[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called:
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called, I desire to call your attention to a matter which was brought to the attention of the House on -Friday last by the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). The Prime Minister referred to an article which has appeared in a Toronto paper in which no names were mentioned. Since that time articles have appeared in other papers in which my name is mentioned. I have not yet had an opportunity to consider these articles, but I hope to be able to make some observations in the matter to-morrow.



CORONATION CONTINGENT-LT.-COL.


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General).: I notice a paragraph in ' La Patrie ' of Saturday about the commanding officers of the Coronation Contingent in which it is stated that Hon. Mr. Brodeur and Hon. Mr. Lemieux objected so strenuously in council to the appointment of Lt.-Col. Landry that Sir Frederick Borden was forced to appoint another commanding officer belonging to the Liberal party. I may say that this paragraph, from beginning to end, is without foundation in fact. Lt.-Col. Landry is a personal friend of mine, indeed a college mate of mine. His name never came before me in connection with this matter, and I had nothing to do with the selection of the commanding officer of the Coronation Contingent; in fact, this is the first time I have heard his name mentioned in this connection.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: May I ask the Secretary of State (Mr. Murphy) whether or not the return I spoke of the other day has been prepared?


Mr. MURPHY.: It has. I have signed it, and I thought it would have been here. I will see that it is brought down before the House rise's.


Mr. FOSTER.: I desire to ask the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) if he has yet given the additions which were asked for in relation to the curator's report?


Mr. FIELDING.: There were some supplementary papers, which I thought had been submitted to the House. But, I find they have not been. I will have them printed to-morrow.


George Eulas Foster: I would like to ask the Secretary of State (Mr. Murphy) if the remainder of the return that was asked for-part was nut as a question and part stood as a notice of motion for- return-in relation to trade statistics of the most favoured nations and the tariffs on goods going into those countries, is yet ready?


Charles Murphy: I have not this yet, but I will have inquiry made this afternoon about it.



NORTH ATLANTIC FISHERIES - ARBITRATION AT THE HAGUE.

Robert Laird Borden: I desire to mention to the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) that I receive occasionally inquiries from different parts of the country for copies of the Hague Award in pamphlet
form. People who are instructing students in constitutional law, libraries and institutions of various kinds in different parts of Canada would like very much to be furnished with copies of this award. I would suggest that it be printed, if that has not already been attended to. I think it is eminently desirable that copies of so important a pronouncement should be available for persons in this country who are interested.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I thought this would be included in the sessional papers. I should think it ought to be. But I will make inquiry.


Robert Laird Borden: I made some inquiry, but could not learn that it had been printed. My hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) tells me that he understands it has been printed.


George Eulas Foster: What have we in the way of records of the extended proceedings of the Hague Conference? To what extent are they available?


Wilfrid Laurier: I could not say how many copies we have, but I know we have a full report. I will inquire as to the number of copies.


Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTH.: As to copies of the award of the tribunal at the Hague last summer, I have already distributed a very considerable number of copies of the award and proceedings, to every library or institution that has applied to me, and I still have quite a number of copies on hand which I Shall be very glad to distribute as necessity may arise.


George Eulas Foster: For myself personally I should like very much to have a set of this, as a matter of record.


Robert Laird Borden: Are we to understand that the Hague Award has been printed and distributed, and that copies are available?


Wilfrid Laurier: The award may have been. I will inquire.



NEW ONTARIO AND QUEBEC RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 170) to incorporate the New Ontario and Quebec Railway Company.
Mr. GRAHAM.: This Bill was before the committee on Friday, and my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) asked that it should be allowed to stand.


Mr. LENNOX.: I would like to have it stand, for the same Teason that I have mentioned, that my hon. friend from Lincoln and Niagara (Mr. Lancaster) is not here, and he is attending to it. I move that

the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 171) to incorporate the Grain Growers' Grain Company, Limited.-Mr. Rutan.
On section 12, authorized objects or purposes of the company.
Mr. SCHAFFNER.: Does this clause permit the company to deal in options?


Mr. STAPLES.: I would like an explanation from the member who has the Bill in charge, whether this legislation is similar to that incorporating other grain companies that hold Dominion charters; and also I would like to know whether, under this Bill, the Grain Growers' Grain Company will be permitted to deal in options?


Wilfrid Laurier: This Bill comes from the Senate. It has not been looked into, and I think perhaps the committee had better rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



QUESTIONS.

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

Haughton Lennox: What are the names of the gentlemen appointed as judges by the present government of Canada since they came into power in 1896, the residences of these gentlemen at the time of appointment, the positions to which they were respectively appointed, and in each case where the appointee had a predecessor in the position during the time which the position was vacant?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The information asked for in this question would be so voluminous that it had better take the shape of a return. It will take some time to obtain the information as to the residences of the gentlemen appointed, and the date of their appointments.


COOL CHEESE CURING AT BROCKVILLE.
Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds):: 1.	Has the government sold the cool cheese curing room at Brockville? If so, at what pricer
2.	Did the government sell the machinery and fixtures writh said building or separately? If separately, at what price?
3.	What was the total cost of said building and machinery'
4.	What was the total loss on said building and machinery?


Haughton Lennox: 


Mr. FISHER:: 1.	Yes, $1,241.42.	.
2.	There was no machinery in the building except an elevator which was sold with the building. The lumber consisting of cheese shelves and some tools, chairs, &c.,
was sold separately, as follows:
Building			$1,075 00
Lumber			 116 77
Tools, chairs, &c..		 19 65
Total			$1,211 42
From former sale	of shelving 30 00
Total			$1,241 42
3. $7,553.26.	
4. $6,311.84.	
In addition to the above revenue from the disposal of the curing room, there should be included about $150 worth of lumber, weighing scales, cheese truck, which the department removed previous to the sale, which is being held for other purposes.


PRICES OF FARM PRODUCTS IN FOREIGN MARKETS.
Mr. LAKE:: What was the average price of beef, mutton, butter, and eggs for export at Buenos A>
res, Bahia Blanca, Sydney, Melbourne, Christchurch, Dunedin and Auckland, respectively, for each of the months of October, November and December, 1910, and January and February, 1911, or at such of these ports for which information is obtainable?


Mr. FISHER:: As the meat and butter exported from Australia and New Zealand is shipped to Great Britain on consignment, there is practically no export market in these countries for these products as the price is absolutely controlled by the English market. As a consequence the papers published in Australia give prominence to English market reports for butter and meats, but print very little information regarding _ local prices. A similar condition obtains in the Argentine. Great Britain is the market for their frozen and chilled meat which is either consigned or is sold by resident agents of the packing companies.
A few prices of butter and eggs in Australia and New Zealand have been taken from publications received from those countries. The Adelaide quotations have been taken from the report of the manager of the government produce export department as given in the journal of the Department of Agriculture of South Australia. The Sydney and Christchurch quotations have been taken from the Canterbury ' Times,' Christchurch, and the Auckland quotations have been taken from the Auckland Weekly ' News ':


AUSTRALIA.
[Stage Direction]
Adelaide-
	Creamery	Eggs.
	Butter.	per
Date.	per lb.	dozen.1910.	Cents.	Cents.Oct. 1	IllNov. 1	.... 19 21	15Dec. 1	.... 19 21	151911. Jan. 2	17Feb. 1	17Sydney-	Factory	EggsButter	perDate.	per lb.	dozen.1911.	Cents.	Cents.Jan. 12	19i	Jan. 19	
19i	Feb. 2	
19i	Feb. 23	
19i

[Stage Direction]
Christchurch-
Creamery Eggs
	Butter	per
Date.	per lb.	dozen.1911.	Cents.	Cents.Jan. 13	
21	20Jan. 17	
21	20Jan. 17	
21	20Feb. 8	
21	26Feb. 17	
25	22Feb. 24	
21	21Auckland-	Factory	EggsButter	perDate.	per lb.	dozen.1911.	Cents.	Cents.Feb. 21	
25	26
If the desire is to compare prices in these countries with prices in Canada it should not be forgotten that the months composing Canada's winter season would be in the Antipodes, the summer.
Mr. PATERSON:: Statement showing the Quantity and Value of Butter and Mutton Entered for Consumption in Canada from the Undermentioned Countries, during the Months of October, November, December, 1910, January and February, 1911; showing also the Average Price of these Articles at Places of Export.
Aetioles.	Months.	Australia.	New Zealand.	Quantity.	Value.	Average Price.	Quantity.	Value.	Aversge Price.Butter	
..	October	Lbs.	8	Cts.	Lbs.	$	Cts. 24-57 26 30 23 00Mutton and lamb, fresh.	November	December	
January	
February	
October	
November-	
December	
January	
February	66,080 108,416 15,008 213,050 180,962 171,370 125,676 136,379	15,578 25,542 3,000 14,208 12,191 11,646 8,521 8,761	23 57 23 55 2>)00 6-66 0-73 668 6'78 6 43	19,600 92,400 181,826	4,815 24,303 41,813	
Argentine, Nil. Beef and Eggs, Nil.


RECIPROCITY AND TRADE WITH PRANCE.
Mr. LENNOX:: 1.	If the proposed reciprocity agreement between Canada and the United States becomes law, will the rate of duty on any of our imports from Prance be in any way affected? If so, upon what articles and what will be the extent of the increase or decrease of the duty in each case?
2.	What was the quantity and value of this class of imports, affected as aforesaid, during the last financial year?
- Mr. PATERSON:
1.	Under the proposed reciprocity arrangement between Canada and the United States there is no increase in the rate of duty on any imports from France. The duties on the following imports of French origin are decreased under the said agreement, viz.:



Item No. Canadian Tariff.	Article.	Rate under the Arrangement.	Rate under French Treaty.17	Cheese	Per pound	Free.	cents.72	Garden, field and other seeds for agricultural or other purposes, n.o.p., canary, hemp and millet seed, when in packages weighing over one pound each (not including flower seeds, flax seed, or seed of timothy or clover	Free.	10 p.e.Ex. 109	Peanuts, shelled	
Per pound	1 cent.	2 cents.Ex. 112	Peanuts, unshelled	
.1	Jcent.	2 cents.Ex. 711	Cotton seed oil	Free.	DA p.c.Ex. 711	Glycerine, crude, not purified	P ree.	17$ p.c.Ex. 711	Asbestos, crude, not ground	Free.	174 p.c.Ex. 711	Mica, unmanufactured, or rough trimmed only, and mica ground or bolted	Free.	174 p.c.Ex. 711	Bran, middlings and other offals of grain used for animal food (but not more than 174 per cent ad valorem).. Per 100 pounds	12J cts.	174 P-c.
2. Th'e following statement shows the quantity an-d value of this class of imports, affected as aforesaid, during the last financial year, viz.:


STATEMENT SHOWING THE IMPORTATIONS OF THE UNDERMENTIONED ARTICLES FROM FRANCE UNDER THE FRENCH TREATY, DURING THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING MARCH 31, 1911.
[Stage Direction]
Cheese	Lbs.
Garden, field or other seeds for agricultural or other purposes, n.o.p., canary, hemp and millet seed, when in packages weighing over one lb. each (not including flower seeds, flax seed, or seed of timothy
or clover)	
Peanuts, shelled	
28,242
6,912 Not separately enumerated.
Peanuts, unshelled		Nil.	It Nil.
	Nil.	Nil.
	Nil.	Nil.
Mica, unmanufactured or rough trimmed only and mica ground or bolted	 Bran, middlings and other offals of	Nil.	Nil. HG

Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	Has any person been recommended for the position of customs officer on Wolfe Island? If so, what is the name of the person, by whom was he recommended, and when?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to appoint a customs officer on Wolfe Island? If so, when?


