that is that a private right that nas been asleep, or dead, on which no claim in court has been made, cannot, after the lapse of stated periods, be advanced with success. Such statutes of limitation are doubtless based upon a sound and necessary principle, namely, that though the duty may Still exist, though the duty still may be owing from one man to his fellow, from one individual to -another, still the danger of enforcing the performance of that duty, the danger of compelling recognition of
the obligation, is so great that it is impossible to insist upon it.
Claims of innocent third parties have come in and, therefore, the dangers of recognizing those claims that have been subject to laches, are -so great as to justify their being ignored. That is the principle of the whole statute of limitations of every country. To that principle I make no dissent. But that principle has no application whatever to the present case; in fact it has always been recognized that in matters of trusteeship there is no statute of limitation that at any time does apply. This is a matter of trusteeship, and consequently on that first principle of general law of this country, and all other countries, there could be no such defence against the claim of the early pioneers of Manitoba, because certainly when this country took over the provinces of the west, when it took over the Red River colony, the Dominion became by that very act trustees for those who had rights of occupaney, and possession in that territory, prior to the "bession, and no trustee can ever get rid of his responsibility to those for whom he is a trustee by pleading the passage of time or any principle of the statute of limitations. That may appear a technical argument. It is not technical, it is in the very nature of the case, it is a necessary principle that we ought at all times to recognize.
The principle on which we are justified in ignoring a claim because it is old is utterly absent in this case. There has been no laches, these men have been doing everything they are called upon to do, ever since they were denied their rights in 1874. They have exercised every diligence to secure their rights, they have been separated by large distances, they have had no common bond but these common grievances, they have bad nothing to bring them together, they have had to present their case with obstacles strewn around them that made it almost impossible, particularly in the early stages of our history, to present any case to a government so far away. But no sooner were they denied their rights in 1870 than their claim was pressed, than an organization was instituted in the west known as the Prince Rupert Pioneers, and that organization, through its representatives in this House and by delegations sent to this parliament, pressed the claim I am now advancing. On what ground did they press it? First of all they based it on the proclamation issued to them by which their consent was obtained to enter confederation ; they based it on the proclamation of the Governor General of that day issued with the authority of Earl Grenville the

Colonial Secretary on the 6th of December, 1879, to the early settlers. In that proclamation it was stated that all such rights would be observed, that all settlers would be treated in the spirit of British justice. That proclamation was supplemented by a further letter on the 16th of February, 1870, by which the Governor General of Canada repeated the same assurance to Bishop TachA I do not mention this to found again any technical right. Had no letter been written, had no assurance been made at all by the government of Great Britain or by this government to the early settlers of that country they would be entitled just the same to the British justice which was assured them by that letter, they would be entitled to a recognition of their right of property. I do not deny that they were partially recognized. Those who had rights of special property, those who had made settlements and had rights defined on special limited properties, were recogniezd, but those who had been in such a line of work, who had been leading such a life that they hacf no defined rights of property, were not recognized, although as a matter of fact they were just as much entitled to the full extent of the letter of the Governor General, they were just as much entitled in a word to their rights of possession and occupancy being recognized as any other class. They were utterly ignored so that I would not rest their claim on any letter of the Governor General nor on any assurance from the home office, but, relying on. the general principles of equal right's on which every section of this country should be able to rely, I state that these men have not been done justice to.
I set about showing that they should not be denied because their claim is old. They petitioned for it in 1871. They had at that time as representative in this House the present High Commissioner for Canada, then Sir Donald A. Smith, and in the ' Hansard ' of 1871 and 1872, will be found utterances by him, representing them, thoroughly coinciding with the claim which they made then and make still demanding that they be recognized in the distribution of this land just the same as the descendants of those who were prior to them. Consequently right at the first, it is clear that they took every step they could take, because not only were they represented and their claim pressed by their representative here, but they actually went to the expense, and a great expense it was to them, of sending a delegation to this parliament also to press their claim. That delegation consisted of Judge Black, Mr. Scott, and Father Riehot. Two of this delegation were not able to return, the other, Father Riehot, did return and made his Teport and in so far as that report, which was Mr. MEIGHEN.
made to the legislative body at that time in existence at Winnipeg, can be found, it shows that while they did not receive a definite promise of the recognition of their claim as presented, it at least has an indication that they were promised recognition at some future day in some form or another, because there is a reference to the fact that when the other provinces of the west were to be annexed at a later time, recognition of those settlers who were outside the Red River colony would be made. Consequently there was to that extent a recognition by the parliament of Canada of the claim of these men.
They did not stop at that. Again in the year 1886 when, of course, another government was in office, further representations were made to this House and in the meantime, not only in 1871 and 1872, but later and up as late as 1886, resolutions were passed unanimously by the provincial legislature sitting at Winnipeg recognizing the rights of these men, and spurning the idea that any. difference existed between their claim at that time, and the claim of those who had already received their grants, and urging that cold justice be done the Red River settlers, and the settlers further west who had arrived between 1836 and 1870. Those resolutions were forwarded to the Governor General in Council at Ottawa, and as a result an investigation was ordered to be made in the Department of the Interior in pursuance of an address from the legislative council of Manitoba which ari'ived on the 8th day of February, 1872. On the 26th of April of the same year an order in council was passed deputing the department to institute an investigation into the claim and to report. The deputy minister, Mr. Burgess, made the investigation and the report.
But I venture to say, with all respect to his memory, that he seems to have misunderstood the purpose of the investigation. He seemed utterly to have misconceived the spirit of the claim which was made against the Dominion of Canada. Mr. Burgess appears to have understood that his mission was to ascertain the legal rights of those settlers, that is to say, whether or not those who had actual legal rights to defined territory at that time had those rights already conceded, or whether there were claims outstanding, and whether or not the parliament of Canada was in a position to resist the claims of the settlers, who arrived between 1866 and 1886. His report bears out the interpretation that I say he put upon his mission. It refers to the care that has always been exercised in the department to see that each claim, as established, was recognized, and it contains these words: Treaty No. 1, of the 3rd of August, 1871, St. Peter s Indian reserve, provides as follows:
' It being understood, however, that if at the

date of the execution of this treaty there are any settlers within the bounds of any land reserved by the band. Her Majesty reserves the right to deal with such settlers _ as she shall deem just, so as not to diminish the extent of land allotted to the Indians.'
Mr. Burgess goes on to say that 'it is difficult to understand exactly what is meant' by the claims of the white settlers after 1835, and he goes on to quote the Acts of 1873 and 1874, and concludes by saying: ,
There never was any other legal provision for making any grant of scrip or land to settlers going into the country subsequent to 1835, except the provisions contained in the_ Manitoba Act for quieting the title of those in possession at the time of the transfer; nor do I find any record in the department of any claim having been advanced or any other compensation than that provided for by the Manitoba Act.
Certainly he would not. No claim could be made legally on the department for any specific land unless it was specified with defined rights of occupancy. These are claims based on another principle altogether, namely, that those whose Tights of occupation did not Tefer to particular lands at the time of the cession were just as much entitled to lands at the time of the cession as those who had particular lands. That Mr. Burgess seems to have missed. He further goes on to say that if an investigation were made as to the rights of those parties:
Such an inquiry could not fail, in my opinion, to have the effect of disturbing and disquieting the whole population of the province of Manitoba, and casting doubts upon the validity of every title hitherto granted by the Crown to claimants under the Manitoba Act.
That further establishes that nothing was done by the investigation of Mr. Burgess to ascertain the rights that these men advanced. How could the title to any lands already granted be affected by a general recognition of the Tight to 160 acres of land or scrip for it? It certainly could not. Those titles already recognized would of course be absolved from it, and they would be in the same position as any others entitled to make a selection just as those before them had done. I am utterly at a loss to understand the objections advanced by Mr. Burgess to the granting of this Tequest. Well, the agitation continued to be kept up, and it was pressed with renewed vigour in 1905 and 1906. The reason of the agitation taking on renewed strength at that time was that those people relied on what they had already long considered-the original promise of the government that when the new territories were made into provinces those rights which at that time were ignored would be at last recognized. The territories were made into provinces in
1905, and from that time on a considerable body of settlers made the demand that their rights be recognized the same as those who had come earlier. Consequently the claim is utterly without foundation that the mere length of time that had elapsed since the original settlement was arrived at puts the matter past the stage of inquiry. In the first place, as I have stated, it falls because there is a trusteeship existing between the government and the people of Canada and those early settlers whose rights of possession and occupancy at least were not reoogniezd by the settlement of July, 1870, and that that trusteeship exists absolutely puts it out of power to plead the lapse of time. Furthermore, it falls because the principle on which it stands does not exist in this case, namely, that they should have earlier pressed their claims to obtain recognition. Ever since the claims were advanced they have been pressed with as much persistency as we could expect under the difficult circumstances in which the settlers were placed. So that it cannot be maintained that we are entitled to ignore their claims simply because 30 or 40 years have elapsed. Further, it cannot be argued, because there is a considerable body of evidence to indicate that their rights were actually recognized in 1871, and that they were promised grants at a future stage in the development of Canada. On these grounds it does not lie in the mouth of the government to-day to say to these men: 'You have waited too long; the lapse of 40 years deprives you of any claim; the unwritten law as to limitations shuts you up, and although you may have had a claim originally, although we recognize that you should not have been denied when your fellow-settlers' claims were granted, we say that you are shut out by the mere lapse of time.' If that defense falls, what defense is left? How can we justify ourselves for saying to these men: 'It is quite true, you went in there in 1836 and 1837, and up to 1870. You bore the burden and the heat of the day in pushing the frontiers of civilization into that country. You endured the trials and suffered the hardships. You faced the dangers and the perils in order that Manitoba particularly and western Canada in general should reach the state of civilization which she has at present attained. You ceded your country under the distinct promise that you would get ample justice, and that all claims of occupancy and possession would be recognized. You came into the contract absolutely entitled to recognition, but we will not recognize you.'
I say unless it can be argued that by virtue of the lapse of time they are not entitled to recognition, there is no ground at all for refusing to recognize them. Now the' government comes and says. 'It is

because in the meantime we have adopted a policy-good though it may be-because in the meantime we have changed the policy of this country, we must refuse to make any land grants and we cannot recognize your claim, however just.' I do not need to spend much time in disposing of that, because it disposes of itself. These men are not to be affected by any change of the policy of Canada, their rights accrued long prior to this change. Although it may interfere with the form of the grant, it cannot interfere with the principle, and it cannot be urged in defence of the policy of non recognition. Their rights, whatever they were, were just the same as were the lights of those who came before them-they were greater than those who were born between 1870 and 1874-they were greater and on a higher plane than many which were recognized, and we cannot say to them now that because we chose to adopt a policy in which we could not grant that recognition in just the same form as we granted it before, we will not grant any recognition at all.
Now, that is the position taken by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) as I understand it. The government of this country speaking through the right hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. Minister of the Interior denied recognition to the early settlers who came in between 1836 and 1870. There was no other ground advanced, so far as I can see, and there is no other ground that could be advanced. I argue that it is the duty of the government to ascerain by what means they can give substantial justice to these later arrivals-to these men who stood the greater share of the burden, and who shouldered the greater proportion of the difficulties. This class of men cannot always come to parliament and ask that justice be done them. In the very nature of things they are to-day well advanced in years, and will before long have disappeared from the earth. Many of them are in more or less destitute circumstances. No doubt a good many of them are prosperous, but still some o'f them are in such circumstances as to warrant the government in general taking steps to see that justice is done to them. It is the duty of the government to see without delay if some method cannot be devised whereby the claim of these men will be recognized.


Mr. CHISHOLM (Huron).: I wish to say a word or two in connection with this matter. I did not know that the question was to come up to day, or I would have had more information to lay before the House. However, there is one case which I would like to bring to the attention of the government. I remember when I was a lad, my nearest neighbour was one o'f the first men who settled in the Red River Mr. METGHEN
district in 1812 and 1813. His name was John Cooper. This man was accused wrongfully of a crime, after he had been long on his land. He was brought to the city of Montreal and kept there in confinement for nearly a year. At the end of this time he proved his innocence and was liberated. He went to work on a building in order that he might earn sufficient money to return to his home in the west. But during the course of his work he fell from the building and when I knew him he had been an invalid *for many years. John Cooper had lived for years-and years on his land where the city of Winnipeg stands to day. He had raised his family there, but after he was taken to Montreal his land was taken from them, and I understand, was sold by the Dominion of Canada. When he carpe to this country, Lord Selkirk promised to give him a deed to certain land, if he would settle on it. He fulfilled his part of the contract, yet the land has been taken from him and his family.
If I cannot do any more for my good old neighbour, I will put on 'Hansard' the story of the injustice which he suffered. We all know that Lord Selkirk in his will left one-tenth of his lands to be given to these settlers. That land extended not only through Manitoba, but all the way up to Fort Carleton, Saskatchewan, and also into the state of Minnesota.
This is a part of Minnesota that the American government have succeeded in wheedling and defrauding us out of. That was granted to Lord Selkirk, and one-tenth of it was left to the settlers. And here is a settler who, after living for years and years on his land has it taken from him, and I suppose it is now laid out in town lots and is sold at $30, $40 or $50 a foot. 1 think the government might do something for the descendants of John Cooper. If not, at least the whole story o:f the way he has been wronged and his descendants neglected will De recorded in ' Hansard.'


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I endorse very cordially the claims made by my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen). On more than one occasion since I have had the honour of a seat in parliament, I have heard the story of these settlers, and I have come to the conclusion that it is almost impossible to understand why their particular case was differentiated from those of other settlers of the same period and under the same circumstances. I have never to this day heard a reason given why a distinction was made in the case of this particular class of settlers. My hon, friend from Portage la Prairie has gone fully into their case, l have a number of documents connected with the case myself and have gone into the matter at different times. The hon.

gentleman lias admirably and fully exposed the merits of their claim. What is the reason that their claim has been neglected?
I take it that the reason is that their claims must' have fallen for consideration into the hands of employees of the department who viewed the claims in the purely legal 'aspect. Of course, it could easily be established that on strictly legal grounds they had no claim upon the government. And the report being to the effect that they had no claim, the ministers in charge at the time-
I do not know what their colour was- would be glad to get rid of the claim without looking 'at the equitable side of the matter. I think that at this moment, in view of the settlements that are made in the west, the government might very well take up these claims and put these dissatisfied people upon the same basis as those around them. We are told the government has a policy, that it cannot without violating that policy take up these claims and render justice. But the policy of this government seems to be singular in the extreme, our immigration policy has led us to make the freest concessions to newcomers. That we should extend facilities to newcomers when they desire to settle in the. northwest is reasonable enough, but why should we be so hard towards the old settlers, the Fenian raiders, for instance excellent Canadians [DOT]who could put forth some claim to merit acquired and who would make the very best class of settlers for the northwest? Why should we treat the Doukhobors so generously when they arrived in this country and yet adopt the policy under which we make it so difficult for good settlers from the older provinces to get any advantage in going to settle in that country. Our policy it seems to me is too generous to strangers and too hard, too rigid, too much based upon purely legal considerations when we are dealing with our own people. On the contrary, with our own people we should be most openhanded and generous with the great wealth of land we have in the west.