William Paterson: 


Mr. PATERSON:: 1.	There is no recommendation in this
matter on the official files of the Department of Customs.	.
2.	There are two Customs officials now on Wolfe Island. It is not the intention of the government, at present, to appoint another Customs officer on that island.


MR. FRANK THIBODEAU.
Mr. BLONDIN:: 1.	What is the present salary of Mr. Frank Thibodeau, postmaster of iSt. Maurice, county of Champlain?
2.	How much does the government pay him for the carriage of the mail between the post office of that parish and the station of the Canadian Pacific railway?
3.	How much does the said Frank Thibodeau receive from the government for his services as assistant guardian of the booms on the St. Maurice?


Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	$174 per annum.
2.	$112.50 per 'annum.
3.	$900 per annum, as boom-master on the Three Rivers station.


LIEUT.-COLONEL D. C. F. BLISS.
Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds):: 1.	Is Lieut.-Colonel D. C. Foster Bliss in the Militia Department? If so, in what capacity and at what rate of pay?
2.	If so employed, is he the same person of similar name who was some years ago retired from the militia?
3.	By whom was the reappointment of this officer recommended, and why was he originally retired from the militia service?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN:: 1.	(a) Yes.
(b)	As a temporary employee, compiling certain records of the department.
(c)	$116.10 per month.
2.	Yes.
3.	(a) By the Quartermaster-General.

(b) On account of reduction in the establishment of lieutenant-colonels in the Ordnance Store corps. His services being no longer required in the permanent force.


MOUNTED POLICE-PAY AND ALLOWANCES.
Mr. MAKTIN (Regina):: 1.	What are the rates of pay of constables and non-commissioned officers of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police?
2.	What is the value of clothing, provisions and other privileges furnished at the public expense ?
3.	Is extra pay allowed for special services?
4.	Under what conditions are pensions allowed, and what deductions are made from pay towards the pension fund?
5.	In general terms, what is the annual value of pay and allowances to constables and non-commissioned officers?
6.	Has any difficulty been experienced in obtaining recruits for the police force? If so, what is the cause of such difficulty?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	Constables, 60 cents to $1 per diem.
Corporals, $1.10 per diem.
Sergeants, $1.25 per diem.
Staff-sergeants, $1.50 to $2 per diem.
2.	Constables, $335 per annum.
Corporals, $335 per annum.
Sergeants, $340 per annum.
Staff-sergeants, $345 per annum.
3.	(a) Extra pay is granted to members of the force serving in the Northwest Territories and Yukon Territory, as follows:
Constables, 50 cents per diem.
Corporals, 50 cents per diem.
Sergeants, 75 cents per diem.
(b)	Working pay to artisans, clerical staff, &c., not exceeding 75 cents per diem, in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, and not exceeding $1 per diem in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory.
(c)	Working pay at 25 cents per diem is granted to constables guarding prisoners employed at outdoor labour.
4.	Constables and non-commissioned officers are entitled to pensions for life after the completion of 20 years service, or after 15 years, if incapacitated from the performance of duty by infirmity of mind or body. No deduction is made from their pay towards the pension fund.
5.	The annual value of pay and allowances to constables and non-commissioned officers, is as follows-exclusive of extra or working pay included in answer No. 3:
Constables, $554 to $700.
Corporals, $736.50.
Sergeants, $796.25.
Staff-sergeants, $892.50 to $1,075.
6.	No difficulty is experienced in obtaining recruits, but the higher rate of wages obtainable in the west induce a number of our best men to purchase their discharge, thus causing a wastage in strength and the necessity of engaging new men.


THE QUEBEC BRIDGE.
Haughton Lennox: In addition to some $31,000 odd paid the engineers who investigated as to the circumstances connected with the building and collapse of the Quebec bridge, what other moneys have been paid or expenses incurred for investigations, surveys, tests, experiments, engineering, drawings, plans and specifications, advertisements and assistance of all kinds, whether professional or otherwise, in connection with the building of the new bridge and the preparation for letting the woi'k; the whole to be furnished in reasonable detail under the several general headings according to the various classes of expenditure, and brought down to a specified date and to as late a date as possible?


George Perry Graham: Amount Paid.
Chairman and chief engineer, engineers, principal assistant engineer, assistant engineers, chief draughtsman, calculators, tracers and clerk for the fiscal year ended March 31,	1909	. . $	32,498	71Stenographer	
457	50Bell Telephone Company	
77	05Travelling and office expenses	..	3,510	78Instruments and incidentals, office furniture and advertising 1,584 78 Pennsylvania Steel Co. for nickel steel bars, &c	
1,157	03Total	$ 39,286 05Less-charged to surveys, and inspection, railways, sale office furniture to Transcontinental Railway Commissioners, cash on hand by Quebec Bridge Company when taken over by the government	
3,463 64

The above is all set out on Page W-75, Auditor General's Report, Volume III, 1909.
Amount Paid.
Chairman and chief engineer, engineers, principal assistant engineer, assistant engineers, chief draughtsman, calculators, tracers and clerk, inspectors,
&c., for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 1910	$
Travelling and office expenses ..
Bell Telephone Company	
Phelps Johnson, advising with board of engineers, and other
outlay	
Services for boatmen	
Illinois University, Urbana, U.S., testing nickel steel joints .. .. Instruments, incidentals, office furniture, advertising, &c .. ..
Sullivan Machinery Co., for river and shore boring, and drilling Legal expenses (services)	
74,403 35 11,898 33 139 00
507 70 134 00
660 00
3,143 05
19,606 00 1,296 59
Total


$111,788 02 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
The above as set out on Page W-51 and 52, Auditor General's Report, Volume II, 1910.
Amount Paid.
Chairman and chief engineer, engineers, principal assistant engineer, assistant engineers, chief draughtsman, calculators, tracers and clerk, inspectors,
&c., for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 1911	$ 96,403 94
Contractors' estimates (substructure)	
95,268	30Advertising	
2,426	76Incidentals	
351	41Total	$194,450 41
Grand total up to March 31,1911.. $342,060 84 CANAL AT ST. PETER'S, CAPE BRETON. Mr. STANFIELD:
1.	Is it the intention of the government to construct a new canal at St. Peter's, Cape Breton ? If so, when is the work to be commenced ?
2.	Is the old canal to be abandoned? If so, for what reason?
3.	What is the estimated cost of the proposed new canal?
George Perry Graham: $150,000 has been voted by parliament for this work. The details have not yet been decided on. It is estimated that the entire cost of the work will be in the vicinity of $300,000.


CANADIAN REPRESENTATIVE IN FRANCE.
Mr. MONK:: 1.	Has the government provided for the replacing of Mr. Fabre for the representation of Canada in France?
2.	Who has 'been appointed for the 6aid representation, and has the government appointed several or only one person?
3.	What salaries have been fixed for the person or persons appointed?
4.	When will the new functionary or functionaries enter upon the performance of their duties?
5.	Besides the fixed salaries will they have a provision for expenses?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Senator Roy, of Edmonton, has been appointed.
3.	The salary is $8,000.
4.	Immediately.
5.	He receives no other remuneration than his salary.


FEDERAL AFFAIRS AT PILES.
Mr. BLONDIN:: 1. Has the government received complaints, petitions or notices respecting the administration of federal affairs at Piles, county of Mr. GRAHAM.
Champlain, during the summer and autumn of 1919, and especially a petition of the citizens of Piles, of date 5th August, 1910, requesting a general and public inquiry into federal affairs at Piles? If so, has the government taken action on this petition, and has such inquiry been granted?
2. If so, who represented the government at such inquiry, and what :was the result?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	A report has been made by Mr. Roy, the engineer who was appointed to make inquiry. I should say that the hon. member who asks this question (Mr. Blondin), has withdrawn his seal of confidence which was attached to his letter, and therefore I intend to bring down his letter and also the petition and report of Mr. Roy, and lay them on the table of the House.


PENNY BANK ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of the Whole on Thursday next, to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend chapter 31, Revised Statutes, The Penny Bank Act, and by such amendment authorize the Minister of Finance to fix and determine the rate of interest that shall be allowed and credited halbyearly on the amounts from time to time at the credit of the accounts of penny banks, incorporated under the provisions of that Act, in the government savings bank or post office savings bank, the rate so fixed and determined not to exceed one per centum in advance of the rate then payable to depositors in the government savings bank or post office savings bank.
He said: I beg to say that His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 177) to amend the Indian Act. -Mr. Oliver-read the third time.
George Eulas Foster: Has the Indian Act passed?


Mr. SPEAKER.: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Well it has gone through very slick. I have been waiting and watching for it. I would not care to have it go through in that wa.y unless I had an opportunity of moving an amendment to it. We discussed the question the other day, it was up again and the last impression I got from the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) was that he had said that as these points were brought up he would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. The com-

mittee must have sat again; I did not know that. Probably it might be taken as not being read the third time


Wilfrid Laurier: If my hon. friend did not know that the third reading was moved we can recall it and take it up to-morrow.


Frank Oliver: I would just like to say that my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) is in error. At one stage of the discussion we did decide as he says, but at the latter end of the discussion we decided to have the Bill reprinted for the third reading, and then, if the hon. member from Montreal. St. Anne, (Mr. Doherty) did not find any objection, it would go to the third reading. I supposed that my hon. friend had no objection, or else there would have been something said about it. I do not wish, however, under the circumstances, to press the third reading.


George Eulas Foster: All the more so as the hon. member for Montreal, St. Anne, is not here.


Wilfrid Laurier: We will take it to-morrow.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: With the leave of the House Bill (No. 177) stands for third reading.



WAYS AND MEANS-FESTIVAL OF EMPIRE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House again go into Committee of Ways and Means.
["This subject of immigration is one of great interest, but in the discussion of the last hour and a ha'.f it has been one of great disappointment also. I have never given great attention 'to (the study of immigration statistics, but, reading newspaper reports, and listening to the statements of the Minister of the Interior, I have been lead for years to believe that we were gaining, through our immigration system, very large additions to our population, and very considerably so from the United States-at a cost to us of a good deal of money. The Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) has thrown some light on that matter this afternoon. He has taken the settlers' effects as a", 'guide. He read from the Trade and Navigation returns showing that last year\'s settlers\' effects from the United States to Canada amounted to $7,613,500, and that settlers\' effects from Canada to the United States amounted to $2,076,000. I can well understand the large amount of settlers\' effects from the United States into Canada, because the arrivals from the United States in our western provinces almost always carry large quantities of farm machinery, horses, cattle, wagons, &c. But, to my mind, the Minister of Customs may be a litt\'le out of the way when he makes the value of settlers\' effects the basis of a comparison showing the number of people coming into and going out of the country. The hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) spoke of the migration from the maritime provinces to the United States. From the character of that migration, I should suppose the people going from the maritime provinces had taken very litt\'le with them, whereas the people going into the western provinces from the United States bring a great deal. I think it would not be too much to say that the value of the settlers\' effects coming into Canada would be three times as much for the average individual as the value of settler\'s effects carried by the people from the maritime provinces going into the United States. That may be even a little under the mark. If, for the sake of the comparison, we say that the people coming from the United States into our west bring $3.50 in settlers\' effects for every $1 that is taken out by our people going from the maritime provinces to the United States, we find that practically we have an equal movement of emigration and immigration. I am a little afraid that that is really the case,-that we are losing just as much as we are gaining. We shall have to await the census returns to see if that can be verified or not. But it does look as though, while the minister is spending a great deal of money and filling up the western country at what we might ca\'ll the bung-hole, he is neglecting to see how much is running out of the spout from the maritime provinces. From what has been said this afternoon, I am very much afraid that our net gain is very little. I hope the Minister of the Interior will, even if it costs more, carry out some system of keep-" ing track of the people that go out of the country. It cannot be expected that this is to be done without money; but I am not aware that this parliament ever refuses any reasonable appropriation for any purpose of correct and useful statistics. The subject is so interesting and important, that I am sure parliament would gladly provide the money. I was much surprised to learn that no real account is kept of the people going out of the country as well 257\nas those coming in. The Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) referred to what had occurred about twenty years ago and what was said on the matter. We a\'ll remember the howl of Sir Richard Cartwright, particularly with regard to the exodus. He magnified it to such an extent that I believe he got away beyond the bounds. He talked about the people we were losing and about there being a million native born Canadians in the United States at that time. I do not know whether he got his figures from the American returns or not, but I always thought he magnified them, and magnified them for a purpose. He did it to show that the National Policy had failed. And we have the National Policy to-day, with what hon. gentlemen opposite say are improvements made in it by themselves, yet the population seems to be going out of the country as fast as it was then. I merely rise to voice my opinion in favour of the Minister of the Interior taking steps to get for the future more correct statistics than he has been getting with regard to the people leaving the country.\nIt would be just as interesting to us to know whether we are losing population as to know whether we are gaining it. My opinion is that we are lbsing about as much as we are getting, so far as the United States are concerned. No doubt the figures furnished us by the Department of the Interior axe fairly correct of the number of people coming in from Great Britain and European countries. We are not losing people going across the water. I trust the minister will take the necessary steps to inform us in the future as to the movement of population both ways, not only from the United States into Canada, but from Canada into the United States.']
Mr. BURRELL.: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair, I would like to read a couple of press despatches and call the attention of the government to a matter of some interest to all Canadians. The first despatch is as follows:



[Stage Direction]
Canada's Piece Cut Out as Objectionable to Americans.
London, April 25.-It was learned to-day that it was in consequence of communications between London and Washington, and hints to the Canadian committee, of which Lord Strathcona is president, that a decision is reached to eliminate from the coronation programme Canada's principal contribution to the pageantry 'Festival of the Empire.' The piece which has been in course of preparation at the Crystal Palace, and which called for 600 performers, entitled 'Chateau-guay, where Canada was held for the empire,' was intended to represent the defeat of the invading American force in 1812 by a handful of Canadians.
After consideration it was thought that the pageant might wound the susceptibilities of American visitors to the coronation, and it was also suggested that a feeling might be caused in the United States that would endanger the conclusion of the proposed Anglo-
American arbitration treaty. Rather than make either event possible the authorities decided to abandon the spectacle.
In a later despatch among several which I have here there is an extract from the London ' Standard ' which reads as follows:
The Canadians have an incontestable ri*ht to occupy a very prominent and honourable place in the commemoration of the great deeds of empire. This particular incident, a happy selection in many ways, was not a British but a Canadian victory, which was to be fitly celebrated without the least wish to wound American sentiment. We cannot but regret that the scene has been omitted from the pageant at the last moment.
I do not know whether there has been an official programme of the Pageant of Empire issued, but I lam sure that it is of interest to all Canadians to know what form Canada's participation in that great spectacle will take and I am also certain that it would be a matter of great gratification to all Canadians to know that the battle of Chateauguay was to be represented in the festival. The House is familiar with the details of that celebrated episode, one, not only of the most brilliant and most heroic, but one of the most decisive battles, with Lundy's Lane, in the whole war of 1812, a war, Sir, which we all know was one distinctly of defence when Canadians of all nationalities met for the common defence of their homes, their soil, * and their institutions. I am not going to refer to the details of that encounter but we know perfectly well that it was less than a thousand French Canadians who, under de Salaberry, the gallant leader of the French Canadians, and the equally gallant Macdonald of Glengarry, who, by superior strategy and valour, defeated an overwhelming force of Americans at that time. As I have said, it was a war, not of aggression but of defence. This is literally true as far as Canadians are concerned, and I feel that every member of the House, and every Canadian, recognizes now that it had the most beneficent influence upon Canada's future, because, for the first time, that war, whatever its unjustifiable features may have been, welded together French, English, Scotch, and Irish. All were animated by one common spirit and by the noblest patriotism. I am quite sure that we all agree that stirring incidents of this kind which mark the special epochs in our national development should be commemorated and recognized by all Canadians. It has been finely said that as Canadians look down the corridors of time they will always see the flashes of the musketry and cannon of Lundy's Lane and hear the bugles blow which drove the invaders from
*8107
[Stage Direction]
*the woods of Chateauguay. For these reasons, it is a matter of great regret that a decision has been come to to eliminate a spectacle of this kind at the Festival of Empire, where all races and all portions of the empire will be represented to celebrate the empire's heroic deeds. Neither can I think the House will come to the conclusion that the reasons given for the elimination of the pageant of the battle of Chateauguay are sufficient. We know that in New England there was a general condemnation of that war and I feel sure that the American people have long ago buried any feeling of animosity they entertained at one time. I might point out indeed that our good friends on the south of the line, for whom we have the kindliest feelings, occasionally, not only celebrate victories on their own soil, but come over to ours. In my own town many of our American friends have come over and celebrated the fourth of July right under our noses and on our own territory, and none of us felt any the worse for it. I am inclined to take with a grain of salt, the idea of wounding the feelings of the American people by celebrating the battle of Chateauguay. No Canadian would Te-sent the fact that the Americans celebrate the battle of Hunker's Hill, if they desire to commemorate their own national achievements, and I am sure our American friends would take our celebration of the battle of Chateauguay in the same spirit. If we are to admit the principle that we cannot celebrate national achievements because it hurts the feelingsi of somebody then we might just as well cut out all celebrations of the kind. I take it that the government has been consulted with reference to these great pageants, and I would like the Prime Minister or the Minister of Agriculture, who sometimes has charge of these things, to explain how it is that an historic event of this kind, dear to the heart of every Canadian and recognized as an noble achievement in Canadian history, is to be eliminated at a time like this when every great deed in the empire's history is to be held up to the admiration of our people.
Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Battle of Chateauguay is one of the historic events in which Canadians have always taken pride, but I may inform my hon. friend that the pageants at the Festival of Empire are under the control and management of the committee in London, and the Canadian government has not been consulted with reference to them. What information we have on the matter is such as my hon. friend has seen in the public press, and whether that is correct or not I cannot say. We are taking part in the Festival of Empire but not Mr. BURRELL
in any of the particular pageants which have been proposed by the authorities of the Festival in London. I believe that Lord Strathcona is a member of the executive or management of the Festival of Empire, but just what part he has taken in regard to the pageant I do not know. Whatever he has done in that respect he * has done as Lord Strathcona, and not as the High Commissioner for Canada.


Martin Burrell: Am I to understand that
the government of Canada has not contributed, financially or morally or in any other way?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We are contributing for the general expenses of the Festival of Empire, and possibly part of that may be devoted to the pageants, but the money is put into the hands of the committee in London for their purpose, and I do not know how it has been distributed. We are erecting a Canadian building which will have an exhibit of Canadian products and Canadian resources.


Martin Burrell: If the government is very anxious as to how the public money is expended it does seem to me that in an event of this kind they might insist on being consulted.


George Eulas Foster: I am very glad that my hon. friend (Mr. Burrell) has brought this up. When I read the news item, it struck me as rather-I scarcely knew what word to express it-but I felt that Canada had hardly been used right. History is history, and those who are in charge of pageantry by which history is supposed to be truthfully delineated ought not on such an occasion as this to omit one of the most important and illustrious events in our Canadian history. It does not seem to me that the people of the United States would be likely to be in any way offended by this pageant being carried out true to history. I should not like to think so ill of our friends on the south of the line as to think they would take the least umbrage at seeing a truthful delineation of Canadian history. It seems to me that the omission is pandering to a rather mawkish kind of sentimentality.


Wilfrid Laurier: Has my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) read the American school books upon the Battle of Chateauguay?
* Mr. FOSTER. Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is not represented in them as a Canadian victory.


George Eulas Foster: Then still less should they take objection to it. If my right hon. friend has read the old school books and old histories he probably may have read the new, and he will find that in the last ten or fifteen years the version of these

old occurrences between ourselves and the United States has been very greatly modified in being more true to the fact.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have not read the new books, but I know that in the old American school books the Battle of Chateauguay was never represented as a Canadian victory. For my part, I agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) that this should not be a reason to eliminate the true character of that battle, for I believe that the Americans understand that history is history as has been said by my hon. friend (Mr. Foster). But the matter has been decided; it has not been referred to us, and really officially we have nothing to do with it. We contributed our money to the Festival of Empire which was placed in the hands of the London Committee and perhaps the committee has decided in this way. Had I been a member of the committee I would have decided otherwise.