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to traverse the very carefully prepared and very elaborate statement of my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) at any great length and would not have done so were it not for the support which he has received. But, in view of that support, and the attitude taken by those who give that support, I think it is necessary, perhaps, to say a few words on the subject. And, if I have to do so, I might as well begin at the beginning and allude to the apology which my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie offered at the beginning of his remarks, when he said he would not be accused of obstruction in bringing up this question. I would not
have accused him of obstruction. But my hon. friend knows that ' to excuse is to accuse.' When he proffers an excuse he leaves an opening for an accusation; and it may not be out of place for us to consider just how far such an excuse was necessary in this case.
We have here a matter which was disposed of thirty-five years ago by the parliament of Canada,-disposed of finally by that parliament on a second attempt to dispose of it. That is to say, parliament dealt with the question in 1872 and. again in 1874, and it has not dealt with it since. It seems to me that a question such as this might very well have stood for a little while longer under all the special circumstances of the case, without seriously damaging it.
I notice on the Order Paper that this parliament has a great deal of business to do, pressing and important business, business which is not thirty-five years old,, and has not been off the books for that length of time, but business that is on the books and awaiting action and for which the country is demanding action, or at any rate requiring it. May I just draw the attention of the House for a few moments to some of these matters which, at the instance of my hon. friend, have been compelled to give way in order that the claims of these old settlers should be brought before parliament on this particular occasion. First, we have the motion to go into Committee of Ways and Means, to discuss, and to carry, if possible, a measure of tariff reduction which, I submit on the statement of our friends on the other side, has not been equalled in importance by any matter that has come before parliament since confederation. Surely, that was a matter that was entitled to precedence even over the claims of the old settlers, these claims of thirty-five years ago. But, even if we had disposed of that question, there are a number of other matters to which I think it might be well to draw attention. I notice, for instance, that there is a large body of legislation by orders in council dealing with the administration of the lands, timber and minerals of this country under the control of the Dominion of Canada which requires confirmation by parliament.
If it should happen that it does not receive that confirmation during this session of parliament, then this legislation by order in council becomes invalid under the statute. Surely this is a matter of somewhat pressing importance, and might well have had precedence after we had disposed of reciprocity. There is another matter I find here-speaking of matters that particularly concern my own department, and my duties in the House. There is the Manitoba Grain Act, which was brought down from the Senate after having occupied the attention of that body for a number of weeks; it is an Act that is ab-

solutely urgent, if the views and requirements of the people of the west are to be met. This Bill was brought before the House immediately before adjournment, it was not possible to get the Bill passed at that time, but it awaits consideration by this House now, it pressingly awaits consideration, otherwise it cannot be brought into effect so as to be of any advantage for the crop of this year. There is a Bill regarding Chinese immigration. We have had a debate on Chinese immigration in this House; it is known that the Chinese Act requires amendment. The Bill was brought in some time ago, it did not receive consideration then, it claims consideration now, but it cannot get it; it has to take second place to the claims made by our friends on behalf of the old settlers of the Red river. There is an important Bill respecting banks and banking under the name of the Minister of Einance on the importance of which I need not enlarge.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
* After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Frank Oliver: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at six o'clock I was mentioning a number of measures of importance before the House which might have claimed attention in preference to the subject which is now under discussion without in any degree minimizing the importance of that subject. I mentioned among other things the Bank Act which is on the Order Paper for amendment. I had not reached a conclusion in regard to that. The Bank Act was so urgent that in view of the fact that it. had not been possible to push it forward an interim Act had to be passed, and at the present time the country has failed to get the advantage of the Bank Act as prepared and made ready for the House. Another subject which is of some importance to some part of the Dominion which I might mention is an Act relating to waters in the railway belt and Peace river block of land, a matter upon the early adjustment of which depends the value of many thousands of dollars worth of property in British Columbia. A Bill of the same nature was introduced last session, it stood over, it was introduced again this session, and to-day these rights are being sacrificed for the lack of this or similar legislation. Another matter that I might mention is an amendment to the Railway Act which was under consideration in the last few days before adjournment, an amendment brought in by my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) for the purpose of protecting the rights of owners of live stock which stock has been injured by the rail-Mr. OLIVEB
way. It was not possible under the circumstances to secure the concurrence of the House in that provision at the time. It awaits the action of the House and if I understand the situation the farming interests of the west certainly demand its passage at this session. I would not use the word ' obstruction ' to characterize the very carefully prepared and well presented case laid before the House by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr Meig-hen) in regard to these old settlers' rights, but I will say that with a question of such paramount importance as reciprocity before the House, unless the English language has lost its meaning, an amendment moved to the motion to take up that question must certainly be an obstruction of the discussion of the question, and therefore of the business of the House. I am sure that the ordinary elector will wonder how it is that, when there is this important question to be decided, and when there are these important matters upon the Order Paper which ought to receive the attention of the House, the House has plenty of time to spend in discussing the question of a right, which, to put it most mildly. is thirty-five years old, and which was decided upon by the House of Commons, and the government thirty-five years ago. Every thing in its place, there is a time during the session when matters of lesser, importance, and which are less pressing may be fairly and reasonably discussed, but I do submit that a claim of this character brought forward at this stage of the session, with the Order Paper crowded as it is, and with a discussion such as that now 'before the House going on, can scarcely m fairness be called a subject of fair or proper consideration. But, however, whatever may have been the purpose of the non. gentleman who made the motion, there is no question as to the purpose of those who support him. It was not more to secure certain so-called rights of people who are spoken of as the pioneers of Rupert's Land as to create sympathy for them in regard to the deprivation of these rights and therefore to secure disapproval of the government and its policy to a very much farther reaching extent. As to the merits of the question, I think the hon. member for Portage la Prairie stated the case very clearly and fairly when he said that the statute of limitations or the law of limitations was a right and proper law and must necessarily apply. The reason for that law is that as time goes on new conditions arise under which conditions it becomes impossible to give countenance to a certain claim because of other rights _ which have arisen under this new condition. In regard to the claim made by those pioneers, whatever may have been the merit of their claim in the first

place, and they pressed it at that time, and it was decided upon by the government and parliament of that day and decided against them, there is no question that the concession of their request to-day would not be in the best interests of western Canada or of the people of western Canada, speaking at large. There is also a difference between the granting of a claim at that day and the granting of the same claim to-day. At that time the scrip right to 160 acres had a very minimum value. It might have been worth $160, and it might not have been worth nearly so much. I doubt very much if it would be worth that much. To-day a similar scrip claim upon 160 acres would probably be worth from $1,200 to $1,600. There is a difference of ten times the value between a grant made in those days and a grant as it would be made to-day. That is an important change in the conditions which no government could fail to recognize.
On this question of the issue of scrip, the conclusion has been reached by the government that there should not be any further issue of land scrip in the western provinces. It is recognized that the issue of land scrip in the past has not resulted in the well-being of those provinces, it has not resulted to the good of the people of the provinces, it has not promoted their settlement or welfare.
In the first place when scrip was issued it was intended to act as an inducement to settlement. A man was given a property right and on the strength of that he was expected some day to occupy the land and in that way add* to the wealth and improvement of the country. But, as a matter of fact, in practice these scrip rights have been used for speculative rather than for settlement purposes in the proportion of probably five to one, and on behalf of the actual settler of the country, the man who goes in there as a homesteader to earn his right to his land, to whom the occupation of the surrounding land is of prime and vital importance, it is not advisable that there should be further issues of land scrip. If there is to be sympathy for any one it should be for the honest settler who is honestly and fairly endeavouring to establish himself on the prairie or in the woods, and who is handicapped to a very great extent by these issues of scrip which allow land to be held without occupation as halfbreed or old settlers scrip does allow it to be held, I think it would be certainly an offence lagainst the welfare 'and well (being of the country if the government should, under any possible circumstances except the fulfilment of obligations already entered into, further issue this sort of scrip. The contention that the government occupies the position of a trustee towards these people
is not well founded. In order that there shall be a trusteeship there must be a right and the hon. gentleman admitted in the very beginning of his argument that there was no right, that whatever grant was given to the old settlers who came in from 1813 to 1835 was given as an act of grace, and not as a matter of right. Then if there is no right on their part there can be no trusteeship on ours and, their claim to this grant must rest on other grounds than that; as to what grounds they can rest their claims upon I am not here to say.
It is argued that because a certain grant was made to the settlers who came in between 1813 and 1835, therefore settlers who came after 1835 are entitled to a grant. I am unable to follow the reasoning. It may be that the grant to settlers between 1813 and 1835 may have been made without due warrant for aught I know. At any rate the fact that the parliament which made that grant refused to make a grant for the time following 1835 is surely sufficient reason for this parliament to say that the case is closed, that unless a good reason can be shown, unless some tangible ground can be shown wherein these people have a tangible right, this government or this parliament should not reopen the question. So far from the fact that the government of that day did not extend the right beyond 1835 being a reason for our extending it, I submit in all fairness and all reason that the fact that they, with all the knowledge they had of all the circumstances and of their responsibility did not extend it beyond that time, is certainly not a reason why we should, unless some tangible and definite reason is produced, such as has not yet been produced.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister treated the House to a number of reasons why nothing should be done at the present time. He says that the fact that parliament granted land to the settlers between 1813 and 1835, was no reason why the settlers coming in subsequently to that were entitled to any consideration. That might or might not be the case, but the fact that they granted land to settlers who came in between 1813 and 1835 when the conditions were much the same as the conditions after 1835, would seem to indicate that those who came in after 1835 were entitled to the same consideration. The minister has not given the House to understand that settlers who came in after 1835 came in under any more favourable circumstances than those who came in between 1813 and 1835. He says that because land is more valuable today scrip will be worth ten times as much as it was 30 years ago, and that that is a reason why we should not give a. land grant. If the consideration would be too high parliament could reduce it to a reasonable and proper amount. The

minister said that because this was a case 35 years old, it should not be settled. By the same line of reasoning the claims of the provinces for increased subsidies which have been twice granted in 40 years, should not have been granted.
The minister has criticised the opposition because we have not dealt with several Bills of great importance which might, have been passed if the opposition had not wasted so much time over the reciprocity resolutions. If the government were so ' anxious to pass these Bills they should have brought them in and attempted to pass them. The opposition have never attempted to prevent the Bills passing.


Frank Oliver: The opposition certainly prevented the Grain Bill and the clauses of the Railway Act relating to the killing of cattle from passing.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The opposition only endeavoured to secure features that would have made these fair Bills. They did not try to prevent the Bills going through. He mentioned also the Chinese Immigration Bill.


Frank Oliver: I, myself, presented that Bill to the House, and at the request of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Taylor) it was allowed to stand.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why? Because of the absence of information that had been brought out by a Royal Commission and which the government would not present to the House although it had been in their possession for weeks. '
Only the other day we had to hold up the House to get that information which should have been presented before we separated on the 19th of May. Then there was the Act respecting copyrights. That was held up by the government, not by the opposition. We did not try to prevent it passing, but endeavoured to help the government to make it as useful a measure as possible. The Bill respecting banks and banking, a very important Bill, the opposition never prevented passing. We were willing to go on and discuss it, but it was held up by the government. They held it up for the whole of last session, and it was at the request of the Minister of Finance that the Bank Act was then extended for another year, to enable the government to get certain information which they thought desirable. Practically the same thing happened this year. So that in no sense can the opposition be held responsible for that Act not passing. Another Bill is an Act relating to the water in the railway belt and Peace River'block of land. Surely the hon. minister cannot say that the opposition is responsible for that Bill not passing, for the government did not bring it on or Mr. SPROULE.
attempt to pass it. Had they done so, the opposition would certainly have made no effort to prevent it passing at the earliest possible date. Then, there is the Bill to amend the Dominion Lands Act. Does the Minister of the Interior pretend to say that the opposition tried to hold that up? I heard nothing of it. So it is with a number of these Bills that he claims might have been passed but for the action of the opposition. In what way the action of the opposition prevented the government bringing on these measures and attempting to pass them I am at a loss to understand. I think that when the hon. minister thinks seriously over this again, he will feel that he did the opposition a great injustice when he tried to saddle upon them the responsibility of these Bills not passing, which they were ready to help the government to pass if the government had brought them on.


Mr. HAGGART (Winnipeg).: The hon. the Minister of the Interior, by the statement he made in answer to the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), has given me the text for a speech, and consequently has enabled me to contribute a little towards the obstruction of the opposition to the passing of this reciprocity matter. My speech, however, the first since the re-assembling of the House, will be a short one. The Minister of the Interior tells us thai the opposition obstructed the passing of the Grain Bill. We have the pleasure occasionally of a visit in Manitoba from the hon. minister on his passage to and fro between here and the foothills of the Rocky Mountains. On those occasions he sometimes undertakes to preach a seTmon. On a missionary tour through Manitoba a few weeks ago he preached the gospel of reciprocity. He did not discuss the Grain Bill in the city of Winnipeg, but he did so away in the northwestern part of the province, where no grain men live, and in Dominion city, in the southwestern part of the province, where no grain men live; and I will quote the words put into his mouth by two Winnipeg papers, the ' Tribune ' and the ' Free Press,' and I will characterize this statement, taken from one of these newspapers-I do not refer to it as a part of his speech, because that would he unparliamentary-as one of the meanest representations ever made on a public platform. It contains just enough fact to make it stick, but it is an untruthful representation all the same. Here is the statement:
Turning to the terminal elevator question, Mr. Oliver stated that very powerful interests were opposed to government ownership, and the solution of a commission had been decided upon by the government as an experiment. When the Bill came to the House from the Senate, where it had been discussed at length, he had asked the House to pass it without amendment, but Alexander Haggart, of Win-

mpeg, and other western members, had refused his request, and had held up the Bill. Thus the chance of having the Bill in operation for this yearns crop had been jeopardized. The west should deal with those members.
Now, let us see what was done. Important Bills of this nature are usually brought into the Commons first, and then go to the Senate; but for some unaccountable reason, the promoters of this Bill brought it into the Senate in the early part of the session, before the reciprocity resolutions were introduced into this House. There that Bill slumbered all winter, and into the early months of spring. The first opportunity we had of making any observations on that Bill was when the hon. gentleman moved the second reading; and when was that? On the last day before adjournment. It was a Bill of 242 sections. Why, it would have taken the whole of that sitting for the clerk to have read the Bill. I had the temerity to make a few observations on that Bill. Remember, it was introduced into this parliament before there was any thought of reciprocity. It makes changes in the old conditions that were asked for by the farmers, and not one section of it was objected to by the grain men. Here we have a Bill regulating the trade of one of the largest businesses in this country, in which millions of dollars are invested every year, which taxes the ability of our financial institutions to buy and store the grain and market it in foreign countries. In conversation with grain men in Winnipeg, every one of whom forgets every night more than the Minister of the Interior ever knew about the grain business, although they did not object to a clause in the Bill under existing conditions they said that it would make matters perfectly ridiculous. It would result in this, that the grain men, the merchants, and the institutions financing all that business would be sent to do business in Minneapolis, Duluth and Chicago, where they would not be subject to the discipline that is provided for in that Bill. I had the temerity to say a few words. I did not speak more than a few minutes. There were other gentlemen in this House who represented just as good a sentiment in that northwest country as the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) and who had the temerity to make some observations in reference to the Bill. That whole debate did not last more than an hour, and there was not an unnecessary word said. Then what happened? The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) rose in his place and said:


Mr. FIELDING.: It is quite evident that this Bill can hardly be classed among the noncontentious measures; and as hours and even minutes are beginning to become very precious if we are to carry out our intention of
adjourning, I would suggest that the debate should be adjourned and the Bill stand over.
Mr. KING moved the adjournment of the debate.
So much for this Bill, and I have no doubt that a great deal I have said is applicable to the other Bills which the hon. gentleman has cited as not having passed through this House. This claim of the old settlers is thirty-five years old. Has it lost any merits? Is it barred by the Statute of Limitations? Not at all. No Statute of Limitations runs against the King, whose representative the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) is. It would be a poor law that would not work both ways, and it would be no credit to the government if they asked for the protection of a statute which would not be any defence to them. The fact that this Bill is 35 years old does not detract in any way from its merits. I admit that these people have no legal claim, any more than the men. who fought in South Africa, or the men who received these land grants in our Northwestern country. It is >a matter of grace. However, their claim is as good to-day as it was when they first acquired it-I mean as a matter of merit.
We will continue to receive in good nature the lectures which have been given to us from time to time by the hon. gentlemen, but we shall continue to perform our duty and express our approval or disapproval of what may come from the other side of the House.


VOTERS' LISTS IN ORGANIZED DISTRICTS.
Mr. BOYCE.: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I desire to refer briefly to a matter which was mentioned in this House on Friday, 21st inst., in connection with the lists in the organized or unorganized portions of Ontario. I would draw the attention of the House to the statements made by the hon. Minister of Justice with reference to the position of things. By reference to ' Hansard ' you will find that I drew the attention of the government to the position of the law with regard to the making of the lists in the unorganized districts of Ontario, and asked certain specific questions. I asked:
Has there been a proclamation under the Act of 1908 prescribing an earlier day for the making up of the voters' lists? if so, when will the work of enumeration be started and how long is it expected, from the most recent advice the government has, that it will take; and, will the government see to it that the Board of Registration is prevented in this instance from arrogating to itself the functions of government by abridging the time which by this Act is directed to be followed as far as possible.

To this the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) replied:
In regard to the present situation, fortunately we are not in the same position that existed three years ago No one, I presume, has any expectation that the general elections which follow upon a dissolution of this House, are any where in sight, or are at all liable to take place until there has been at least one session or perhaps two sessions more. In these circumstances there seems no danger to be apprehended that it may be found necessary an the part of the learned judges who are at present engaged in the preparation of these lists to curtail at all the time which the statute provides for taking the various steps.
I had pointed out to the Minister of Justice the very grave injustice which had been done to this country prior to the last general election by the Board of Registration being permitted to shorten the statutory periods fixed for the making up of these voters' lists, and I drew the attention of the Minister of Justice to the facts concerning the violations of the law in 1908 so that there might be no repetition of these violations at this election. I pointed out to the hon. gentleman, that the populated area in these unorganized territories of New Ontario, and for which voters' lists would be made up had been considerably enlarged since the last election, and that the means of communication were considerably more difficult than they were in 1808, therefore we were at more inconvenience than in 1908, and, if the inconvenience of shortening the time was great in 1908, it is greater still now, with the larger area and more difficult communication.
Under the machinery which governs the Dominion Elections Act, section 9a provides that the first step is a proclamation. This proclamation has to run for 30 days. After this we have the posting of the lists and then a further period of 15 days for appeal. These are all fair and reasonable periods, having regard to the immense expanse of territory to be covered and the amount of information to be obtained in order to get a fair list. In 1908, the statutory period from the 1st August to the 15th October was not sufficient to enable the preparation of the lists. As I pointed out to the House the other day, it took practically from the 1st August to midday October 26-the day of the election-to get these lists completed, and on the ground ready for the polls. As a matter of fact, by the opening of the Printing Bureau on Sunday, the running of a special train from Ottawa to Sault Ste. Marie at the expense or the government and a further train along the Algoma Central from Sault Ste. Marie to mile 68, also at the expense of the government, the lists were at the polls, completed and revised, three hours after Mr. BOYCE.
the polls had opened. That ought to be sufficient to show that the statutory periods were short enough, and that there was little to be gained along the line of doing justice to the people by shortening the time any further.
Now the hon. Minister of Justice gave a very peculiar reply, as will be seen. He said:
In these circumstances there seems no danger to be apprehended that it may be found necessary on the part of the learned judges who are at present engaged in the preparation of these lists to curtail at all the time which the statute provides for taking the various steps.
According to the information which I hold in my hand, and which was within the knowledge of the Minister of Justice, that was an attempt to deceive this House. For, at that time, the Minister of Justice knew perfectly well that, prepared in his office and signed by his deputy was a proclamation by which the time under the statute for making up these lists had been shortened to two months. Instead of allowing from the 1st of August to the 15th of October, this proclamation directed that the lists should be prepared between the 18th of July and the 18th of September. This document which was known to the minister, is in direct contradiction of the statement he made on the 21st of July. I say that such a condition of things calls for protest and strong expression of resentment which I now desire to give. One does expect, when he asks in a reasonable manner for information from a minister of the Crown, especial-ally on a mon-jpolitical subject, ox one that is supposed to be non-political, and more especially when the person of whom the question is asked is the chief judicial executive of the Dominion, that he will receive a fair statement of the facts as known to the minister. But when the minister deliberately descends to giving to the House information entirely contrary to what he knows to be correct, that calls, as I say, for a strong expression of resentment from members on both sides of the House. I ask the attention of the House to this matter, that my resentment of the minister's answer may be made known, and that the country may take knowledge of the lamentable and pitiable position to which ministers of the Crown descend to delude members on this side with inaccurate information. I hope the Minister of Justice will rise in his place now and give to the House some reasonable explanation of the extraordinary statements contained in his answer in contrast with this proclamation.


Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice).: I do not feel that I am called

upon to make any explanation of the matter. I am quite sure that every member of this House understood the remarks I made on Friday last in reference to the probability of an election within a short time in the future in exactly the sense in which I intended them to be understood. I am quite sure there was no one in this House who was deceived in any way by what I said, nor did I intend that anybody should be. And, especially with regard to the proclamation with reference to the preparations of the voters' lists in the unorganized portions of the province of Ontario, the hon. gentleman must attribute to his fellow members in this House a degree of lack of perception beyond the ordinary if he supposes that anyone could think another would be deceived on a subject of that sort by what was said on Friday last with a proclamation on the subject appearing on Saturday. At the time I was speaking, on Friday, I was, of [DOT]course, perfectly aware of the fact that a proclamation was pending, that the proclamation had been prepared, and would appear in the ' Gazette ' of the following day. What that has to do with what I said upon the Friday I am not able to understand. With regard to the whole question of the preparation of the voters' lists _ in the unorganized territory I have nothing to add to or subtract from what I said on Friday. I am not here defendr ing the statute referred to; that statute is not at present under consideration. When it was before a previous parliament for consideration I defended it:	I thought it
was proper legislation; I stated so then; I think_ so still; I state so still. It is an Act which is not now under the consideration of this House, the provisions of which need not be, so far as I can see, debated; at all events, it is not my intention to debate them. Under the statute, this parliament delegated to the judges of the district courts of that territory the duty of preparing the lists, having regard, as far as possible to the dates for the various steps prescribed by the provincial statute. Upon the judges that duty and responsibility rests, and that duty and responsibility is not being interferred with in any degree by the Minister of Justice, or, so far as I am aware, by any member of the government.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? He states that he knew at the time he gave the information to the House that the proclamation had been prepared. And that was the very question that I asked and that he did not answer. For he said, at page 10095 of 'Hansard ' ' the matter referred to is not in any way in. the hands of the Department of Justice.' As he had the knowledge that 320
the proclamation had been issued, why, when I asked him the direct question, did he not give the informaton to the House instead of giving the information that the matter was not in the hands of his department at all?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Boyce) reiterates in .spite of what I said that I attempted to mislead the House, I have only to give that statement an unqualified denial.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into Commitee of Ways and Means.

['I will consent. Committee rose and reported progress.\nOn motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 11.32 p.m.', 'Wednesday, July 26, 1911.']
Mr. W. R. SMYTH (Algoma).: Last Friday when we adjourned the debate, it was my misfortune to have the floor. And resuming that debate this evening, I do not expect to detain the House at any great length. However, the attitude of the government and its supporters leads one on this side of the House to the necessity of taking up a longer time than would be necessary had we not a lot of gentlemen on the opposite side who are not only bound but gagged and not able to take part in this debate. We might possibly shorten our remarks in this discussion had we enlightment from gentlemen who now sit opposite us as dumb as oysters.
There are some provinces of this Dominion from 'which no one has been heard, sitting on the government side of the Douse. But on this side, every province has been heard from, except Prince Edward Island, 'and the hon. member representing that island on the opposition side will be heard from in due time. On Friday last the Minister of Finance and myself had a little discussion over the lumber question, and I endeavoured to show that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Customs did not know their business when they were dickering at Washington on the lumber question, I was endeavouring to show that these two gentlemen, these two wandering, weary Willies, wandered away to Washington with the idea in their noddles that they understood every phase of every question in regard to every industry of this country affected by this pact, but we find that they were very remiss in regard to the lumber interest. We have heard a great deal in this House about its importance. We have heard of its importance in British Columbia the other day, and last night we heard of its importance from the Minister of Public Works who represents a constituency in New Brunswick. Now the Minister of Public Works last night, I thought, was endeavouring to come to the rescue of his friend the Minister of Finance, and was endeavouring to enlighten the House ion the shingle question. He laid great stress



on the fact that they had put the duty back to the old rate, from 50 to 30 cents a thousand on shingles. But that was not at all the argument this side was putting up-Here are two gentlemen invited down to "Washington to make a bargain with regard to reciprocity, and the lumber question comes up, the lumber industries of the two countries-. Now, my point is that, having been invited down to Washington to make this treaty, if they had had the interest of this country at heart, or the interest of the lumber industry at heart, they would have seen to it that Canadian shingles entered the United States on the same footing as United States shingles come into Canada. That would have been something like a reciprocity treaty. I endeavoured last Friday night to enlighten the Minister of Finance on this question, but the Minister of Public Works-, in coming to the rescue of his colleague in regard to shingles, carefully avoided the question of the entry of lumber into this country, partly dressed, and in some cases fully dressed. He forgot to tell us that while the Americans are allowed to send their dressed lumber or partly dressed lumber into Canada free of duty, we are not allowed to send a single board into that country if there is one scratch of a plane upon it. I want to emphasize that. I say that if the hon. gentlemen who went to Washington to make this treaty had had the interest of the country at heart, they would have seen to it that the American duty, instead of being reduced from $1.75 to $1.25, was taken off altogether.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman says we should have asked for certain things in return for what we were giving. In this agreement, what were we giving the Americans in respect to lumber?


William Ross Smyth: I am not taking that point at all. If the Minister of Public Works had known anything about lumber he would have seen to it that the Americans gave us reciprocity in lumber.


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend will allow me-he says that in return for what we were giving we should have got certain things which he described. I ask him what were we giving in this reciprocity agreement to the Americans as respects lumber?


William Ross Smyth: Have they not enjoyed free lumber from Canada for many years?


William Stevens Fielding: That is not the question.


William Ross Smyth: You have got nothing at all from them.
* Mr. FIELDING. As respects lumber we did not give them anything at all, they are getting nothing with respect to lumber, that they have not had for nearly twenty years.