ST. PETER'S INDIAN RESERVE.
Mr. BRADBURY.: I desire to call the attention of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs to a fact of very great importance to the administration of justice in the province of Manitoba. It will be remembered that some little time ago, while I was discussing the St. Peter's Indian reserve and asking for a Royal Commission to investigate that matter, the Minister of the Interior referred me to the government of Manitoba and said that if there was any prosecution or any investigation it should be made by the government of Manitoba. Other speakers on that side of the House made the same statement. The province of Manitoba guarantees all titles issued under the Torrens system and before the Registrar General of Manitoba can guarantee those titles he must be satisfied that the titles are good. The Indians allege that this surrender was obtained illegally and that the lands, after they had been given to them, were taken from them illegally. Consequently the Registrar General refuses to issue titles until there is a thorough investigation which will place him in a position to say whether or not the title is vested in the present holders. To that end, the government of Manitoba have appointed a Royal Commission for the purpose of determining whether or not the titles are good, and whether the Registrar General would be justified in guaranteeing them. To enable the commission to arrive at a proper conclusion it is necessary that they should have the original documents regarding this surrender. Serious allegations have been made by the Indians. On the strength of these allegations I myself stated in this House that forgery had been committed in the signing of receipts for the patents. This matter cannot be established
unless the commission has the original documents. The counsel for the Royal Commission has written to me the following letter which I wish to place on ' Hansard ':
Winnipeg, Canada,
19th April, 1911.
Dear Sir,-I have the honour to inclose you copy of letter written by me as counsel for the Royal Commission appointed to investigate the surrender of the St. Peter's reserve addressed to the Hon. Frank Oliver, Minister of the Interior. I also inclose you his reply thereto. Both letters are self-explanatory.
It is absolutely essential that the commission should have production of the original documents in regard to the surrender of this reserve, and since the Minister of the Interior suggests that an order of parliament should he obtained I take the liberty of requesting that you should move for an order of parliament for production of the original documents in connection with this matter before the Royal Commission. Will you be kind enough to advise me of the result.
Yours truly,
H. W. WHITLA, Counsel for the Commission. Geo. H. Bradbury, Esq., M.P.,
Ottawa, Ont.
I have here a copy of a letter written by the counsel for the commission to the hon. the Minister of the Interior:
Winnipeg, Canada,
12th April, 1911.
Dear Sir,-By order of the Executive Council of the province of Manitoba a commission has been appointed to investigate and report upon the surrender of the St. Peter's Indian reserve.
The commission has instructed me as counsel to request the production of the records of the Indian Office in relation to that particular reserve. Upon application to Mr. Sem-mens this morning he stated he would require some authority before he could permit either an inspection or production of the documents. I therefore take the liberty of writing you to ask if you will be good enough to instruct Mr. Semmens, or the agent in charge of the Winnipeg office, to permit an inspection by and to produce to the proper agent of the commissioners all the documents relating to the surrender of the Indian reserve. Trusting that you will see your way clear to give this necessary authority,
I am, vours respectfully,
(Sgd.) H. W. WHITLA, Counsel for the Commission. Hon. Frank Oliver,
Minister of the Interior, c/o Royal Alexandra Hotel,
City.
H.W.W./R.
The Minister of the Interior replies as follows:
Winnipeg, April 12, 1911
Dear Sir,-Yours of the 12th of April to hand requesting inspection by a commission appointed by the government of Manitoba of

papers connected with the surrender of the St. Peter's Indian reserve.	.
In reply I beg to say that until otherwise advised, I am not aware that the government of Manitoba has authority to request an inspection of the documents in question.
All documents connected with the transaction of business by the government of Canada can properly be produced for inspection on an order of parliament or of the courts.
I would suggest that the commission take this means of securing the inspection desired.
Yours faithfully,


PRANK OLIVER,
[Stage Direction]
H. D. Whitla, Esq.,
Box 1556, Winnipeg, Man.
Mr. Speaker, my object in bringing this matter before the House is to have these documents produced. I realize that if I place this motion on the order paper, it may be days or weeks perhaps before it is reached, and as my only object is to facilitate the work of this commission-and I am sure that the minister must be as much interested as I or any other man in Canada to see that this matter is cleared up-I would ask the minister if he would accept an order of the House for the production of these papers.
Frank Oliver: The facts in connection with this matter are as my hon. friend has stated. I am not desirous of in any way impeding the work of the commission appointed by the government of Manitoba, but, having a certain responsibility in regard to the custody of the documents, I would ask my hon. friend to let the matter rest until to-morrow, when I will be able to give him a definite answer.


EMIGRATION FROM CANADA TO UNITED STATES.
Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, I *wish again to direct the attention of the government to the subject of emigration from Canada to the United States to which I alluded last year. At page 5524 of ' Hansard,' of last year, I set forth a statement which appeared in the annual report of the Commissioner General of Immigration for the United States. It appeared from that report that the total immigration into the United States from Canada during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1909, was 96,520, and that, after eliminating certain portions of that immigration which could not be properly classed as actual immigration from Canada to the United States there was found to be a total immigration into the United States from Canada of 61,038, according to the returns made to the Commissioner General of Immigration of the United States and as embodied by him in that report. I also called attention to certain rather important statements in his report of that year, in which he gave reasons why the immigration into the United States from Mr. BRADBURY.
Canada had increased in bo marked a degree during the twelve months covered by his report.
I have now the report of the Commissioner General of Immigration for the United States which gives the returns up to June 30, 1910. According to these returns the emigration from the United States to Canada during the twelve months mentioned amounted to 116,377. The report classifies that emigration as follows:	United
States citizens, 78,697; Canadian citizens, 15,203; other aliens, 22,477; making a total of 116,377. During the same period the emigration from Canada to the United States, according to this report, was as follows: United States citizens, 22,832; Canadian citizens, 44,328; other aliens, 27,336; making a total of 94,496. If these statistics are correct, the balance of immigration into Canada from the United States over the emigration from Canada to the United States was a little less than 22,000, which result, I am bound to say, is one that I would hardly have expected. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister of the Interior has any observations to make on these statistics; I do not know whether they are accepted by the government as accurate. There does not appear to be any official information available in this country as to the number of persons leaving Canada for permanent residence in the United States. In other words, although we have very full, and I believe very complete statistics of immigration into this country, I do not know that we have any statistics of emigration from this country to the United States or elsewhere. Am I correct in that regard?


Frank Oliver: Yes.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax;. Well, there may be difficulties in the way of obtaining and preserving such statistics, of which I am not aware, but otherwise I would be very much inclined to think that we might very well follow the example of the United States and compile and publish statistics not only of the immigration into this country, but of the emigration from this country. That is done in the United States *n a very complete way. Not only do they keep statistics of all the persons leaving that country, but they classify them as United States citizens, Canadian citizens, and other aliens, so far as those statistics relate to emigration from the United States to Canada. Similarly they divide the emigration from Canada, to the United States into three classes-United States citizens, Canadian citizens, and other aliens. I am bound to say that I think it would be greatly to the advantage of the country if we knew at the present time, as we do not seem to know, from what provinces of Canada, and in what proportion from those

provinces, this very large emigration of nearly 95,000 persons has gone during the fiscal year ended the 30th of June, 1910, if the figures of the United States Immigration Department are to be accepted as accurate. We know that at one time there was a very considerable emigration from Canada to the United States, especially from certain of the eastern provinces. We had been led to believe that that emigration had almost wholly ceased; but if these figures are even approximately correct, it is evident that our belief in that regard was not based on a very sure foundation, because it is rather astonishing to find that in a single year no less than 94,496 persons have left Canada for permanent residence in the United States, and that these figures comprise 44,328 Canadian citizens in addition to 22,832 United States citizens, and 27,336 aliens not being citizens of Canada.


George Eulas Foster: How do their figures of emigration from the United States to Canada compare with our figures?


Robert Laird Borden: It is a little difficult to compare them on account of the difference in the fiscal year. _ They give their figures for the year ending the 30th of June, while our figures are given for the year ending the 31st of March. In the United States returns they are given by months. I do not know whether or not ours are so given. However, I thought the matter worthy of some attention from the government, and, therefore, I have brought it to the notice of the House. I would be very glad if the Minister of the Interior would give us any observations which would indicate whether or not these figures are to be accepted as substantially accurate, and, further, whether there are in his opinion any serious difficulties in the way of inaugurating a system by which statistics of emigration as well as immigration may be compiled in this country in the future, for the information of parliament and the people.


Frank Oliver: There is no doubt a considerable reciprocity in population between Canada and the United States, and has been for many years, and will continue to be. We try to keep account of the .people coming from the United States to Canada with the intention of residing in Canada. We think our figures are accurate or fairly accurate; but it must be quite evident that figures calculated as ours must be, cannot by any possibility be absolutely accurate; they can only be approximately so.


George Eulas Foster: How do our figures of immigration coming from the United States agree month by month with the United States figures of emigration from the United States?
Mr. OLIVER, I could not give my hon. friend a statement that would have serious value; but I am under the impression that there is a wide divergence between the figures, and it is easy to see how that divergence might take place. We may have one standard of calculation, and they may have an entirely different one. We may consider a person an immigrant, whom they would not rank as such. Their system may be more comprehensive than ours.


George Eulas Foster: Is the basis the same?


Frank Oliver: I am satisfied that the basis is not the same.


George Eulas Foster: In what is the difference?


Frank Oliver: I am not able to give my hon. friend detailed information; lam speaking subject to correction in a general way. When the estimates were up for consideration, this matter was brought to my attention, and I pointed out to the committee then that it was quite possible to secure such information for Canada as was already secured for the United States. It would mean a very considerable increase in the cost of our immigration service and would not produce any immediate or direct beneficial result. So, up to the present time, we have not asked parliament for an appropriation to enable us to make such a count and calculation. It is a serious question for parliament to consider whether the value of the information would be equal to the cost. For my part I think that, up to the present time, we have been well advised to spend our money and energy in dealing with the people who are coming, rather than with the people who are going. We were not able to prevent them from going or we would do so. But by spending our money as we have been doing, we have been enabled, certainly, to bring people here and this has resulted in our material benefit. If a count of people going could reasonably be expected to result in the formulation of a policy that would prevent their going, I could see a sound reason for the expenditure. But unless and until some such policy is in near or further prospect, I should think it was a matter to seriously consider whether we could afford to put the money into the service or not. It will be understood by the House that people move sometimes because of the conditions in which they live, but most generally because of the conditions in the place to which they are going. That is to say, we attract people from the United States and Great Britain, and from other countries of Europe, not so much because of the conditions surrounding those people at home, as because of the advantages they hope to gain in coming to our country. So, the people who leave Canada for the United States,

we may reasonably presume, do not leave so much because of the conditions in Canada as because of the expectations they have of conditions in the United States. That being a matter that is not in our control, we cannot be sure that we should be able to frame a policy that would have any serious result, even if we had the information. That is the view that the department has he'ld up to the present time. We are prepared, of course, at any time, to take stock and count of the people who are going out, if parliament is so minded, and is prepared to supply the necessary funds.