William Ross Smyth: . ; ' j


William Ross Smyth: The hon. gentleman is not going to be allowed to give away the trade and commerce of this country into the hands of the United States. I say he was remiss in his duty towards Canada when dealing with them in any shape or form, that he did not secure the free entry of Canadian lumber into that country the same as we give to their lumber. The hon. gentleman says that he was giving them nothing. I do not know why he should have been so anxious to deal with them at all. The Americans do not dicker with anybody unless they see some profit in it. They got everything they asked for from Canada, and if they had asked for more they would have got it. When I was speaking on Friday night I referred to the danger of this country dealing with the Americans in this matter at all, and in the way proposed. I was trying to show the House, as the hon. member for Vancouver says, in my weak and squeaky voice, that there was a real danger in this country entering into this pact with the United States at all. Yesterday tne Minister of Finance, when he was trying to make a little campaign speech, made light of some of the statements made by the senators and representatives on the American side. I can hardly understand why the minister should make light of those gentlemen, in face of some of the remarks they have made. This House has heard quoted over and over again the re-marks of Mr. Champ Clarke, of Mr. Wilson, the Secretary of Agriculture, of Senator McColl, of Senator Cummins, of Iowa, of Mr. Prince, of Illinois.
I am not going to trouble you with them all, but I have one or two that I wish to bring to the attention of the House. Mr. Prince, of Illinois, in the House of Representatives some time ago, made this statement:
What is the history of the American people?
I want to lay this before the hon. gentlemen who have British blood coursing through their veins, and to ask them whether they feel like entering into a pact with the United States, when- the gentlemen who represent the United States have in their breasts this sentiment, which has been expressed by them time and time again:
What is the history of the American people? We might as well be frank and honest. Americans went into Texas, Americanized it, and it was annexed as part of this great Union. Americans went into Hawaii, Americanized it, and annexed it. And if these bright young men that the President speaks of in his speech- these clever, active, virile, vigorous young men from the farms of Illinois and the northern states, the thousands and hundreds of thousands of them-go up into that nortkland, 92 or 100 and more on this side, as against seven on the other, what do you think will be the effect of it ?	[DOT]

That is how they feel about it. What will the effect be once they get the upper hand in this country? They will Americanize it as they did Texas and other parts. I am not going to bother the House with any more extracts. This is a feeling that exists with nine-tenths of the American people to-day. In travelling all over this country, as I have done during the time that this subject has been up for discussion before the House, I have met a great many American people and I am safe in saying that nine-tenths of them consider that this is the first step towards being annexed to them sooner or later. I am sure there are dozens of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, and some on the other side of the House who know that these people take that view. There is a real danger of the American people getting the upper hand in this country. There is a real danger of the American people getting the upper hand of our farming interests. We are one as against twelve. There has been much stress is laid on the fact that we are opening up a great market for our farmers, but the fact has been lost sight of that we are opening up a great market for the American farmers, a market of twelve to one for the goods that come into this country. If you are entering into negotiations with a corporation, whether you go into the deal with them or not, they stand out always for the best end of it. In this matter they have stood out and got everything they asked for. I think I would be remiss in my duty to my constituents, and to the people of Canada, and that I would also be ignoring the traditions that I was brought up to believe in, and my devotion to British institutions if I were to record my vote in behalf of this pact. I intended placing on ' Hansard ' some other matters here that are very pertinent to this question, but I will reserve them until some future time. They refer to the trade and commerce of this country. This is the second time that I have had an opportunity of placing my views before the House on this matter, and I was most anxious to have the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) in his place. He may be home sleeping but he is not attending to what he is paid to attend to by the people of Canada. Here is a question so important that, according to the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver), all other business before the House has to stand aside. If it is so important why is it not necessary for the Minister of Customs to be in the House. We have also the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Bichard Cartwright). Where is he-asleep in the Senate chamber? When we require any information from his department we are told by the right hon. Prime Minister, or some other hon. gentleman who might be leading the House, that in the absence of the Minister of Trade 3203
and Commerce, he is not able to reply, but he will find out from the old gentleman just as soon as he can, and will bring the information to the House. The people of this country expect active gentlemen at the head of every department of this or any other government. I am not casting any reflection on any gentleman who is sitting in this House in that regard, but it is an outrage when we have an important matter such as this is before the House that we have not the Minister of Customs and the Minister of Trade and Commerce in their places. I have perhaps taken up as much time as I ought, and unless the hon. Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) wants to tackle me on the lumber question, I do not know very well what I should say. But. just one matter comes to my mind in regard to the lumber interests as to how this measure affects the farmer. I said the other day that I would much prefer seeing a duty of $2 per thousand placed on southern pine and Michigan hemlock to seeing the duty removed from lumber entering Canada, and the Minister of Finance at that time said that it was not their policy and that they did not intend to do any such thing. But he forgot that he was throwing a stone in the face of the farmers in the newer parts of this country. The farmers of new or northern Ontario who are ocupying farms largely covered with hemlock and other cheap grades of timber heretofore have had a fairly good market, but owing to the fact that the gentlemen who own the southern timber have large tracts of land, and that their payments are now pressing them, they are making a dumping ground of Canada for their lumber. The gentlemen who own these limits in the south are only paying 50 cents per thousand feet stumpage, they are only paying a nominal yearly ground rent and they are geting their lumbering done at fifty and sixty cents per day by negro labour, as against the lumbermen and farmers of this country who receive from $2.50 to $3.75 per day. That southern lumber is being dumped into Canada as against the farmer of Ontario, at least, and I have no doubt the same condition obtains in Quebec, New Brunswick and British Columbia and is sold at much below the price at which the farmers are able to produce their hemlock and spruce timber.	\
As I said the other night, you will find every mill yard in the district which I have the honour to represent piled high with lumber that should be used by the Canadian people that is now standing rotting on the piles, while American lumber is allowed in to take its place. I hope our weak and humble efforts will have so affected the government and the gentlemen responsible for the delay and obstruction in the passage of the several measures

referred to by the Minister of the Interior, that they will at once grant an appeal to the people. The Minister of the Interior says that some very important matters have had to lie over because we chose to act in the interests of our constituents and to debate this subject, and he says we are obstructionists. I say the whole responsibility for any loss of time or of anything else that has been caused by this reciprocity debate rests on the government, because, at the beck and call of the American President, they have introduced what I might call a crime against the people of this country, this pact with the American government. If they had not introduced this measure the wheels of progress would have gone on in this House and we would have been able to pass the important measures about which the Minister of the Interior is so much concerned. The right hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance understand that the wheels of progress can only go on in this House when they give way to the will of those who represent the majority of the people, I ask them to advance it and to advance it in the quickest way we know, that is by going before the people who have sent us here and asking them to tell us how we should vote on this very important question.


Mr.   S.@: SHARPE (North Ontario) I had hoped that the government and their supporters would have seen tit to withdraw from this unfortunate pact after having had an opportunity during the recess of consultation with their supporters and after reflection and analysis, and after having fully digested the details of this agreement. Of course I quite understand that such an attitude would have entailed heart burnings and humiliations and possibly withdrawal from the cabinet of the two ministers responsible for this unfortunate agreement. I suppose it is too much to expect such self-sacrifice from the hon. gentlemen who went to Washington to negotiate this important treaty on behalf of the farmers of this country. I would like to know where the champions of this agreement are to-day. Their voices are silent as the tomb; outside of the cabinet ministers no voices are raised in defence of this agreement, it has assumed the position of an undefended case. When the Finance Minister first introduced this agreement an hon, member supporting the government rushed from the House and telegraphed to the paper supporting the government in his constituency that it was the greatest act of diplomacy in the history of Canada, of great importance to the farmers of Ontario and showed statesmanship almost divine. After the hon. gentleman had recovered from his spasm and after the facts in regard to the twelve Mr. SMYTH.
favoured nations had been extracted from the hon. gentleman, I might almost say at the point of the bayonet, by the leader of the opposition, after the subject had been thoroughly discussed and the hostility of the people of the country aroused, the hon. gentleman to whom I refer was as dumb as an oyster, he has refused to raise his voice in the House in defence of the agreement.
One of the most remarkable features in connection with this whole treaty is the absolute lack of information on the part of our plenipotentiaries when they went to negotiate it. Our representatives going to Washington had no data or statistics or detailed information upon which they could form an intelligent judgment or negotiate an intelligent treaty for the farmers of this country. In their hurry and anxiety to complete this agreement and to accomplish something to divert attention from their long record of maladministration, of departmental inefficiency and their foolish naval policy, they neglected to fortify themselves with the necessary data which was in the possession of the American government.
On the 16th of March, I moved for a return in connection with certain important commodities which I, in my innocence, thought the ministers would have had under their hands. The return for which I moved called for the average prices of butter and eggs in London, England, for the past five years in comparison with the prices respectively in eastern provinces, in Montreal, in Toronto, in Minneapolis, in Chicago, in Detroit, in Buffalo, in Boston and in New York. The Minister of Agriculture took no exception to the order gping and said he would supply the information in the course of a few days. After many days they refused to bring down the return and this was the letter that was laid upon the table of the House.
Trade and Commerce Department, Ottawa, 25th March, 1911. Order of the House.
Sir,-I beg to return you herewith your reference No. 172 for statement showing comparative prices of butter and eggs in London, England, and certain points in Canada and the United States. This department has no information upon the subject. Such average prices of butter and eggs, however, are published in trade papers all over the world which can be referred to by any one desiring the information.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
F. C. T. O'HARA, Deputy Minister.
Thomas Mulvey, Esq.,
Under Secretary of State,
Ottawa.
The butter and egg industries are two of the most important branches of farming

in the province of Ontario, an-d you would at least expect that the two ministers negotiating an important treaty like this would have had detailed information in regard to the comparative prices in the three countries. I also asked some questions in reference to the lack of information on the part of our representatives at Washington. The questions and answers appear in the ' Hansard ' of April 10, 1911. They are as follows:
1.	Was the purpose of entering into negotiations for reciprocity with the United States to secure better prices for Canadian produce?
The answer by the Finance Minister was:
The purpose of entering into negotiations for reciprocity with the United States was to obtain that expansion of market for Canadian products which has been sought by all governments in Canada since the formation of the Dominion.
An absolute evasion of the question which conveyed no information to any one requiring the answer to that simple question. I further asked:
2.	Were the representatives of Canada before entering upon the negotiations supplied with comprehensive data and statistics collected by experts and officials covering a considerable period and showing a comparative list of prices of all products in the principal markets of Canada and the United States?
3.	If so, will data and statistics be available to the members of the House by laying them on the table of the House?
4.	Generally speaking, how do the prices of farm products in the United States compare with the prices in Canada?
5.	Upon what information is the answer to the preceding question based?
The answer to these questions was:
2 and 5. These questions have been fully discussed in the House since the bon. member placed his question on the notice paper and the views of the government thereon have been stated.
While the question was on the Order Paper, the discussion to which the Minister of Finance referred took place on the 6th of April, and daring that discussion we had this remarkable statement by the Minister of Finance. Speaking of the commissioners appointed by the United States government to thoroughly investigate conditions in Canada, he said:
That commission has been conducting investigations not only here but in other countries, and the information was probably necessary for onr American neighbours, when they were entering upon a new and radical departure from their past fiscal policy.
As though we were not entering on as radical a change in our fiscal policy as the ministers were in theirs. He further goes on:
No such tariff commission and no such information was required to enable this government to deal with the question of reciprocity in natural products. There was no need of statistics to satisfy this government that reciprocity in natural products was a good thing.
That is a most remarkable admission on the part of the Minister of Finance. He admits categorically that they had no information or statistics. He claims that they were possessed of sufficient knowledge in a general way that reciprocity in natural products was a good thing for Canada, and consequently, without fortifying themselves with detailed information such as was in the possession of the United States representatives, they went to Washington and negotiated this treaty. Therefore, they find that it is not meeting with the approval and endorsation of the people of Canada. The hon. Minister of Finance made this further statement:
What we have done is no departure front the policy of Canada; it is in accordance with the policy of Canada for forty years.
That was a most remarkable admission on the part of the Minister of Finance. Contrast the position of the representatives of Canada with the position of the United States government. The United States government during the previous months had a full staff of experts travelling through the United States and Canada gathering information in order to enable them to come to an intelligent decision [DOT]upon these important matters. The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton), in his discussion of this question, deals with this important phase of the matter. On page-4475 of ' Hansard ' be says:
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 principle commodities, in the United States, in Canada, and in the other countries concerned. But we have not received it.
Then I ask, in the name of all that is reasonable, how can the members of this House come to an intelligent decision on this question without the necessary data and statistics which were in the possession of the United States plenipotentiaries when this treaty was negotiated? If we look at the documents prepared by the experts of the United States government, we shall see what mountains of information they were possessed of. They did not go into this negotiation blindfolded; they went with information that had been collected for months in the United States and in Canada. I have a copy of document No. 849 regarding reciprocity with Canada, prepared by

the experts of the United States government, and containing 132 closely written pages. We could not get any information from our representatives. They refused to produce it if they had any. That information would be detrimental to their side of the case; it would show that the prices of staple farm products are higher in this country than on the American side, and that consequently the whole purpose and object of this agreement falls to the ground. Any reasonable man who looks at the matter in this light must come to the conclusion that the action of this government, in negotiating this treaty at this particular time, was both premature and unwise. It was premature, because they were anticipating the action of the Democratic party, who had won the elections for Congress on the promise that they would reduce the tariff. They were, in fact, negotiating a live treaty with a dead party. Both the Reform party in Canada and the Republican party in the United States were becoming discredited by their long terms in office, and they sought to divert public attention from their records of mal-adminis-tration. If this government had held its hand for a short time, this country would have got in a short time all the advantages, if there are any, of the treaty, without making the sacrifices therein entailed. Not only was the action of the government premature, but it was unwise, because the facts extracted from the Minister of Fin-amce, and the facts prepared by the experts of the United States government, show conclusively that the prices of staple farm products in Canada are higher than they are in the United States, and consequently the whole purpose and object of this agreement falls to the ground. It is not much wonder that this unfortunate agreement has been prematurely and unwisely entered into by our representatives, when we have signal displays of ignorance of its provisions on the-part of various ministers of the Crown. We find the Minister of Agriculture, in discussing this treaty on the 28th of March, speaking of the important commodity of potatoes as follows:
In 12 years of high duties the United States accepted from Canada $11,000,000 worth of potatoes more than they sent into Canada.
Now, the trade returns prepared by the Minister of Agriculture's own department show that during the years from 1901 to 1910 we exported to the United States less than $2,000,000 worth of potatoes, and that the total value of potatoes exported from Canada to the United States during the ten years from 1901 to 1910 was $1,958,886 worth, and that we imported from the United States into Canada $1,419,651 worth, a balance, in out favour, in the ten years Mr. SHARPE (Ontario).
of $539,235.	So that the Minister of
Agriculture	was out	only $10,500,000.
Then we had the Minister of Inland Revenue, who is the owner and editor of the ' Daily Times,' published in Victoria, writing an editorial in that paper of the date of July 12, 1911, containing the following:
It is our duty to point ont that it is not part of the proposal nnder the reciprocity agreement to allow American-made shingles to enter Canada free.
As a matter of fact, the agreement provides for shingles to come in free.


William Stevens Fielding: No.


Mr. SHARPE (Ontario).: They have always been free.


William Stevens Fielding: When the hon. gentleman makes the statement that they are free, it is an incorrect statement.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: It is in the schedules, and the agreement ratified it.


William Stevens Fielding: There is nothing in the agreement respecting the admission of shingles into Canada free.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: So far as the tariff law of this country is concerned American shingles are allowed to come in free.


William Stevens Fielding: And we can change it any time we wish.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The hon. minister said it is not the object of this agreement to allow American made shingles to come into Canada free-another exhibition on the part of a minister of the Crown showing that he is not familiar with the terms of the agreement. We had another exhibition of this kind from the Postmaster General, who was dilating upon the excellencies of this agreement. The hon. Postmaster General is usually well informed, particularly in regard to matters connected with his own department, but when he comes to discuss the question of Fisheries and lobsters, he is in deep water. The hon. Postmaster General was telling us what an excellent thing it would be for the fishermen of the maritime provinces to have' free access for their lobsters into the United States markets, when the hon. member for Digby (Mr. Jameson) arose and informed him that lobsters had been on the free list for a great many years.
Then we had the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) one of the plenipotentiaries who went to negotiate this all important treaty-a man supposed to know it from cover to cover. The hon. Minister of Customs was questioned with regard to an important commodity called talc. He

said that talc was the material from which talcum powder was made, and that talcum powder was used as a toilet preparation. But, the talc contemplated by this agreement is the talc used for the manufacture of paper, which the Americans wished to import into their country free of duty. If hon. gentleman will refer to page 6 of schedule A they will find it covers ' talc, ground, bolted or precipitated, naturally or artificially, not for toilet use.' Even the agreement did not provide for talc used for toilet purposes, being exported into United States free of duty.
When you have two ministers of the crown, supposed to be familiar with the contents of the treaty, and the industrial and commercial conditions of this country, so unfamiliar with the terms of their own agreement; how can you expect the members of this House or the public at large to pass an intelligent judgment upon the agreement, unless they are supplied with all possible data and statistics? What else can you expect when two Ministers of the Crown, one an ex-newspaper editor and the other a biscuit manufacturer, who took precious good care that the industry in which his money is invested is not to be prejudiced in any way, go to Washington, and negotiate for 5,000,000 farmers; without the assistance or advice of the representatives of the interests affected, and this is the result. It seems to me we were sending a couple of political quack doctors down to that specialist, Dr. Taft, at Washington, and that they brought back a reciprocity pill, the ingredients of which and the effect of which they were ignorant, and .are asking the Canadian people to swallow it. It reminds me of the old nursery rhyme; ' Open your mouth, shut your eyes, and we will give you something that will make you healthy, wealthy and wise.' 'But' say the Canadian people 'supposing the pill kills us?' The answer is 'Then you will be none the wiser.' 'But, supposing it almost kills us?' The answer to that is 'if perchance you survive, then you can punish us by turning us out of office.' ' But supposing by any possibility it might help us?' 'Then, we are the heaven bom statesmen, our friends describe us.*
I placed a question on the Order Paper, bnt the hon. Minister of Finance did not give me what I conld call an unequivocal answer. I desired to know the object and purpose of this agreement. The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) ?nd other members of the Cabinet said that this agreement was for the benefit of the farmers, but the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Murphy) said that it was for the benefit of the consumer.


Charles Murphy: Where did the Secretary of State say that?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: In the Ottawa Free Press of April 7th, 1911, the hon. Secretary of State is reported to have said:
Finally, Mr. Murpliy held that^ this was a poor man's agreement and that it cut down the vested interests and middlemen who were so clamorous against it.
The base of the agreement is the cheapening of the workmen's food; it is based on the elemental principle of the greatest good for. greatest numbers (cheers).
The hon. Secretary of State was going around making campaign speeches and saying that this is a poor man's agreement, on the other hand other members of the government were saying that the agreement was for the benefit of the farmer-raising the prices. In the 'Ottawa Citizen' of April 2nd, the hon. Sec-eretary of State is reported as follows;
' This was essentially a poor man's agreement,' continued the speaker. Onions, butter, cabbages, beans, milk and many other articles, staples of the workingman's domestio life, would all be cheapened. In fact, upon this the treaty was primarily based.
How can the ministry reconcile these two positions? They must either accept the one or the other Are they not fooling the country in some way or another?
On the floor of the House here we had the hon. Minister of Finance, the_ non. Minister of Customs and the hon. Minister of Agriculture all stating that the object of this treaty was for the purpose of raising the prices for the farmers-that it was a farmers' agreement. The _ Tight hon. the Prime Minister in speaking in this House on March 7, 1911, used this language :
I stated a moment ago that the_ agreement we made is simply to get better prices for the products of tbe Canadian farmer.
In face of this we have the hon. Secretary of State going before the consumers and saying that this is a poor man s agreement, making for the lowering of prices. What has the hon. Secretary of State to say m reference to this matter. Or perhaps, the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Loggie) will enlighten us upon the question, or maybe the hon. member for Hants (Mr! Black) would enlighten us?


Mr. BLACK.: When a speaker gets so undignified, iso flippant, the member for Hants (Mr. Black) has better business than to take any notice of him.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Not only are the members of the cabinet hopelessly divided on the objects and purposes of this agreement, but their candidates are also divided. When they address the mechanics and artisans, they declare this is the pooT man's agreement, and say it will lower prices. But when they are in

the rural districts, the agreement is to be of the _ greatest benefit to the farmer because it will enhance his prices. Mr. J. G. O'Donoghue was the government candidate in South Toronto last election. He is the representative and salaried officer of the labour unions throughout the Dominion, and is the possible candidate again on behalf of the government in South Toronto. Addressing the mechanics at Toronto he say ;s
The workingman has his choice of the following articles of food: apples protected 40 cents a barrel, bacon and ham protected, 9 cents a pound, cheese, 3 cents a pound, butter, 4 cents a pound, potatoes, 15 cents a. bushel.
What change in the above will reciprocity bring forth ? How will it affect the workingman s food ? The following list will tell: Present and proposed rate:
Apples, 40 cents a bbl., free.
Pears, 25 per cent, free.
Peaches, $1 per 100 lbs., free.
Turnips, 30 cents a bush., free.
Onions, 30 cents a bush., free.
Cabbages, 30 cents a doz., free.
Beans, 25 cents a bush., free.
Rggs, 3 cents a doz., free.
Butter, 4 cents a lb., free.
Cheese, 3 cents per lb., free.
Potatoes, 20 cents a bus!*., free.
Fresh milk, 17J per cent, free.
Poultry, 20 to 25 per cent, free.
Fish, 1 cent per lb., free Reduced rates are provided for beef, bacon and hams, pork, lard, meats generally, tomatoes. and other vegetables, oatmeal, &c.
The result to my mind will mean cheaper food for the worker. That is something devoutly to be wished. The worker will have two markets instead of one to buy from.
Rents are lower the more landlords there are, trying to obtain tenants. Food prices will be lower the more food owners there are trying to obtain purchasers.
The bon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), at page 7418 of 'Hansard,' speaking upon this important question says that it is absolutely illogical to say such a thing, that it cannot raise the prices to the farmer and reduce them to the consumer-it is absolutely absurd and ridiculous. But, to cap the climax, we have the statement of the- Prime Minister himself. A meeting was to be held in Toronto by Mr. T. C. Robinette, who was the government candidate in Centre Toronto in the last election, and is the alternative nominee for North York, in case the Minister of Justice (Sir Allen" Aylesworth), is defeated, he will try to carry North York at the following election. Mr. Robinette wanted something to read to the electors, so he got a telegram from the Prime Minister, which appears on the front page of the 1 Globe ' and dated 21st March, 1911, as follows:


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: We have not hurt the manufacturers and will not do so. We have benefited the farmer and the consumer. When the time comes we will sweep the country-from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Did you ever listen to such absolute humbug and nonsense? It promises everything to everybody. Is it not a perfect classic of contradiction? If the right hon. leader of the government can convince the manufacturers that he is not going to hurt
them, and	then if	he	can	convincethe farmer	that he	is	not	going tohurt him;	and if	he	can	convincethe consumer that	he	is	not going
to hurt him, but benefit him-if he can perform that impossible task, I should not be surprised if he could sweep the country. The farmers are to be benefited -how? By raising their prices. The consumers are to be benefited-how? By lowering their prices. What kind ol mental gymnastics is required to perform a task like that? It has become definitely known by the investigation and report of the experts appointed by the United States government, who, as I have said, went throughout the cities of the United States and Canada, that the prices of staple farm products in Canada are a great deal higher than they are in the United States. On April 10, I asked the Minister of Finance the following question:-
1. Was the purpose of entering into negotiations for reciprocity with the United States to secure better prices for Canadian produce?
And The Minister of Finance answered:-
1. The purpose of entering into negotiations for reciprocity with the United States was to obtain that expansion of market for Canadian products which has been sought by all governments in Canada since the formation of the Dominion.
The hon. gentleman speaks of the expansion of markets for ouir products. A glorious expansion to get into a market where they are exporting the same produce that we have to sell! a glorious expansion to get into a market where the prices, are lower than our own! A glorious expansion when this is obtained at the expense of throwing open our markets not only to the ninety or one hundred millions in the United States, hut to the three or four hundred millions that make up the favoured nations.
Now, personally, I am unalterably opposed to reciprocity, upon a great many grounds. Some of these grounds have been mentioned by others, but I make no apology for repeating them. I do not expect that any expression of opinion that I give in this House will change hon. members on your right, Mr. Chairman. But I do expect that my views will he conveyed to my constituents, and they will see

upon what grounds I am opposing this * agreement. I think this is a most unfortunate junction in our affairs for the entering into a reciprocity agreement. As every .person admits, Canada has been enjoying an era of great prosperity, and we should be content to allow ourselves to work out our own destiny without interference from or subjection to the United States. Hon. Sir George W. Ross, who occupied a prominent position in the ranks of the Reform party for many years, and who was premier of the province of Ontario, has spoken in no uncertain tone against reciprocity. He gave an illustration to the people of Canada of their position. He spoke about an aged man who, though in good health, wanted to get better. And his epitaph was:-
I was well; I wanted to he better; and here I lie.
_ There has been no demand or sentiment in Canada for reciprocity. In fact, the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) in an interview in Boston on the 28th of October last, while these negotiations were in progress, stated, as reported in the Montreal ' Herald ' that ' the attitude of the people of Canada was to let well enough alone.' That should be the attitude of the government which is boasting of its surpluses, and of the prosperity of Canada, which .they claim are due to their ability in administering the affairs of the country, but which we claim arise in spite of their efforts, and in spite of the effect of their administration.
Another reason why I am opposed to reciprocity is the fact that if we are not ingrates, if we have any gratitude at'all, if we have any commercial favours to give, we ought to give them to our own kith and kin, who are furnishing us with the money to develop our natural resources. It was British, and not United States, capital that developed Canada. It was British capital that constructed the Grand Trunk railway, that constructed the Canadian Pacific railway, that constructed the Grand Trunk Pacific, that constructed the Intercolonial. It was British capital that constructed our great canal systems, the Welland, the Soo, the Cornwall, and the Rideau canals. We borrowed millions from Great Britain to build extensions to these lines. We are looking to the British market to-day to build our Hudson Bay railway, the Georgian Bay canal, and a new Welland canal. British capital built our cities, paved our streets, organized our banks, supplied us with capital for our commercial and industrial enterprises. Then if we have any favours to offer we should offer them to Great Britain, and not to the United States.
Another reason why I am opposed to this reciprocity pact is the fact that in days gone by, when Canada was in a position that she required the markets of the United States, our overtures were rejected. Time after time when our representatives went to Washington seeking access to their markets, they slammed the door in our faces. Consequently now, when we have climbed the long hill of prosperity, when we are not in need of their markets, when we are independent of their markets, there is no reason why we should make sacrifices in order to gain access to those markets which we no longer require. This country, and especially the older portions of this country, have been settled by the United Empire Loyalists, men who were driven out of the United States in 1776, dispossessed of their property, whose wives and children were subjected to the rigours of a northern clime on account of their loyalty to the British Empire. Since that historic occasion the United States has time after time endeavoured to gain control of this country, but we have always swept back the Americanizing influences. We find in the constitutioif of the United States in 1776, incorporated in one of the articles, a standing invitation to the provinces of Canada to join the American union. But upon that occasion we swept back the American influences. In 1812 when Great Britain was engaged in a life and death struggle with the dictator of the world, the United States attempted to take advantage of her necessities, and we had the war of 1812. And again we swept back the Americanizing influences on that occasion. In 1866 the United States denounced reciprocity in order to starve Canada into annexation or submission. But the result was that instead of being starved into submission, with Canadian pluck, and energy, and enterprise, we built up the Canadian confederation, and again we swept back the Americanizing influences. In 1866 and 1870 we had the Fenian raids, which were fostered and abetted in United States territory, and again Canadians swept back the Americanizing influence. In 1891 we had the Reform party under the leadership of the present Prime Minister, again pandering to Americanizing influences, and introducing a policy which 'they called unrestricted reciprocity, a policy which was instrumental in driving a great many noted men from the Reform ranks, just as the policy of 1911 is driving many noted men from their ranks to-day. We had the greatest intellect that the Reform party possessed upon that occasion, the Hon. Edward Blake, denouncing the policy of unrestricted reciprocity of 1891, and forsaking the party on account of the Americanizing tendencies of that policy. Again the people responded nobly when they were asked, and they swept back the Americaniz-

mg influences. Now in 1911 we have our old friend reappearing in another guise. The unrestricted reciprocity of 1891 will ultimately come from the present agree-tnent if it is carried into effect. The farmers of this country are not going to see their protection swept away, and allow the manufacturers to be in full possession of their protection. If the protection that is now accorded to the farmers is swept away, they will insist upon equal treatment being meted out to the manufacturers. Consequently the policy that is proposed to-day in this reciprocity pact if carried into effect will inevitably lead to unrestricted reciprocity, and we think to absorption and annexation to the United States. This present agreement is the skeleton of 1891. It reminds me of a story I heard of two small boys playing in the house of one of the boy's father who was a doctor. One of them was rummaging about the house and came to a closet where there was a skeleton. He asked the doctor's son what that was. Oh, he says, it is my father's first patient. This reciprocity pact is Doctor Laurier's first patient. We killed it in 1891, and I anf satisfied that it will remain a skeleton after the election of 1911. We have, as I say, on all these numerous occasions swept back the Americanizing tendencies that have cropped up from time to time, and when the elections of 1911 are over I am satisfied the Canadian people will again demonstrate their loyalty to the mother of nations.
We have heard a great deal about the national effect of this agreement, what its ultimate effect will be on the future of Canada; and we have been taken to task some times very severely by hon. members to the right of the Speaker, notably by the Minister of Public Works only last night, ridiculing the suggestion that this agreement would ultimately result in Canada coming under the control of the United States. I want to show that these dangerous tendencies towards annexation with the United States have not been pointed out only by Conservatives, tout that prominent Liberals all over this country,_ from one end to the other, have signalized the danger to our national institutions if this agreement is carried into effect. We had the Board of Trade of the city of Toronto, a representative body of men, condemning this agreement by 298 votes to 13. Mr. Gour-lay, the president of the Board of Trade, voted in support of the resolution, and Sir Edmund Walker, who is a prominent Liberal, used this language:
For many years he had been in business in Canada and in the United States, and the people of.the latter country he knew well. It was in the true interest of Canada, Sir Edmund said, for her to remain in the British connection, without interest or contact from the Mr. SHABPE (Ontario).
south. We should develop our own nation in our own way, and his experience had deepened . the conviction that we should not become American.
Then we have the resolution of the associated Boards of Trade of the whole' prov-vince of Ontario, by a vote of 97 to 18 condemning in the strongest language this reciprocity agreement. One of the preambles of that resolution was in this language :
And whereas the proposed agreement would weaken the ties which bind Canada to the empire, and to avoid the disruption of trade referred to, Canada would be forced to closer relations with the United States, which would still further weaken those ties, and make it more difficult to avert political union with the United States.
Be it, therefore, resolved, that in the opinion of this convention of the Ontario Associated Boards of Trade the proposed agreement threatens Canadian nationality and autonomy, and is opposed to the true interests and should not be ratified.
Mr. Gourlay, President of the Board of Trade and a very prominent Liberal, speaking upon that resolution, is reported to the Toronto press to have used the following language:	.
In this present agreement Mr. Gourlay declared that Canada was not trading on equal terms. ' The United States,' he said, 'have a population of 90,000,000, whereas we have barely eight millions. They have twelve traders who can come into the market for every one we can send into their market. It is practically. a merger and we are asked to become minority stockholders in the continental partnership and any of you who have had experience with minority stockholding know what that means. . . The speaker felt that ratification of the agreement would do much to impair the strong autonomy and loyalty of the Canadian people as it would change the relationship of the whole of the provinces of the Dominion.