Mr.   POSTER@: I think that the minister (Mr. Oliver), if he will consider the matter a little, will see that there are a number of good reasons why we should have this information which we evidently lack, according to the figures and statements which have been made and presented by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax). It is quite as important in its own way to know the stream of people that is leaving us, and from what quarters of the country it is leaving us, so as to get at the reasons for the stream going out from the country, as to know what population is coming to us, and the sources from which it comes. It' seems to me there are strong economic Teasons .for our knowing that state ,of facts, in order that we may find out. the causes of the outflowing stream. I do not think it would involve a great deal of added cost. You have your customs house officers and immigration officers, and they take charge of the stream that comes in, they trace it, number the individuals and forward their reports to the department. The places of ingress into the country, other things being equal, are the places of egress from the other country. Immigrants coming into Canada generally come with effects, and they have to pass the customs, so it is not difficult to keep count of them. Emigrants from this country also take personal effects, and they have to pass the customs line on the other side, and so it is not difficult to number them. But there is another consideration. We are buoyed up by the favourable information of one side only. Every year the minister tells us: Everything is going well; we are spending a great deal of money, but we are getting in many immigrants, settlers who are just that much added to the country.. But it would be a dffierent tale if the minister were to come down and tell us of the number that have left Canada. I do not recollect the numbers shown by our figures who have come in from the United States last year. But suppose we call it a hundred thousand,-I do not think it was one hundred thousand.


Frank Oliver: We have been going on with the idea that we have attracted to us from the United States one hundred thousand people, and so are that much better off. But up comes the United States official-and their officials are well trained and their statistics far ahead of Canadian statistics-who says:	Yes, you did get somewhere near
one hundred thousand people from the United States, but ninety-four thousand came into the United States from Canada, so that the net gain is very small. We have been pluming ourselves upon despoiling our neighbours of a number of their eligible cultivators and other inhabitants, but it seems to be without any real reason. Now, does not the minister think that in the interest of true knowledge and for the purpose of obtaining complete statistics, which will set forth all the important facts on both sides-and these statistics alone are valuable-we should go far enough in the direction proposed to enable us to get the real results? My hon. friend has stated that in former times great numbers of people went from Ontario and also from the maritime provinces to the United States. The platform orator on the Liberal side says that all this is stopped, and that the stream is now coming from the United States towards this side. But that, it appears from the figures the United States are publishing is a misrepresentation, and when we subtract one figure from the other there is very little difference between the streams; the reciprocity in population which my hon. friend talks about, seems to be about on an equal basis. I think, therefore, the minister should get his statistical branch an order so as to be able to keep account of the population going out and the sources from which it goes, as well as keeping a similar account of the population that comes in. For it would be a great advantage, if a certain stream was going, for instance, from Quebec, or from any other part of Canada, to inquire into the cause for this movement of population. Knowing the reason, and desiring our country to increase in population, not only the Dominion statesman, but the provincial statesman as well, will have a basis for their policies and can plan their work with a view to offseting the movement of the people from our country. Certainly, as it looks, now, it is impossible for us to say whether we are gaining in population as between ourselves and the United States. Certainly, as it looks to me, it is impossible for us to say whether we are gaining much as between ourselves and the United States.


William Paterson: I do not quite agree with my hon. friend that our statistics are less valuable and reliable than the Ameri-

can statistics. I think we have very good statistics.


George Eulas Foster: What I intended to say was that our statistics, -what we have of them, may be very good; still we are away behind in statistical work as compared with the United States. That has been clearly shown within the last two months.


Frank Oliver: I wish to correct the impression my hon. friend has given to the House. We have no statistical branch in our department. The work of our agents is either to induce immigration or to facilitate immigration, and the statistics we gather are merely an incident. The United States, on the other hand, has a statistical branch for the purpose of gathering statistics. We are prepared to establish a statistical branch if parliament orders it. But we have not been authorized to do so, we have not the money to establish it, and we can only get the information such as my hon. friend suggests when parliament gives us the money for that purpose.


Robert Laird Borden: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the United States has a distinct statistical branch?


Frank Oliver: They have a very much more elaborate service than we have, and the collection of statistics is an important feature of their service. The collection of statistics is a serious part of their immigration service, whereas it is merely incidental in ours.


William Paterson: The figures quoted by the leader of the opposition did not seem to us as if they could be correct.


Robert Laird Borden: Rather unexpected.


William Paterson: I think so. I do not know what other statistics we could get, or how they might be collected. But you can approximate. If their method is to count every one that goes into their country, of course you get a very large number.


Robert Laird Borden: If the minister will look at the United States immigration report of a year ago, he will obtain full information as to just how they make it up. There were seven classes I think last year, and in making the calculation I did at that time, I omitted three or four of those classes as not properly coming within the general principle of immigration from one country to the other. But taking the four remaining classes last year, I think about
67,000	of actual immigrants went from Canada to the United States. I merely desired to say that full information is given in that report as to the methods they use, and
the principles they have adopted in compiling these statistics.


William Paterson: This question was up a number of years ago when I was on the Agricultural Committee, and then we found great difficulty in reconciling the statistics of the two countries. We had our reports, of so many coming into Canada and so many going out; and actually those reports showed that not only had we lost every immigrant that came into Canada, but we had lost a lot of our actual increase as well. I merely wish to say to the leader of the opposition that if they connect with this statement he has read any account of settlers' effects, it will not prove anything conclusively, because settlers coming to us from the United States might bring with them a larger quantity of effects, and they might be worth a great deal more than effects going from our country into the United States. Now we have the value of household effects returned in our exports going to the United States. These export entries are made by parties who are leaving our country, we collect from the customs the export entries made by the men who are leaving the country. These are declared by the parties going away, and they are supervised by our officers. I only give this as a kind of a rough test to show that there must be some difference in the way the figures are collected in the two countries as read by the leader of the opposition.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there a record kept of settlers' effects exported?


William Paterson: Yes. I say the figures are not conclusive with reference to the number of individuals, but they must be of value as showing that there is a much larger proportion of immigrants from the United States into Canada than from Canada into the United States. For instance, last year, of household effects, there was entered by parties leaving Canada to go to the United States, $2,076,137; while the value of settlers' effects entered as coming from the United States into Canada was $7,613,553, nearly four times as many. Now I say the figures read by the hon. gentleman are not conclusive because they may be varied by circumstances. I cannot think myself that there is anything like the proportion of people leaving Canada to reside permanently in the United States that there is of people coming in from the United States to reside permanently in Canada.


Mr. EMMERSON.: I have reason to know that the methods of classification to [DOT]the south of us are very different from those adopted on this side of the line. It is no uise for any one to say that there are not people going from Canada into

the United States to reside permanently, as there have been for years. The restlessness of our people would perhaps be one reason. However, whatever the reason may be, there is at times a movement towards the United States. It must be borne in mind that at certain seasons of the year there is a stream of emigration particularly from the maritime provinces, to the other side of the line, and recognized by our people as a movement into the United States, men going temporarily to engage in various occupations. From my own county I know that every spring a good many people, particularly from among the French Acadians, go over into Massachusetts and other New England states to work in the quarries, to engage in farming operations, while they leave their families at home. There are others who go early in the spring to engage with the Gloucester fishermen. They go from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, and during a certain season of the year they are engaged in fishing on board the American ships and sailing under the American flag. They then return. There is an annual stream returning every autumn. Many men who become involved financially in connection with their property go away, engage in certain occupations, make some money, come back and pay off their debts. This fact is perhaps within the knowledge of every member from the eastern provinces and from the province of Quebec. In the fall the men who go from our northern counties in New Brunswick to the state tof Maine to engage in lumbering operations can be counted by the thousands. But, they return in the spring. Under the methods pursued by the United States authorities, those whom I have named are classified as immigrants into the United States. Necessarily there must be discrepancies between any record which we may have, or any estimate which we may make, and their record of this incoming and outgoing population. There are unquestionably some who permanently leave the maritime provinces and settle in the United States. That must be so because I believe there are perhaps more Nova Scotians in Boston than there are in the whole city of Halifax. But that has been going on for years and there is this movement back and forth, which is temporary in its nature but which is calculated to mislead.


Robert Laird Borden: Does my hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Emmer-son), mean that these men would be classed as immigrants into the United States when they go into the United States, but that they would not be classed as Mr. EMMERSON.
emigrants from the United' States when they return to Canada in the autumn? I am speaking altogether of the United States classification.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think that is the case. They do mot keep a record of those that are coming back.


Robert Laird Borden: Oh, they do keep some record, because they set it all forth in their statistics, but it may be that they adopt a different principle in one case from that which they adopt in the other, although one would think that they would adopt the same principle-.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I can speak from personal knowledge with respect to that. The movements from the maritime provinces towards the United States are either over the Maine Central railway or by the steamship lines leaving St. John, Yarmouth, or Halifax. The American authorities take a minute record of every one who goes in through any of these channels. I know, as a matter of fact, that in going, particular inquiry is made of each passenger, of every one who may be on board the train or on board the steamer, but on returning, when they leave Boston or Portland or any of those ports, a record is not taken of those who come back into the maritime provinces. I know that for a fact, and I think it explains in a great measure many of the difficulties that present themselves in thinking out the question or in attempting to reconcile the apparent differences. I can quite appreciate what my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), has said. We are led to believe that there are a great many coming into Canada, or at least that there have been during the last few years. If it were true that there were those leaving our shores, in great numbers to settle in the United States we might well pause to inquire just what is the net gain that we are making. It would be a very desirable thing, I am sure, to have this record if one could be accurately secured, but it becomes a question of the expense and of the ultimate value of such a record.


Wilfrid Laurier: While I in no manner at all challenge the honesty of the statistics of the United States in regard to the exodus of Canadians to the United States, the older members of the House remember, and are fully aware that the accuracy of those statistics was more than once challenged on the floor of this House. Some twenty years ago or thereabouts, the subject of the exodus of Canadians to the United States was one of constant debate in this House. The numbers of Canadians who were then going to the United States was very large, undoubtedly. But I remember distinctly that on a certain oc-

casion-and I am sure that if my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) taxes his memory, he "will remember it also-that Mr. John Henry Pope-I just forget the year exactly, but it was about twenty years ago, when he was either Minister of Agriculture or Minister of the Interior-had a special inquiry made into this subject of the exodus from the province of Ontario to the western states. At the beginning of a session, when the matter was again brought up, he gave the result of his inquiry and it was shown that the statistics which were given by the American authorities-I will not say were not reliable -but were altogether contradicted by the inquiry which was made under the authority of Mr. Pope. If I had the time I am sure I could lay my hands upon this volume of ' Hansard,' although I am quite sure that my memory is absolutely accurate in regard to my statement of what occurred on that occasion.