The Hon.  E. J.@: Davis, who was in the Liberal cabinet presiding over the destinies of this great province of Ontario for a number of years, also spoke, strongly 'against the agreement:
Hon. Mr. Davis, while believing that the Canadian ministers and President Taft were sincere in their beliefs, was strongly of the opinion that the agreement spelled disaster to Canada. . . They should not make changes in the tariff except in the way pursued in 1897 after the people had been given an opportunity of expressing their views. He was steadfastly in favour of a United Empire. . . They should stand by the British flag and for the solidarity of the British Empire. Make it a tariff in the interests of Canada and the British Empire.
Mr. Chairman, it is not the Conservatives alone who are raising the annexation cry, it is not the Conservatives alone who are waving the old flag as it is contemptuously

1016G
called by speakers sitting on yonr right, but it is prominent Liberals throughout the country. I have in my hand a very strong resolution passed by a number of prominent Liberals opposed to the ratification of this reciprocity agreement. It is not my intention to read the whole of the resolution, but I am going to read two or three extracts from it. One of their objections to this reciprocity pact is set out as follows:
Because the present unexampled prosperity of Canada is the result of the policy which has been pursued in the development of her trade and of her natural resources. Because this has involved the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars upon railways, canals, steamships and other means of transportation between east and west and ivest and east, and the obligation to incur further great expenditures for the same purpose; and because further developments along the same lines would be seriously checked by the proposed reciprocity agreement and the benefits of the expenditures referred to would be to a great extent lost.
3. Because it is essential to the continued national unity and development of Canada that no trade relations with any country should be agreed to by Canada on any basis which would check the growth and development _ of trade between the various parts of Canada with each other, or between Canada and the various parts of the empire; and because the proposed reciprocity agreement between Canada and the United States of America would seriously check the growth and development of this trade.
8. Because the agreement as proposed would weaken the ties which bind Canada to_ the empire, and because the unrestricted reciprocity which would naturally follow would still ' further weaken those ties and make it more difficult to avert political union with the United States.
That is the language of fifteen prominent Liberals in the city of Toronto; it is not the language of flag-waving Conservative speakers throughout the country. It is the studied language contained in a resolution of fifteen of the most prominent men who have been identified with the Liberal party all their lives.
10. Believing as we do that Canadian nationality is now threatened with a more_ serious blow than any it has heretofore met with, and that all Canadians who place the interests of Canada before those of any party or section or individuals therein should at this crisis state their views openly and fearlessly, we, who have hitherto supported the Liberal party in Canada, subscribe to this statement.
Surely the language contained in that resolution could not be stronger, and surely the government ought to pay some attention to language which is couched in such strong terms coming from such prominent supporters as these gentlemen are. We find that all sections of the community from the Atlantic to the Pacific are opposed to this reciprocity pact. The Eev. Dr. McLeod, of
the maritime provinces, a prominent Baptist conducting a religious and not a trade paper in the interest of his esteemed denomination, the Baptist denomination, expresses his opinion very decidedly upon this question. He was ill and unable to direct his paper and during his absence an item slipped into the paper unknown to him favouring this agreement. The moment Dr. McLeod noticed this article he gave expression to his disapproval of that sentiment in the following paragraph which appeared in the next issue of the paper:
The editor, still unable to do any work whatever on the paper, having had his attention called to the article, entitled ' Reciprocity/ on page one, of March 1, feels impelled to repudiate every sentiment and shade of sentiment in it which approves of the proposed reciprocal trade arrangement now under consideration by the parliaments of Canada and the United States.
He regards the proposed reciprocity agreement as a deadly blow at the true national life of beloved Canada. He wants this statement of his strong conviction to go to his readers, lest he may never pen another sentence. This is the day of our country's peril.
'GOD SAVE CANADA!'
It is very apropos at this juncture that I should read one or two extracts from that famous manifesto that was issued to the electors of Canada by our late, esteemed leader, Sir John A. Macdonald. On the first page, I notice this sentence which is peculiarly apropos at this juncture:
Our policy in respect thereto is to-day what it has been for the past thirteen years, and is directed by a firm determination to foster and develop the varied_ resources of the Dominion by every means in our power consistent with Canada's position as an integral portion of the British Empire. To that end we have laboured in the past and we propose to continue in this work to which we have applied, ourselves of building up on this continent, under the flag of England, a great and powerful nation.
Further on he says:
It would, in my opinion, inevitably result in the annexation of this Dominion to thei United States.
Speaking of tire unrestricted reciprocity propaganda of the Reform party in 1891.
The advocates of unrestricted reciprocity on this side of the line deny that it will have such an effect

Just as they are contending that this will have such an effect.
-though its friends in the United States urge as the" chief reason for its adoption that unrestricted reciprocity would he the first step in the direction of political union.
Is it not a most remarkable parallel? We have hon. members of the government and their followers stating that the present reci-

procity agreement will not have the effect that a great many reformers think it will have, namely, bring us into annexation with and absorption by the United States, while upon that occasion we had the warn-ing_ of our old chieftain that unrestricted reciprocity in 1891, would inevitably lead to annexation. The positions of the parties are similar in 1891 and 1911.


William Stevens Fielding: Did not Sir John Macdonald afterwards send a delegation to Washington to get reciprocity?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Not the kind we have here.


William Stevens Fielding: Just the kind of reciprocity that is in this agreement to-day.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Not a jug-handled, lop-sided arrangement such as is proposed to-day. Imagine astute, capable Sir John going down and being taken in with a reciprocity pact such as we have to-day!


William Stevens Fielding: They went down and got nothing.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: It is true, Mr. Chairman, that Sir John Macdonald went down and did not get what he went for. The Minister of Finance says he got nothing. Well, we have got worse than nothing, because the sacrifices that we make more than overbalance any benefit we may possibly derive from this treaty.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: What sacrifices have we made?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The sacrifice that these fifteen Liberals speak about who say that we are going to sacrifice our nationality The sacrifice that we are allowing the farmers of the United States and twelve other countries to come in and take possession of our markets, when the prices are higher here than on the other side.


Ernest Lapointe: The farmers of Ontario
are asking for it.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: 
Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: What- about Haultain?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I understand Mr. Haultain's last utterance was that a hundred reciprocity agreements would not justify any sane man voting for the Liberal administration.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Is that why you are opposed to reciprocity?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: At page 2624 of the Congressional Record of the United States. Hon. Champ Clark, when asked whether he would be willing to give reciprocal terms similar to those of other nations, said:
' Why, of course, wherever we can get the better of the bargain.'
Again, at page 2625 the same hon. gentleman says:

It is my judgment that we are getting the "better of the proceeding in this treaty.
It is my judgment that we get the better of the proceedings in this treaty.
Further on he says:
The intelligent farmers of America know that the agricultural products of Canada are inconsiderable when compared with the agricultural products of the United States; to use a common phrase they do not constitute a drop in the bucket. They also know that wages are as high in Canada in many lines as in America, and higher in labour pertaining to the production of lumber; so they know too much to be scared by the overworked cry of 'pauper labour.'
In a recent address at Holyoke, Mass., Governor Foss, of that state, said:
The United States have much to gain and nothing to lose by this reciprocity movement.
New factories in all lines will be established here, for with these conditions our capital will no longer seek Canada for the purpose of building up those factories which it is now forced to build in Canada by unnatural tariff conditions.
Then, on page 2930, Mr. McCall, speaking of the Louisiana purchase, says:
Why, if it were proposed to add to this country to-day another Louisiana purchase, if it were proposed to add two or three agricultural states, who would there be to deny that such a circumstance would augment materially the prosperity and wealth of the two countries? And yet, to the extent to which this Bill goes that is just what we are doing. One has but to look at the map to have the case conclusively shown. The common frontier between the two countries is 3,700 miles long.
On page 3275 Mr. Sherwood says:
I was elevated and highly entertained by the closing remarks of the able and experienced gentleman from Missouri (Champ Clark), in predicting that this proposed compact, if enacted, will not only promote our trade with our near-by Canadian neighbours,
Mr. Champ Clark says, in another place:
Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.
Speaking of the Panama canal, he proceeds :
We are not spending that vast sum because we are altruists, but as a business matter. I am for it, because I hope to see the day when the American flag will float over every square foot of the British North America possessions clear to the north pole. They are people of our blood. They speak our language. Their institutions are much like ours. They aTe trained in the difficult art of self-government. My judgment is that if the treaty of 1851 had never been abrogated the chances of a consolidation of these two countries would have been much greater than they are now.


Mr. MARTIN.: -Will the gentleman favour the abrogation of our tariff law entirely so
far as Canada is concerned, and making free trade with Canada on all products?
Mr. CLARK-By taking Canada in to become part of the United States; Yes.
Mr. Champ Clark again says:
I look forward to the time when the American flag will fly over every square foot of British North America up to the north pole. The people of Canada are of our blood and our language. If the treaty of 1851 never had been abrogated, our countries would be much further advanced than now towards this end.
Mr. Martin of South Dakota-Will the gentleman favour the abrogation of our tariff law entirely so far as Canada is concerned, and make free trade on all products?
Mr. Clarke-By taking Canada in, to become a part of the United States-Yes.
Mr. Norris of Nebraska-As I understand it, the gentleman favours the Bill for at least one reason, that it will have a tendency in the end to bring Canada into the union?
Mr. Clarke-Yes, I have no doubt about that.
Why, Sir, in the light of these utterances by representative public men in the United States, what must we in Canada be made of if we continue to champion and favour this reciprocity agreement?
A straw shows how the wind bloyvs. We had the other day in the city of Detroit, a meeting of the most influential character of any ever held in the United States, the National Editorial Association. I suppose the members of that association have more influence in moulding public opinion and directing the affairs of the United States than those of any other association in America. The Toronto ' Star ' publishes a dispatch from Detroit which shows that the editors of the newspapers and magazines of the United States are talking nothing but annexation, they believe that this agreement will ultimately lead to the annexation of Canada to the United States. The dispatch reads:
There is much speculation among the editors as to what kind of reception they will receive during their stay in Canada. On the opening day of the convention several speeches were made in which ' Union ' with Canada was strongly advocated. So much was said along this line that a great many of the delegates have been dubbed ' annexation boosters.'
Here we have a society of editors in a regularly organized meeting on our very border discussing annexation and called ' annexation boosters ' to further the reciprocity pact not only in the United States but in Canada. The discussions were so repugnant to the feelings of Mr. Justice Sutherland, of the High Court of Ontario, formerly a respected member of this House, that he publicly rebuked them at the convention, and this is the report of what he said:
Judge Sutherland, _ of Toronto, Ont., on the floor of the convention took exception to the union sentiment and spoke warmly against it.

In the light of these expressions of opinion, in the light of the trend of the press of the United, States, can we close our eyes to the fact that the leading men and the leading newspapers of the United States are absolutely convinced that the destiny of Canada, if this agreement is adopted, will be to fly the Stars and Stripes instead of the Union Jack.
Another reason that has been advanced in this House against this pact, and it is a very valid and strong reason, is the diversion of trade that it will cause from east to west to north and -south channels-what has been called the s-ectionalization of Canada. After the denouncement of the reciprocity treaty in 1866 Canada had a difficult task to perform. Farmers were ruined and people were in distress, but there was no surrender. Canada commenced by forming a confederation in 1867, and began the slow climb up the hill of prosperity, and the people toiled and worked in order to form the country into a confederation, and a strong nationality. Sir John A. Macdonald constructed the Canadian Pacific railway in order to have a transcontinental system to' bind the provinces together. The present leader of the government inaugurated the Grand Trunk Pacific for the same purpose, and in introducing the Bill into the House, and in arguments in favour of it throughout the length -and breadth of the country, he pointed out the desirability of Canada being free and independent of the United States. He said that it was desirable that we should not be bound up with the bonding privilege, which might be withdrawn by the United States at any time, that if we wanted to be -a self-contained nation as a part of the British Empire, and independent of the United States, we must have more transportation facilities; and for that reason, and that reason alone, he asked the Canadian people for their en-dorsation of the Grand Trunk Pacific scheme. Then two Canadians, captains of finance, Mackenzie and Mann, have constructed the Canadian Northern railway. If there is one province which is vitally interested in this question, and which has been struck to the heart by this reciprocity agreement, it is the province of Ontario. It is the richest and most populous province in the Dominion of Canada. The farmers of that province have mortgaged their farms, the people have pledged their future, fox the success of these great -enterprises. They furnished the greater share' of the capitai that constructed them; and now when we are in a position to derive some advantage from them, why should we, because a few partisan Liberal grain growers in the west may possibly get a few cents more for their wheat, allow the traffic of those lines to ibe diverted to the -south, and '


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: prevent the provinces in the east obtaining some advantage from those transportation facilities which have been provided at so great expense? In the very first year after the old reciprocity agreement went into effect, we transferred from Canadian channels over one-half of our shipping interest between Sarnia and the city of Quebec. In other words, our parliament gave to the United States about one-half of our carrying trade between those points.-