Mr. BLAIN.: I think the question the House has been discussing for a short time, introduced by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), is a very important one. I remember that last year when my hon. friend the leader of the opposition directed the attention of the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) to this important question, ha startled the House, and, I think caused some surprise among Canadians in every part of Canada. For the last ten years we have heard a great deal of discussion in this House with respect to the large number of people who are pouring into Canada, and during the last four or five years we have had special emphasis placed upon the fact that a very large number of people are leaving the United States and coming into Canada to pursue their agricultural interests. I take that to mean that the agricultural interests of Canada are in a very much better condition than the agricultural interests of the United States. We have been told in this House from time to time that there is practically no class of people leaving Canada, and going to the United States now. In listening to the discussion the other day I noticed that the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Hunt) said in his speech:
A great many young people in my country are selling the old homesteads and moving across the line.
I suppose then we are to take it, Mr. Speaker, that there are a good many young Canadians leaving Canada still. When I have read the statistics showing the large number of people coming into Canada from the United States I have wondered that this was not a greater cause of alarm to the American people. I was very much surprised that the newspapers in the United
States, Congress, the Senate and leading men generally, have not taken up this question more earnestly than they have. The answer, I suppose, is in the figures which my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has presented to the House. They are in a position to know whether they are getting in a sufficient number of people to offset the exodus. The Commissioner of Immigration has been questioned before the Agricultural committee with regard to this matter, and his answer always is that it is practically impossible to keep any record of the large number of Canadians that are going to the United States, but the Minister of the Interior now tells us this can be done if it were not for the expense. In my opinion a reasonable sum of money would be well expended to ascertain actually whether we are the gainers or the losers. Year after year parliament is being misled if the figures given by the leader of the opposition are approximately correct, and I think they are. The Minister of the Interier must no longer delay a thorough investigation into this matter, and if his department requires a small statistical branch for that purpose, parliament would willingly vote the money. After every census we are disappointed at the showing, even though we know a great number of people have come into Canada during the previous ten years, and I have no doubt this is due to the fact that while it is true we are gathering from the United States, it is also true that we are sending in return some of our best people. The Minister of the Interior and the Prime Minister himself should take into consideration the providing of means to ascertain how many Canadians are leaving our shores and going to the United States, so that a remedy may be applied.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: When we were discussing the vote for immigration this question was discussed by members on this side of the House, and I think we demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Minister of the Interior that there should be proper means taken to discover how many Canadians go to the United States year after year. Years ago the Liberals reproached the Conservative party because so many Canadians, and especially those from the maritime provinces, left Canada for the United States, but I believe that the same conditions prevail to-day, and probably in a more intensified form. I understood the Minister of the Interior to tell us when discussing the estimates that he thought the present statistics were unreliable and that steps should be taken to ascertain the real facts, but he seems to have forgotten that promise. The figures given by the Minister of Customs are likely to be explained by the fact that the Canadians who are going to the United States, especially from

the maritime provinces, are young men and young women, the 'best of our land, while those who are coming from the United States to Canada come largely to the three western provinces and are farmers who bring with them their implements and their horses and cattle. As they can buy horses in the United States more cheaply than they can in Canada-a point which bears upon the reciprocity agreement -they bring their horses across the line with them and their cattle too. If we had proper statistics prepared I believe it would be found that as many or probably more of the young people of the maritime provinces are going to the United States than ever before. This is greatly to be deplored because we have lots of room for them in the west, and we want them there.


Mr. MAGRATH.: I have no brief to speak for the United States immigration officials or the statistics which they present from year to year, and while I am prepared to believe the statement of the right hon. gentleman that some years ago the statistics were not reliable, yet I believe that the influx of vast numbers of Southern Europeans into that country made it necessary that the authorities should take cognizance of that condition and present the fullest information to the public regarding the character of the immigration, so that to-day I regard their statistics very complete. I am not so much concerned about the completeness of statistics merely to record the movement of people. Immigration is the most important question the people of Canada have to deal with because it means the very lifeblood of the nation. The minister has said that if parliament wishes for fuller statistics he is willing to make the arrangements, and to see that they are secured. In my opinion it is absolutely in the interests of the country that he should take such a course at once. If Canada is the great nation we believe it to be, and if we are going to have vast masses of people pouring into our country, it is in the interest of all the nation that figures should be placed before us representing the exact character of that immigration. In the statistics presented to parliament now we are told of a certain' number of United States' citizens coming to Canada. We know that the greater portion of citizens are created in the United States just as they are in Canada, that is through immigration. I, therefore, think that the country of origin should be specified. A citizen from some part of southern Europe goes into the United States, stays there a few years and becomes a citizen of that country. Then if he enters Canada we should have information of the race from which that citizen sprung, in other words the immigration from the United States should state if native born, and if not. from Mr. SCHAFFNER.
whence they originally came. I think it is absolutely necessary that we should have fuller statistics so that the people throughout the country can study these ethnological questions.


Mr. PERLEY.: It is patent that the ministers have shown that their statistics are no good, that they have no statistics of any real value, and I do not think anything has been said by any of them to disprove or cast any doubt on the American statistics brought forward by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden). The Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) when he rose first, started to say that our statistics were good statistics, but the Minister of the Interior was too quick for him, he rose to interrupt him to prevent him saying something he would be sorry for. He promptly told him that these statistics of the Interior Department were only an incident, that he had no officers to get statistics, and when the Minister of Customs rose afterwards, he did not tell us that the statistics of the Canadian government were good, he had found out that he was mistaken, and was prevented from making a bad mis-'stafiementi. This merely confirms whati was said the other day in a debate regarding statistics about the reciprocity treaty. We then found that this government had no statistics regarding prices, that they never tried to get any, that the American government had plenty of statistics which they have published, and seem to have at their fingers ends. All the information the ministers had was what our good friends on the other side were kind enough to give them.
The Minister of Customs says that this question has come up many times, that he remembers some years ago when he was on the Committee on Agriculture discussing this matter, and he found the statistics very difficult to understand. He said that it sometimes appeared from the figures as if all our immigrants had gone to the United States, and in fact sometimes even part of our natural increase. The member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) has partially explained this, but to my mind there is another explanation. I think that many people from Europe who come into Canada nominally as immigrants to this country really come here for the purpose of going to the United States. They are counted as immigrants coming into Canada; our friends the government pass great numbers of them, and when they enter the United States they are counted as immigrants going to the United States. We probably all know of our own knowledge that immigrants have come into Canada and stayed here a short time, merely for the purpose of going to the United States. Why do they come here first? They come here on account of our extraordinary system

of bonusing immigrants and also on account of the fact that the United States is much more careful in the inspection of immigrants arriving in their ocean ports, New York and Boston, than of immigrants entering from Canada at border points. The Minister of Customs has given some figures with regard to settlers' effects which the member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) has explained very well. I do not see that these figures disprove the immigration figures which have been quoted from the United States authorities. It is true that many of the immigrants coming into Canada from Europe afterwards go to the United States, and it is quite evident that they will not have, per head, anything like the amount of settlers' effects that the people will who are coming from the western states into Canada, who have been farmers for many years, and who are bringing over all their personal effects. So I do not see that the dollars worth of settlers' effects quoted by the Minister of Customs disprove in any way the statistics which the United States government has provided on this subject. So long as the ministers of the Crown in this House have to admit that they do not know anything about our statistics, that they have no proof whatever that they are of any particular value, just so long they must abide by and agree to these statistics provided by the United States.


William Paterson: The leader of the opposition did not attach much importance to them apparently.


Robert Laird Borden: I said nothing of that kind.


William Paterson: You doubted them.


Robert Laird Borden: No, I did not seek to challenge them at all. I asked whether or not their accuracy was challenged by this government, or accepted by them. So far as I know the Immigration Department of the United States government is as well organized a department as exists in the world, and I say that after having made some personal investigation of it, because I went to Montreal on one occasion, and spent two days in examining their methods. I am bound to say that any man who takes that trouble to understand their system will be convinced of the truth of what I have said. I would not for a moment cast a doubt on the accuracy of their statistics, but I do not know the principle on which they frame them. I repeat that the results set forth in their Teport of last year, and of this year were absolutely surprising to me, but that does not mean that I am challenging the accuracy of their statistics. I would be very sorry to do it.


Mr. SHARPE (Lisgar).: The Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) says the Americans count every person going into the United States. That is what our officers do with every person coming into Canada. If a man from the United States comes into Canada wishing to buy land, he is counted as an immigrant. We find that last year
103.000	came into western Canada, but if you look up the records to see how many took up homesteads, you will see that only
14.000	did so. A great many of these others who came into western Canada simply inspected lands, looked into the conditions there, and if they were not satisfactory, went back without buying, and a great many bought land, and returned to the south.
I rose principally to protest against the immigration of negroes into western Canada. We, with British Columbia, wish to see a white west. We do not wish that kind of immigrants coming into western Canada, and I wish to protest very strongly against this government allowing them to enter western Canada.


George Eulas Foster: I would like to suggest that we do not meet here another year to discuss this question of immigration and have the Minister of the Interior or the Minister of Customs, ignorant as to whether the same basis of counting is used on the United States side and on the Canadian side. Any clever man, in either of these offices, could go over to the United States and analyse that matter, in company with the officers there, and find out exactly what the differences are, if any. My own opinion is that there is some difference; how far it goes we do not know; but I think it is the first duty of the government to eliminate that lack of information and get to the foundation of fact in reference to it.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: It affords me a great deal of pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to realize that the ministry realize their absolute incompetence as compared with the American administration with regard to this item of immigration. For years there have been hundreds of thousands of Americans coming into the Canadian west, and they 1 are among the shrewdest of the farming community from the different states. They have come to better their conditions. For years they have had this ninety millions of population to sell their products to; but they have realized that their condition would be better in Canada under the protection that we have had here in the past. They leave the United States and come to Canada with two or three carloads of stuff. When they leave their own states their horses are worth only $108 a head; when they land them in Canada they are worth $130, $140, or $150. Their milch cows which are worth only $40 a head in the states, are worth $48 when they are

landed in Canada. It is the same with their swine, their sheep and any other live stock they have. I do not refer to the conditions that may prevail if my right hon. friend carries through the reciprocity agreement which he proposes, and which we do not propose he shall. These people are wise people; they have been trying to make a livelihood on the other side and have not been successful, and they realize that in Canada they can be successful owing to the protection that they have in this country. They do not want the ninety-million market; they want the market that we have in this country, with the protection that prevails. That is the reason they have been coming here in hundreds of thousands. For that reason, and that reason alone, I would submit tc the First Minister that he had better revise his judgment with regard to the farmers of the west and reciprocity. One other matter I wish to refer to, and that is what my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Sharpe), has said with regard to the negro immigration into the Canadian west. It is a question that no man in politics desires to touch, for many reasons, but it is a question that every man in Canada in his heart thinks over. It is a great big question on the other side of the line, and we on this side should do everything in our power to keep it there, because it is a question which, in the minds of many of the deep thinkers of the United States, is going to be one of primest importance to the standing of that country inside of a very few years. It is a matter of the gravest importance, and one that is almost beyond the pale of parliament to discuss-not because it is not worth discussing, but because it is of such great importance that it should be discussed absolutely outside of partisan lines and only in the interest of Canada. It is a matter that I do not wish to touch, and that I would not have referred to had it not been referred to by my hon. friend from Lisgar. I almost regret that it has ever been brought up, not only on this occasion, but on other occasions, because the people of that race have a standing in Canada, and have shown their worth, and we can only judge of their failings as a people by what has occurred in the south. For that reason I do not wish to discuss the question here. I would caution the Minister of the Interior with regard to bringing people into Canada from southern Europe. While we on this side of the House approve of all northern European immigration, we absolutely disapprove of a certain class of southern European immigration as detrimental to the west; and when I say that I have only to quote his own words uttered in this House with regard' to the Mr. CAMPBELL
Galician immigration. The bread he cast upon the waters at that time will come back to him bearing fruit in as many folds as he likes.