William Stevens Fielding: If the old reciprocity treaty did us so much harm, will my hon. friend tell me why all statesmen in this' country for forty years tried to get a renewal of it? That is a fair question.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I am addressing myself at the present time to the shipping interest, in which th-e province of Ontario is vitally interested. The old reciprocity treaty-, may have benefited certain interests. I am speaking of an interest that is going to be vitally injured if the present agreement goes into effect, and I am going to show that the shipping interest was vitally injured by the old reciprocity treaty. In 1854 the Canadian carrying trade on the St. Lawrence amounted to $33,633,128. The very next year. after the treaty went into effect this trade fell to $15,208,600, a decrease of over $18,000,000. In 1854 the vessels engaged in that trade numbered 1,416, rated at 618,926 tons with 20,301 sailors at Quebec. In the next year after the treaty went into effect these figures fell to 474 vessels, rated at 348,800 tons with 11,902 sailors at Quebec. In 1854 the tonnage of our sea-going vessels arriving _ and departing from fouT of the leading St. Lawrence ports amounted to 1,487,897 tons. The very next year after the treaty went into effect the tonnage fell to 870,794 tons. In 1854 the total value of the exports and imports at Montreal and Quebec was $42,000,000. The next year after the treaty went into effect they dropped to $28,000,000.
Another objection which has been raised and I think appropriately raised, against this arrangement, is its lack of permanence, the danger of entanglement with the United States, the danger of giving offence. Our trade routes have been established by successive government's from east to west. If this reciprocity pact goes into effect the trade routes will undoubtedly be changed to north and south channels. Eight millions of people have very little chance against one hundred millions of people. Uncle Sam will wield the' Big Stick, as he has wielded it before. Once let our trade routes be turned north and south, and we develop and -encourage vested interests which will fight to retain those routes, no matter how detrimental the arrangement

may be to other interests in the country. If this agreement goes into effect, and the routes are developed north and south, the United States can force other concessions from us by threatening to abolish and denounce the agreement, and throw our newly established trade relations into disorder. We have the great, free, open and independent market of Great Britain. Why should we hesitate what we should cultivate and preserve?
There are a great many constitutional and economical objections, as well as national and imperial objections, to this agreement. We are supposed to be living in a democratic age, enjoying responsible government. But, as has been said by the hon. member for Brandon, who was a member of the cabinet during the election of 1900, 1904 and 1908, there was no mention in any of those elections of this reciprocity question. He was in charge of the campaign for the Liberal party in the western provinces, and at none of those elections was this question mooted.
We are charged with inconsistency because the leaders of the Conservative party in days gone by endeavoured to secure reciprocity with the United States upon fair and equitable terms. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, if that is a reasonable argument? We had the right hon. the leader of the government, the hon. the Minister of Finance, the hon. the Minister of Public Works, and the hon. Minister of Customs reading extracts from speeches made in bygone days, showing that the Conservative party in these days were in favour of reciprocity. They have charged inconsistency on the part of the Conservative party. If the Conservative party has been inconsistent, how much more so have the people of the United States been? For 45 years the United States opposed reciprocity. Why should they now endeavour to get it?
Every one knows that conditions in this country have changed. Every one knows that when we were endeavouring to get reciprocity years ago we required the market of the United States. We were a young country, undeveloped, and reciprocity in these days might have been some good to us. However, conditions are altogether changed now. It would be just as reasonable to say that because a grown-up man required a nursing bottle when he was a baby he would require it all his life. Infant Canada might have cried for the nursing bottle and the soothing syrup of reciprocity in days gone by, but to-day Canada has attained the full status of manhood, and we no longer require the reciprocity medicine. Again the charge of inconsistency does not lie at the door of the Conservative party, because the reciprocity which the Conservative party advocated in years gone by certainly had no resemblance to the Reciprocity Act as introduced by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding).


William Stevens Fielding: What is the difference?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The difference is that Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir John Thompson, and the other leaders of the Conservative party wanted reciprocity in its true sense. They wanted tariff for tariff and if they reduced the duty on certain articles coming into Canada they expected the United States to reduce their duties to the same level on the same goods. Would Sir John A. Macdonald or Sir John Thompson allow the products of 90,000,000 farmers in the United States to be shipped in here in competition with our farmers, when the prices are higher here than on the American side? Would they allow their products of 300,000,000 people belonging to the 12 favoured nations to be shipped in here in competition with our people?


William Stevens Fielding: That is exactly what he offered in 1879.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Sir John A. Macdonald would not have been guilty of such indiscretion.
I say that condtions in Canada have changed since 1879 when the National Policy was introduced and when the offer of reciprocity was made to the United States. In 1879 there was no home market in Canada. To-day 80 per cent of our products are consumed at home. Canada has developed into a great industrial country, and we are providing home markets for our farm products. In 1879 the Canadian Northwest was practically unknown, and the natural resources of the other provinces were undeveloped. We had no Canadian Pacific railway, no Canadian Northern railway and no Grand Trunk Pacific. There were no exports of any kind to Great Britain, because we did not have the shipping facilities to carry our goods, nor did we produce the goods to carry.	.


William Stevens Fielding: What about 1891?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: To-day our shipping facilities are fully developed. Then, there is another very important point which must be borne in mind. In 1879, every Englishman in the old country was a free trader, whereas to-day even in the old country the majority of the people are in favour of tariff reform, and they believe in a measure of protection. Now that we are on the eve of forming Imperial federation-on the eve of bringing about an arrangement with Great Britain whereby our farm products will be allowed into Great Britain on a preferential basis, is it not foolhardy to enter into this agreement, which is the grave yard of Imperial federation?

In 1871 our population was 3,500,000; in 1911 it is 8,000,000. In 1868 our total trade was $129,000,000; in 1910, it amounted to $677,000,000. In 1869, our bank assets amounted to $44,000,000'; in 1911, they totalled $1,224,000,000. In 1877, our railway system covered 2,278 miles; in 1911, our railway system covers 25,000 mlies. In 1871 our manufactured products amounted to $221,000,000; in 1906, they amounted to $712,664,000. In 1871, our dairy products amounted to $1,600,000; in 1908, they amounted to $36,000,000. In 1871, we grew 16,000,000 bushels of wheat; in 1908 our wheat crop amounted to 120,000,000 bushels. In view of these facts and figures can any reasonable person say that what might have been good for Canada in the early days is good for it at the present time? ,
I want to read a most extraordinary criticism of the attitude of the Liberal party and the members of the Cabinet, taken from their own leading organ, published in the city of Ottawa. I have often wondered, when I listened to the hon. members of the government reading the old time speeches of the Conservative leaders in favour of reciprocity, if they ever noticed this editorial in the Ottawa 'Free Press'. It gives the Liberal leaders and the Liberal party a lot of wholesome advice which they should take to heart. This editorial appeared in the issue of the Ottawa 'Free Press,' of March 3rd, 1911, and is entitled 'Throw Hansard Away.' It reads as follows:
The weakest link in the argument of the Liberals in favour of reciprocity with the United States _ is the iteration and reiteration of the views and opinions of political parties and individuals in the past on that policy.
What on earth difference does it make to the people of Canada in the year of our Lord 1911 what some politicians or some party thought about the advisability of closer trade relations with the United States fifteen, twenty-five, fifty years ago?
Why bore us with long and dreary extracts from the long winded speeches of Sir Charles Tupper and his ilk in the 80's? What do we care about Lord Elgin's opinions on the policy of reciprocity years ago?
Hoes it matter a tinker's dam whether the Conservative party a quarter of a century ago favoured or didn't favour reciprocity?
Is it worth more than a trivial passing allusion that the Liberal party was at one time in favour of unrestricted reciprocity?
It does give us a pain to hear men on the Hill quoting dead speeches of the years ago, and to read in the party newspapers long extracts giving the opinions of men who, if they had not altogether passed from this sphere, are now incapacitated for public life.
In the last fifteen years a tremendous change has come over this country. We Liberals think that the splendid administration of the Laurier government was largely responsible for that change.


William Stevens Fielding: Hear, hear.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: 


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I am glad that this article meets the approval of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) -and hope he will take the advice here given, so that we may no longer hear these old dead speeches reiterated


William Stevens Fielding: I am afraid you will have to listen to some of them yet.
Mr. SHARPE (Ontario) reading:
You Conservatives attribute it to other causes.
But this is the point.
But whatever the object, we all admit that the change is there.
And I want to impress what follows upon the Minister of Finance; let it sink deep into his heart.
A policy, therefore, that might have suited Canada in 1896 may be the most unwise and inadvisable for Canada in 1911.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) say 'hear hear?'


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I am glad of it.
Consequently, instead of devoting so much time to drilling into us the history, with tables of dates, of the reciprocity movement in Canada, the gentlemen who are now asking us to endorse the pact which Messrs. Fielding and Patterson have negotiated at Washington would be better occupied in telling us just how that agreement is going to work out in practice from the day it is put into force.
Is that good advice?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Then, instead of reading speeches made at a time when conditions were entirely different from what they are to-day why does not the minister tell us what the effect of this arrangement will be upon our different industries. This agreement has never been referred to a committee composed of both political parties with power to summon witnesses and find out what the ultimate effect will be upon our industries. Instead of quoting speeches of bygone days, let the ministers busy themselves in telling us what the effect of this agreement is going to be.
They are wasting their time searching through ' Hansard ' for opinions which nobody now gives a hang about.
When they should be directing a staff of experts in the obtaining of the fullest information as to the probable effect of the agreement when it is put into operation.
That is what I urged upon the minister -a staff of experts to obtain full information of the effect of the proposed changes in the tariff. Where are your experts on

the probable effect of the agreement? Where are data and statistics to which the people are entitled? Why is this not handed over to committees as in the House of Representatives and Senate of the United States? -a committee who investigated it for two months. Why do not the ministers adopt that course and allow the interests that think they are going to be affected to appear before the committee of both Houses.
But therb has been no investigation and *there are no data, no statistics. In the case of the Grand Trunk Pacific, there was ' great haste because, as was said, Hon. George A. Cox could not wait. If this is the case it appears that the President of the United States can't wait.
Now I come to the closing part of this aiticle:
What Sir John Macdonald or Sir Charles Tupper said twenty years ago is not going to affect in the slightest the opinion of the business man of to-day who is doubtful as to the proposed policy.
Why should we be bound by the opinion expressed twenty years ago when the conditions were different from what they are to-day. Why not face this policy in the light of present conditions and judge it on its merits. And here is the completing paragraph:
Por goodness sake, let the liberal leaders chuck all the copies of ' Hansard ' away and give us something up to date.
I put a series of questions on the Order Paper, and they are still on the Order Paper. The Minister of Finance asked to have them stand,-for what reason it is incomprehensible to me. The answers are well known to the minister


William Stevens Fielding: If the answers are well known why does the hon. gentleman ask the question?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I want the people to read them. I want them put on record. And that, I fancy, is the reason he refuses.


William Stevens Fielding: No, my hon. friend will find that the questions will be answered.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: If the minister will answer these questions and answer them unequivocally, the effect must be to enlighten the people .as to the condition of affairs in regard to this treaty, and these are the questions I asked the minister:
1. Referring to the White Book known as Document No. 849, entitled ' Reciprocity with Canada,' being the message from the President of the United States transmitting to the Senate a report from the tariff board, and on March 1, 1911, ordered to be printed and laid on the table of the United States Senate, in which occur the following passages, viz.:
(a)	On page 107, ' It is to be noted that the farm prices of more than half of the oat crop 321
of the United States range from $0.27 to $0.35 a bushel, and that the farm prices of about the same proportion of the Canadian crop range from $0.28 to $0.36.'
(b)	On page 109, speaking of the prices of horses, ' In all the Canadian provinces except Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and Nova Scotia the prices are higher than in any of onr states.'
(c)	On page 109, speaking of the prices of dairy cows, ' The highest Canadian price quoted is $48 in Ontario as against $46.50 in Montana, the highest American price.
(d)	On page 110, appears the following table
of comparative prices, average value per head in 1910:	.
In the United States, horses, $108.19; dairy cows, $35.79; other cattle, $19.41; sheep, $4.08; swine, $9.14. In Canada, horses, $133; dairy, cows, $43; other cattle, $31; sheep, $6; swine, $11. And comparing the State of New York with Ontario: horses, $125; dairy cows, $39.50; other cattle, $18.20; sheep, $5; swine, $1.50. Ontario, horses, $133; dairy cows, $48; other! cattle, $34; sheep, $7; swine $10.
(e)	On page 110 appears also the following statements:
Prices of other cattle vary in the United States from $14.30 a head in Minnesota to $27.40 in Montana, while in Canada the range of prices is from $31 in Saskatchewan to $34 in Ontario.	_	'
Prices of sheep are much lower in the United States than in Canada.
Prices of swine are slightly higher in Canada than in the United States.
(f)	On page 113 appears the following:
As to horses Canada has no surplus of importance outside of Ontario. _	_
During the spring of 1910 it is stated on good authority that no less than 20,000 horses were sold out of Ontario alone for shipment to the market just mentioned, and prospective loss of this trade is giving Ontario-some concern at this time. The five provinces of Que-beo, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, combined have but 1,863,744 bead as compared with 1,600,000 head now in the state of Iowa alone. "
When was the reciprocity agreement executed by representatives of Canada and the United States?


William Stevens Fielding: Does not the hon. gentleman know that?
%


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I suppose that was in January.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman has it on record. Why does he ask the question?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I did not want to bother looking them up.


William Stevens Fielding: Then I am not going to bother looking them up for my hon. friend.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: What I desired, in putting these questions on the Order Paper, was that the Minister of Finance should answer them for the information of the people. I want the information official-



ly from the Minister of Finance to lay it before the electors of this country.


William Stevens Fielding: Let the hon. member read the agreement, that comes from the minister.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The next question I asked the minister was this:
Were the above statements and figures present to the minds of the Canadian ministers when they executed the agreement on behalf of Canada ?
If the Minister of Finance had answered that question he would have answered, no, because no person, no representative of Canada negotiating the treaty in the interest of the farmers of this country, with those facts before him coming from the United States experts, showing that the prices of the staple products of the farm were higher in Canada than in the United States, would ever have entered into this agreement. Will the minister answer now?