William D. Staples: One matter to which I think the government should pay a little attention, is the special concessions which an immigrant from the south receives from the various railway companies. A man from across the border gets from them a rate of a cent a mile to any part of the west, while a good Canadian who wishes to make the same trip has to pay the regular rate. Now, that is an unfairness to our Canadians. The same would apply to young men who are coming from the maritime provinces. If they wish to come to the west they have to pay the usual rate, unless they can come on a home-seekers excursion such as occasionally takes place, but, of course, it is not convenient for all to come just when a home-seekers' excursion is leaving. So, this is a clear injustice to the Canadian home-seeker who wishes to locate a homestead in the western provinces. The minister should look into this and see to it that our good Canadians at least are given the same consideration as is given to those who come from across the line.


Frank Oliver: As this is a new matter, I desire to say a word at once with regard to it. It is a matter which has engaged the attention of the department. We have discussed it with the railway companies,- and,of course, so far as we are concerned, it is in the control of the railway companies absolutely. We have not been able to induce them to do differently from what they have been doing. They have business reasons of their own for the policy they pursue. The alternative appears to be that if attempt were made to press upon them to give the same conditions to our own people as they give to people from the United States, they would simply withdraw the concessions they give to people from the United States.


Mr. HENDERSON.: This subject of immigration is one of great interest, but in the discussion of the last hour and a ha'.f it has been one of great disappointment also. I have never given great attention 'to (the study of immigration statistics, but, reading newspaper reports, and listening to the statements of the Minister of the Interior, I have been lead for years to believe that we were gaining, through our immigration system, very large additions to our population, and very considerably so from the United States-at a cost to us of a good deal of money. The Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) has thrown some light on that matter this afternoon. He has taken the settlers' effects as a

guide. He read from the Trade and Navigation returns showing that last year's settlers' effects from the United States to Canada amounted to $7,613,500, and that settlers' effects from Canada to the United States amounted to $2,076,000. I can well understand the large amount of settlers' effects from the United States into Canada, because the arrivals from the United States in our western provinces almost always carry large quantities of farm machinery, horses, cattle, wagons, &c. But, to my mind, the Minister of Customs may be a litt'le out of the way when he makes the value of settlers' effects the basis of a comparison showing the number of people coming into and going out of the country. The hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) spoke of the migration from the maritime provinces to the United States. From the character of that migration, I should suppose the people going from the maritime provinces had taken very litt'le with them, whereas the people going into the western provinces from the United States bring a great deal. I think it would not be too much to say that the value of the settlers' effects coming into Canada would be three times as much for the average individual as the value of settler's effects carried by the people from the maritime provinces going into the United States. That may be even a little under the mark. If, for the sake of the comparison, we say that the people coming from the United States into our west bring $3.50 in settlers' effects for every $1 that is taken out by our people going from the maritime provinces to the United States, we find that practically we have an equal movement of emigration and immigration. I am a little afraid that that is really the case,-that we are losing just as much as we are gaining. We shall have to await the census returns to see if that can be verified or not. But it does look as though, while the minister is spending a great deal of money and filling up the western country at what we might ca'll the bung-hole, he is neglecting to see how much is running out of the spout from the maritime provinces. From what has been said this afternoon, I am very much afraid that our net gain is very little. I hope the Minister of the Interior will, even if it costs more, carry out some system of keep-" ing track of the people that go out of the country. It cannot be expected that this is to be done without money; but I am not aware that this parliament ever refuses any reasonable appropriation for any purpose of correct and useful statistics. The subject is so interesting and important, that I am sure parliament would gladly provide the money. I was much surprised to learn that no real account is kept of the people going out of the country as well 257
as those coming in. The Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) referred to what had occurred about twenty years ago and what was said on the matter. We a'll remember the howl of Sir Richard Cartwright, particularly with regard to the exodus. He magnified it to such an extent that I believe he got away beyond the bounds. He talked about the people we were losing and about there being a million native born Canadians in the United States at that time. I do not know whether he got his figures from the American returns or not, but I always thought he magnified them, and magnified them for a purpose. He did it to show that the National Policy had failed. And we have the National Policy to-day, with what hon. gentlemen opposite say are improvements made in it by themselves, yet the population seems to be going out of the country as fast as it was then. I merely rise to voice my opinion in favour of the Minister of the Interior taking steps to get for the future more correct statistics than he has been getting with regard to the people leaving the country.
It would be just as interesting to us to know whether we are losing population as to know whether we are gaining it. My opinion is that we are lbsing about as much as we are getting, so far as the United States are concerned. No doubt the figures furnished us by the Department of the Interior axe fairly correct of the number of people coming in from Great Britain and European countries. We are not losing people going across the water. I trust the minister will take the necessary steps to inform us in the future as to the movement of population both ways, not only from the United States into Canada, but from Canada into the United States.


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

['Probably to-morrow.']
Mr. W. B. NANTEL (Terrebonne).: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, the circumstances surrounding this reciprocical convention are somewhat special and very interesting. First, the measure came to us in a very sudden and unexpected manner, as is the government wanted to bring upon parliament and the country a bunch of surprises, as if their intention had been to cause us a surprise. In 1910, it was the War Navy ; in 1911, it is the reciprocity. But not a word had been said during the general election of 1908 of these most vital and serious questions. At the very first session, thanks to the German scare, a ghost sprung for a purpose, we are launched at full steam in the military imperialism, and, in 1910, the German scare being over, the



government .gave us this famous navy, Canadian at time of peace, British at time of war. In order that the people, especially of the province of Quebec and of the West, should forget the navy, and to distract public opinion, the government brings up the reciprocity.
When the general elections of 1908 were over, and there was no fear of the electorate we went full Sail into naval militarism. In 1911 after the famous election of Drummond-Arthabaska, when the salutary fear of the voter began to tell upon the government, they try on something to show that they want to kill commercial imperialism itself. What then of the argument brought during the election of Drummond-Arthabaska, that the government was creating a navy in order to protect our oceanic trade. One more contradiction dont count much with our hon. friends opposite, principally when the cup is full.
Where are those who in Canada, in these last years, ask this reciprocity with our neighbours? The great national policy has caused in this country a great many struggles. Inaugurated in 1878 by Sir John A. Macdonald, modified in 1897, but maintained in principle by this government, as we have been told by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton), who knows pretty well, because he, along with his collegues at that time, the hon. Minister of Finance took part in this tariff reform ; this national policy, as I said, had been definitively accepted by the two parties and was giving satisfaction to the Canadian people. New cities were springing up everywhere like magic and existing cities were doubling their population.


Mr. DEVLIN (Wright).: (Translation.) Since when?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: (Translation.) I say since both parties have agreed to put in . force a policy of protection, of moderate protection, it is true, but at any rate a policy of protection. That policy 'has developed the local market, surely the most profitable for us, and that market, supplemented by 4he interprovincial trade, takes up almost all of our natural products, that is to say, about 80 or 85 per cent, for local consumption. So that there remains only about 15 or 20 per cent of our surplus production which is sent over to Great Britain through our improved system of transportation which has cost us a great deal of money, and to the United States despite the walls put up by themselves, for they are absolutely in need of some of our products as raw material to feed their industries, for instance, wood for the manufacture of paper, and our hard wheat for their flour mills, stuffs which they are so badly in need of that they would have gladly Mr. NANTEL	*	! 4 ?
taken them from us, with or w'ithout reciprocity.
Who are they then who are Clamouring for this arrangement? You may be sure it was not the manufacturers, or the farmers of Quebec or of Ontario, still less the fruit growers and gardeners. The fruit growers have insisted that there should not be any change in the tariff. The opinion of manufacturers regarding this arrangement is known. Who then rvas asking for it? The grain growers in the west alone complained. With, as appetizers, the speeches made by the right hon. gentleman the Prime Minister during his trip through the west last summer. They, to the exclusion of all others, asked that our fiscal laws be changed. To the children of the soil the answer was that they came too late. To the grain growers, born in foreign lands, and who only of late years joined the Canadian household, greetings of welcome were extended. Is that because they seem to be the wards of the financial nabob, of the railroad king, James J. Hill? Quite possible. Their demands have been in the main com plied with, and yet they are not satisfied. As a matter of fact, what they are after is unrestricted reciprocity. They are quite outspoken in the matter, adding that they will keep on fighting until they get what they are intent on obtaining. It is clear that these gentlemen have a great pull, and at the time of their visit to Ottawa during the winter, it was contended that they had come under the patronage of Hill, and even that the latter had paid their railway fares.
Now, who are these grain growers, and are they so very much to be pitied? Are they humble toilers of the soil, poor fellows who barely manage to eke out a living, like those who formerly in Quebec and Ontario cleared the bush, wielding at times the axe, and at times shouldering the gun to fight away the Iroquois? Not by any means; they are wealthy farmers who migrated from Dakota and elsewhere, and who, after selling their farms at advanced prices, settled in the Canadian west with a view to securing for themselves larger farms at the rate of $10 an acre.
While travelling through the west, during the autumn of 1909, I came across one of these pure-blooded Yankee grain growers in the vicinity of Calgary. I was in company with a lands agent who introduced me to that gentleman farmer. Instead of painfully cutting and turning over the furrow with the help of oxen, as described by the poet, he had recourse to a traction engine, and over his immense domain, everything was done by steam. He had come in the warm season to put in the grain; in the autumn he was to return to see to the threshing and to figure out his thousands