William Stevens Fielding: I have told the hon. gentleman that he will get answers to his questions in due course.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The next question, No. 4, was this:
Since the date of the execution of the agreement has the government made any effort to verify the above statements and figures as set out in the United States official document No. 849?
The Minister of Finance knew well yesterday the answers to all these questions; he knew yesterday that those facts and figures of the United States authorities, which were not made public until long after the treaty was signed, were not pres-sent to his mind, and he could have answered question No. 4. He knows whether the government, in view of those facts and figures,_ showing the prices on the Canadian side higher than on the American side, had made any effort to verify them. If tlie Minister of Finance answers that question correctly, he will answer that he has made no attempt to verify those figures. But the government had determined, obstinately and pertinaciously, to stand by the two ministers, no matter what their faults of judgment may have been in making this agreement, and now they are prepared, no matter what the consequences may be to the farmers, to force this agreement upon the country. Question No. 5:
5.	Is the government aware that both the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States referred the agreement to committees composed of both political parties before whom evidence was taken for months as to the possible effect of the agreement on the United States interests?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: If the Minister of Finance answers that question he will answer it in the affirmative. He is aware that this agreement was referred to committees of both Houses of Congress, composed of both political parties, with a view of ascertaining what effect it would have upon the great interests of the United States. What information has this House in reference to this agreement? We can go out and read the newspapers, we have a little knowledge of our own; but the proper attitude for the government to take in reference to this great question was to- summon the interests that are going to be affected, and to hear them in reference to it. Were the members of any intelligent body ever before asked to commit themselves so thoroughly blindfolded to a proposal of such importance as this?
6.	Is it the intention of the government to take any evidence before any committees touching on the relative prices of farm products in the United States and Canada, or on the effect the agreement may have on Canadian interests ?
If the Minister of Finance answers that question he will answer it in this way:	It	is	not our intention to
take any evidence before committees touching the relative prices of farm products in (the two countries, because so soon as we commence to take such evidence, we will find that the prices on the Canadian side are higher than the prices on the American side., and consequently it would be detrimental to the interests of the Canadian farmers to consummate this agreement.
7.	Has the government any information now in their possession dealing with the relative prices of farm products in Canada and the United States?
I would like to ask the Minister of Finance now if they have any additional information dealing with this important matter in the nature of comparative prices. Have they sent any experts? Have they any authoritative information upon these important matters in which the farmers are so deeply interested? I will give the Minister of Finance an opportunity to answer.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman ought not to seek two methods of procuring the same end. He has put his questions on the paper, and I have said to hiim that they will be answered. The hon. gentleman now goes on and presumes to answer them himself, so I suppose he does not want an answer from me.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I want an authoritative answer from the government so that the people of Canada may have some intelligent conception of what this

agreement mean's. The fundamental position for the government to take is to find out what effect it will have. The Minister of Finance says that it is an agreement in the interests of the farmers. If it is in the interest of the farmers, surely the first step the government should have taken was to ascertain how the prices of farm products compared in the two countries.
Now, Sir, I was speaking, before I digressed, upon the charge of inconsistency that was made against the Liberal-Conservative party for having once advocated reciprocity, and now opposing it. I want to say that the reciprocity agreement that has been entered into on this occasion is not such a reciprocity agreement as was proposed by Sir John A. Macdonald; that was not the ill-advised, unfair and illogical agreement that has been negotiated^ by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Customs. I want further to say that since 1892 the Liberal-Conservative party has not been in favour of reciprocity, and since 1898 and 1899 the Reform party, under the present leader of the government, has. been opposed to reciprocity. I want to read a few extracts showing the position the leader of the government took in days gone by. In 1899 Sir Wilfrid Laurier, speaking on this question, said:
If we know the hearts and minds of our people at present I am not making too wide a statement when I say that the general feeling in Canada is not in favour of reciprocity. There was a time when Canadians would have given many things to obtain the American market. There was a time when the market of the great cities of the union was the only market we had, but those days are past and over now. We are not depending on the American market now. It is possible they may come to us, if they do, we will teach them the lesson they have taught us.
In 1907 at the Imperial Conference the leader of the government made this statement:
There was a time when we were wanting reciprocity with the United States, but our efforts and our offers were put aside, and negatived. We have said good-bye to that trade, and we now put all our hopes upon the British trade.
Does any person now charge either the Liberal party or the Conservative party with inconsistency if they oppose reciprocity after the utterances of the leader of the government? At the Imperial Conference in 1907, the right hon. gentleman said further:
If we are to follow the lines of nature and geography between Canada, and the United States, the whole trade would flow from south to north, and from north to south. We hare 32IJ
done everything possible by canals and subsidizing railways to bring the trade from west to east and east to west so as to bring trade into British channels. All this we have done recognizing the principle of the great advantage of forcing trade within the British Empire. . . There is no boundary line except a purely conventional one over the whole territory of North America. Their habits are the same as ours, and therefore we are induced to trade and cannot help it by foroe of nature. But so far as legislation can influence trade, we have done everything possible to push our trade towards the British people as against the American people. . .
There was a time when we wanted reciprocity with the United States, but our efforts and our offers were put aside. We have said good-bye to that trade and we now put all our hopes upon the British trade.


Mr. PATERSON.: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if he would read an extract or an utterance, or a resolution of any kind passed by the Conservative party, against reciprocity.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Mr. Chairman, in the past three general elections, 1900, 1904 and 1908 it was not an issue; it was not in active politics.


William Paterson: I ask the hon. gentleman if there is any repudiation by the Conservative party, or by their responsible men, of reciprocity. I defy him to read it.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: If the hon. gentleman has been following the proceedings of this House he will see what the attitude of the Conservative party is upon the proposition that was made by the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Customs asks when the Conservative party was opposed to reciprocity. Why, was not the election of 1891 fought out on reciprocity? That is the kind of reciprocity that hon. gentlemen are trying to force upon the country now. Speaking about the constitutional objections, I said, Mr. Chairman, that I thought as a casual student of the principles of responsible government, that we were living in a democratic country, 'and tnat the people ruled, but we find that we are under a dictatorship headed by the right hon. leader of the government. The cabinet composed of a few members, meet in secret, they decide upon policies, they commit the country to them and then afterwards, when they have a general election, these matters are either passed over or by large campaign funds their policies are carried without a fair submission of them to the people. What do we find?-four matters of prime importance during the history of this government have been settled not by the people, but by the government themselves. The Grand Trunk proposition, by which this country was committed to an expenditure of $200,000,000, was made merely by the Liberal government, without the consent or know-

ledge of the then Minister of Railways and Canals, with Senator Cox and others. That was not submitted to the people until after it had been consummated. The honour of Canada was at stake and the country was so committed to this policy that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) stated that if the Conservative party were elected in 1904, they would feel constrained to carry out that policy and to carry into effect the agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific railway showing that instead of having a tentative agreement and going to the country on that, policy in a democratic way they made am agreement and crammed it down the throats of the people without a fair election. Then, in 1904 we had a general election. Was there a word then about the Autonomy Bills and the creation of the provinces in the west? Was there a statement or a whisper as to the creation of tne new provinces, as to the emasculating of these provinces and taking away from them the control of their mines, minerals, timber and educational affairs? Not a word, but during the next session they passed the Autonomy Bills that deprived these provinces of the rights of self-government that they are now claiming. Then we had the Navy Bill. We had an election in 1908, but the Navy Bill was never discussed. There was no submission to the people and no mandate from the people to enter upon an expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars. Surely that was an extraordinary proceeding in a country where responsible government is supposed to obtain. Here we had a policy involving an enormous 'expenditure which was never discussed in any .general election although the people demanded that they should be consulted before a permanent policy was carried into effect.
Now, we have the reciprocity arrangement of 1911, making radical changes in the fiscal policy of this country, a policy that has enabled Canada to grow prosperous and develop, which policy is being changed without any consultation of tne people. Personally speaking I do not shy at the word ' blocking.' Personally speaking, I am here for the purpose of blocking reciprocity until the people have had an opportunity of being heard upon it. There is no use shying at the word. The position of the opposition was made clear by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, in the west that, in so far as reciprocity, is concerned, reciprocity will not go upon the statute books until the people have had an opportunity to pronounce upon it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear hear.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Did I hear hon. gentlemen say anything?


Mr. BUREAU.: Sure.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Mr. SHARPE (Ontario), it has been suggested to me, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. gentleman had the right to vote against the people being given an opportunity to express their opinon upon this question. We heard the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) grow eloquent last night. He said that they wanted a vote, upon it. So do we want a vote upon it,| but we want a vote of the people upon it/ and not a vote of a few servile follower's of the government


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.
Mr. SHARPE (Ontario)-who will vote for whatever measure is introduced by the leader of the government and who have never been known, outside of the three gentlemen who announced themselves upon this important question, to take an independent stand upon any public question.
Oanadians are living in a fool's paradise.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Some people imagine that we are living under responsible government. We are living under aa autocratic government, a government that is ruled by a dictator who forces his policies upon his supporters and upon the country. There are a great many economic objections to this reciprocity treaty and as time is of no moment to the government I purpose entering upon a discussion of a few of these objections.


William Stevens Fielding: That will be a pleasant diversion.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: If time were of much moment to the government they would not remain here so long, they would dissolve and go to the country. We of the opposition have definitelv made up our minds that we are going to stay here until this question is submitted to the people. Why do not the government be straightforward about the matter and let it go to the people? Why keep us here in the dog days, why bring us back in July and August to discuss reciprocity when the matter should be discussed on the hustings before the people who should be permitted to pronounce upon it? One of the greatest objections to this agreement is


William Paterson: Cannot you vote on it and then let the people pronounce upon it?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I prefer that the people should pronounce upon it. I have not the slightest doubt that the Minister of Customs, if he had his way, would tike to hang a man and try him afterwards. I prefer to give it a trial before the country and then we will come here and hang reciprocity after the elections are over.


Jacques Bureau: Reciprocity may hang you before that.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I will venture to express the opinion that the Solicitor General will never hang anybody or anything. He has not made a practice in parliament of displaying energy enough to hang anybody.


William Stevens Fielding: Oh, he has hung several.


Jacques Bureau: I am not a hanger.
Mr. SHAEPE (Ontario.) One objection to this treaty is that our natural products will become a prey to American trusts. Another is the fact that the United States with their hundred million people is an exporting country, exporting the very things that we have to sell. Another objection is that the United States and twelve other countries may compete in our market with our farmers. The fourth and strongest objection that I have discussed at some length is that the price of staple farm products are higher in Canada than in the United States. Speaking about ouif natural resources becoming a prey to the United States, everybody will admit that it is in the interests of every country to convert our raw material into the finished product within our own borders. We all approve of the pulpwood policy of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. What does that mean? It means that these two provinces are compelling the_ people who produce pulp from Crown lands to manufacture it into paper in our own. country. That means the establishment of factories, the creation of industries, the employment of labour, and the building up of our own country. The same argument that applies to pulpwood applies also to our wheat.
We should grind our wheat into flour and save the by-products for feed. Our coarse grain should be fed to the stock and thus enrich the soil. Our stock should be converted into beef and pork ready for the market. Standing timber and saw logs should be manufactured into finished products, wood-enware, furniture, pianos, &c. The United States want raw materials, our pulp wood, our saw logs, our coarse grains wheat and stockers. _ In document No. >1418, Hon.. James Wilson, Secretary of Agriculture, in his open letter to the National Grange of February 9, 1911, says of the United States:
We get into the Canadian woods, 90,000,000 or more of ns, for timber products, things very much needed, as our home supplies are so much reduced that prices have gone up markedly in the last few years, and our own development in the future will draw heavily on what remains.
The trains that bring farm products to the United States will take farm, orchard and manufactured products back.


William Paterson: Then farm products will go to the United States?
Mr. SHAEPE (Ontario) reading-
The _ raw material that comes from the-Canadian farm will be manufactured in the United States, and what is not needed will be sent to foreign countries.
The Canadian can furnish us with feeders,, a large per cent of the number that come to the United States are of that class.
We can handle the Canadian export grain crop with facility. If it is brought inside our borders and milled as it would be, our dairymen could use with great profit the by-products of the mills. This is the feature, bran and shorts-that makes dairy products and robs the soil.
The United States could with great profit and benefit to the land, take all the grain Canada has to sell, and devote its lands to1 less exacting crops, as is evidenced by the older prairie states farmers who grow nograin to sell, buy their flour and thereby keep up the fertility of the soil. In the western states where the farmer has turned from grain raising for sale to the production of crops to be fed to domestic animals on the farm, the new departure has been so profitable that lands in those states have risen in value to $100 to $200 per acre, and rents from $4 to $6 per acre.
Mr. Beveridge, who was here a few days ago, said in a recent speech, which will be found at page 2340 of the ' Congressional Eecord':
We have used up out natural resources so rapidly that the belated policy of conserving them has become one of our greatest national anxieties.
President Taft's message, January 26, 1911, contains this passage:
We have reached a stage in onr own development that calls for a statesmanlike and broad view of our future economic status and its requirements. We have drawn upon our natural resources in such a way as to invite attention to their necessary limit. This has properly aroused effort to conserve them, to avoid their waste, and to restrict their use to our necessities.
Ought we not then to arrange a commercial agreement with Canada, if we can, by which we shall have direct access to her great supply of natural products without an obstructing or prohibitory tariff?
The Dominion has greatly prospered. It has an active, aggressive and intelligent people. They are coming to the parting of the ways.
Would the Minister of Customs be good enough to explain what President Taft meant by that?


William Paterson: My hon. friend might ask the president to explain.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: If that is the best answer he can give we will take it for what it is worth. The message continues:
They must soon decide whether they are to regard themselves as isolated permanently from our markets by a perpetual wall or
1018V

whether we are to be commercial friends. If we give them reason to take the former view, can we complain if they adopt methods denying access to certain of their natural resources except upon conditions quite unfavourable to us. A notable instance of such a possibility may be seen in the condition surrounding the supply of pulp wood and the manufacture of print paper for which we have made a conditional provision in the agreement, believed to be equitable. Should we not now, therefore, before their policy has become too crystallized and fixed for charge, meet them in a spirit of real concession, facilitate commerce between the two countries, and thus greatly increase the natural resources available to our people?
Free lumber we ought to have. By giving our people access to Canadian forests we shall reduce the consumption of our own, which in the hands of comparatively few owners, now have a value that requires the enlargement of our available timber resources.
That the broadening of the sources of food supplies that the opening of the timber resources of the Dominion to our needs, that the addition to the supply of raw materials will be limited to no particulaar section does not require demonstration.
Are these messages not pregnant with warnings to us who pride ourselves on being Canadians? What is the burden of their song? To what do they attach importance? Baw materials ! Every page bristling with the words raw materials. Raw mater ials ! Raw materials ! They want us to cut down our timber our grain crops, our pulp wood, harvest our raw materials-ship them
Showing that the United States is pursuing a policy of encouraging the working up of the raw materials into the finished product in their own country. The policy of this administration is to encourage the export of raw materials-to let the United States get the possession of our raw materials on which they can employ their own labour and capital, and send back the fin-Mr. SHARPE (Ontario).
in that condition to the United States, let them with their labour and capital work them up to manufactured goods and sell them back to us!
Are we to be a party to such a policy? Are we to be a party to such self-suppression? Are we to be the hewers of wood and the drawers of water to the United States people?


William Stevens Fielding: Is there anything that gives the Americans access to our raw materials that they have not now?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I say the minister by this agreement is facilitating the export of raw materials to the United States, and by thus encouraging that export and by allowing the clause regarding pulp wood to be inserted in the agreement, is trying to facilitate the export of pulp-wood in the raw condition, and thus to put the screws on the provinces to change their laws in regard to the export of pulpwood.
I wish now to submit some figures that show that the United States are shipping less raw material, and more finished products from their country. They appreciate the advantage to any country of keeping within their borders the labour required to convert the raw materials into finished products, thus deriving the benefit of these secondary industries.
Figures showing United States is shipping less raw material and more of finished products each year:
117,062,000
99,953,000
3117,109,000
42,732,791
60,946,329


William Stevens Fielding: I will consent. Committee rose and reported progress.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 11.32 p.m.

Wednesday, July 26, 1911.