of bushels of grain before the wintry weather set in, then he would go down south to enjoy a milder climate, in the vicinity of Los Angeles, where he intended to spend the winter and make the most of life, which as he thought, was very short.
Of course, I do not mean to say that all grain growers are as wealthy as this man; but they are not the most to be pitied amongst Canadians. These grain growers should be treated fairly, and their just requirements complied with, in the same way as those of other members of the great Canadian family; but they should not expect us to subvert and disorganize the fiscal system which is found to be satisfactory to Canada.
The treaty of 1854, which remained in force until 1866, gave rise to discussions which lasted eight years. That famous fiscal arrangement which we are called upon to ratify to-day, has more importance than the treaty of 1854, for as a matter of fact, its scope is wider, and why then should we be expected to dispose of it in the space of a few months. We did not hear of this measure until after New Year's. Ratified in the United States by the House of Representatives, it is now before the Senate. As will be seen, matters are being pushed ahead rapidly. Evidently the grain growers who are the promoters of this move, patronized by Hill, who is interested in the passing of the Bill, have a great deal of pull.
The last person to take a "hand in promoting this fiscal measure, was Mr. Bryce, British ambassador at Washington. I shall quote from the ' Gazette ' of April 24, 1911, the following extract:
(Text).-Mr. Bryce, ambassador of Great Britain to the United States, has been at Detroit speaking in praise of the Canadian reciprocity arrangement. Lord Sackville, one of Mr. Bryce's predecessors at Washington, twenty-three years ago, was sent home for talking too much about United States political issues. The precedent was not a notably decent one, however, and may be barred by the statute of limitations as to such matters. And Mr. Bryce may be privileged.
(Translation.) As may be seen, great interests are involved in this question, and one might surmise that this reciprocity scheme originated in the minds of the President of the United States, and of the British Ambassador, Mr. Bryce, to favour the political aims of the president of the United States and of the Liberol party, as against the Unionist party in England. Must it be understood that the fate, the destiny of Canada is an incident, a side issue in the political warfare going on between the parties in those countries. The United States are in a state of unrest, there is a crisis impending, while here in Canada business is flourishing. Last autumn, in the United 2571
States elections were fought on the question of the cost of living. The Democratic party won out against the Republicans. A change of government is about to be affected; a reform is needed to remedy the present state of things, and the government which is about to come into power, is bound to apply that remedy which is the lowering of the tariff. So that, even should that arrangement not be ratified, there would be a change, and the best proof as to that is that, just now, in the United States Congress, they are discussing the free list, that is an enactment allowing the free entry of goods corresponding practically with that implied in this famous agreement. Consequently, it is likely that had we delayed, we might have obtained, without making any concessions ourselves, the advantages secured through this treaty.
In Canada, where everything is satisfactory, shall we, to help on our neighbours who need medicine, take the same medicine, though in perfect health? For the sake of our neighbours, shall we run the risk of contracting disease?
Now, this agreement is being made with a government about to fall from power. It is a foregone conclusion that before long, there will be a change of government, and as a consequence a change in the tariff, as the Democratic party are on the eve of taking hold of the government. In the meantime, we are going here to considerable pains in view of a state of things which is not at all likely to last very long, a state of things as problematical as a game of bluff, played by these parties in the United States to get hold of power.
An agreement has been gone into with a government which possibly may not be in a position to meet its obligations. True, the House of representatives has approved this agreement, but should the Senate reject it, it would mean to Canada a setback even more humiliating than those we have experienced in former times. Should not our plenipotentiaries have waited a little while and make sure that the government which was a party to this contract would be in a position to carry out their promises?
As I stated a moment ago, this famous question of reciprocity, as well as that concerning the navy, has never been submitted to the people at the general election of 1908. Have we a mandate to settle that reciprocity business? We have at most a general mandate, but no special mandate, since the question has never been submitted to the people. I know that parliament has the right to do anything it pleases. My professor in constitutional law taught that parliament was able to do anything except changing man into woman. Formerly, party leaders made known to the people, in a general election, their policy.

the important measures which they proposed to submit to parliament. It is no longer the fashion to-day. The high art consists in not revealing anything to the people, in going through an election in sphinx-like fashion, By-andnby, vital issues are submitted to parliament, as, for instance, the question of the navy and that of reciprocity; then supporters are whipped into line, the benefits of patronage are dangled before their eyes, and everything goes. Later on the electors are acquainted with what has been done, with the heavy expenditure incurred, and the disadvantages incident on a withdrawal from the position taken are emphasized. If the people approve of what has been done, so much the better; all is well that ends well. If the people withhold their approval, well, at any rate, the party will have enjoyed the exercise of power, four or five years in the meantime. That is a simple and practical device. If, in 1908, when, in his most touching tones, he appealed to his compatriots in Quebec, praying that they allow him to carry through his undertaking-the National Transcontinental railway-the Prime Minister had requested them besides to empower him to provide the country with a war navy and to conclude a treaty of reciprocity with the United States would the results have been the same? To say the least, we are justified in having our doubts as to that.
But this agreement is either good or bad. If it is really beneficial, why has it not been concluded for a given period, and why has it not been safeguarded against, put beyond party warfare and intrigue, especially on the other side of the frontier? The treaty of 1854 was passed for a period of ten years; otherwise, our neighbours would not have been long in denouncing it. Enlightened by past experience, our plenipotentiaries, if they were satisfied that they were making a good bargain with uncle Sam, should have laid down a fixed date, ten or twenty years, and thus secure to us the benefit of it for as long a period as possible.
Who then requested for either country the privilege of abrogating the treaty at will? Was it the representatives of the United States or those of Canada? That would be interesting information. Our plenipotentiaries, always careful to withhold from us information in this connection, have not told us about it. If such a clause was included at their request, they certainly blundered, since they were satisfied that the bargain was beneficial to us.
Stability is indispensable in tariff matters and treaties. The weak point in this arrangement is its unstable character. How should Canadians be expected to make preparations for taking advantage of that market, seeing that our neighbours are at liberty to shut them out at a moment's, notice?
Mr. NANTEL
The mere fact of our making the best of the opportunity offered might be sufficient reason in he eyes of our neighbours to deprive us of that market. It should be evident to all of us that the Americans, having abrogated the treaty of 1854 because they considered that, all things taken into account, we had the best of it, do not make this offer for our own sake. The fact that no definite period is indicated shows that our representatives themselves who concluded the arrangement did not have absolute confidence in that measure and accepted it as something doubtful, and rather risky as regards any benefits it might confer upon us. It is an experiment, implying some risk and uncertainty, and in exchange for that risky and uncertain prospect, we are asked to give up what we possess as a certainty. That fiscal arrangement is a medicine which our plenipotentiaries are desirous that 'Canada should take, though in good health, while they are themselves unable to give the assurance that the medicine will give good results, or even is perfectly safe. All they can say, 'is that should the medicine turn out to be noxious, we shall give up taking it.
Another grave defect of that agreement, consists in discriminating against certain classes of the people, refusing to some of them the protection which it ensures to others in such a way as to develop antagonism and cause friction, and that should make it short-lived, if ever it is fit to live. For instance, it refuses protection to the market gardener while it grants it to the grain-grower. Every one knows that tfiere is a great deal of capital invested in market gardening. Market gardeners are actually manufacturers, but this agreement withdraws all protection from them.
However, it is stated that a market of one hundred millions is going to be opened to us. That is all very fine, but it should not be lost sight of that the Americans are a people of producers and exporters of products similar to ours, and on a larger scale than we are ourselves. Without referring to any statistics, I may state, relying on those previously supplied, that the United States are about the country which exports the largest quantities of products similar to those we produce ourselves. Moreover, this agreement opens our doors to twelve other countries against which we are protected for the present by our fiscal laws. True heretofore our trade intercourse with these twelve nations has not been very extensive, but who can foretell what extension such trade may not take when free entry to our market is given them?
The object of the Americans in showing such generosity in this trade arrangement, was to draw to their country our natural products, the raw material, such as nu!n wood, wood pulp and our hard wheat, which they cannot do without. Under that trade.

arrangement, we are running great risk of injuring our local market and interprovincial trade.
For instance, who does not realize to-day the importance of our local market? There is no need of statistics for that object; it is enough to be a consumer, to supply oneself on the Montreal market or elsewhere, to know that the prices which farmers sell at to-day are exorbitant and have reached their top limit. It is not within the memory of a man that from $13 to $15 has been paid for a hundred pounds of pork, $12 for a hundred pounds of beef. ~ The prices of these products could not therefore be higher. If, under this arrangement, it is hoped that such prices will be further increased, then woe to the workingmen and consumers in the cities.
On the other hand, the farmer may suffer from a fall in prices though the competition of products from the Argentine, which is one of the countries to which we give free entry under this arrangement, and which through the conservation of meats in cold storage compartments, will be in a position to cater to our markets, with the result that our farmers may be obliged to sell their own products a little cheaper. To this our opponents answer that the agreement under consideration will have the effect of enabling our farmers to get higher prices, while consumers will get commodities cheaper. These two contentions are difficult of agreement. If sane reasoning cannot show the absurdity of such a stand, it will of itself fall to the ground. If the farmer gets a higher price, surely it must be that the consumer is made to pay that higher price. Nowadays production is very costly, because labour is expensive. Farm help is very dear just now, and there is no means of extending farm operations unless there be more help available.
A few days ago, the hon. member for Montcalm (Mr. Rafortune), while acknowledging that this agreement might interfere with certain occupations, such as that of the market gardeners, contended that the latter, might alter their system of farming and grow hay, for instance, in accordance with the new system advocated in this House; that of the continous growing of hay on the same land.
But those good people who formerly accepted literally the teachings of the Minister of Agriculture surrounded by his agricultural lecturers, and who, in accordance with such teaching, devoted their whole attention and energy to market gardening or to dairying, would be obliged to alter their convictions and accept the agronomic heresies of that same Minister of Agriculture who has become a political partisan; all this in spite of the opinion of the specialist; Professor Robertson, of
MacDonald College, who declares that fifty million dollars' worth of butter exhaust the soil less than one thousand tons of hay worth $14,000. Really, our farmers will be very much perplexed if they understand that the American hay market may be taken from them at any moment, whereas they are always sure of selling at all times their fruit, vegetables, butter and cheese.
This agreement, moreover, is bound to disorganize and injure our transportation lines as between the different Canadian provinces, on one hand, and on the other in communicating with outlying countries, more especially with British possessions and even with the capital of the empire; it will become impossible to complete and improve such lines. In this respect the denunciation of the treaty of 1854, by which our neighbours intended to injure and annoy us, has proved a boon. Had that treaty continued in force, would we to-day have those railways and waterways which cross our territory in every direction? They have cost us much money, but we are proud of them, feeling as we do that they are our best asset. Would we then have made such gigantic progress in the building up of the Canadian nation? I say that we would not. Being deprived of the American market, which was then our only market, we were obliged to count upon ourselves alone. We have created our local and interprovincial markets; we have succeeded in reaching the British market, the most important in the world. There still remains for us much to do in that direction in the way of improving and perfecting our national organization. If the bulk of our produce, by reason of the new state of things that it is wished to establish, take a different direction from that which we have devised-perhaps somewhat in opposition to ordinary geographical rules -where will be, in future, the stimulant required to induce us to extend and improve those transportation lines. It is not plain that there will be none? What will become of the Georgian Bay canal and other works of a similar nature? If this agreement were ratified, the trend of trade instead of being east and west would be north and south; the direction would be changed and our product following the waterways of the great lakes would accumulate at St. Paul for the benefit of Americans and to the detriment of our own transportation.
Such a policy implies free trade in natural products and in certain manufactured articles. It is the first step towards absolute free trade in all products; it is a foretaste of free trade not only with the United States but with all countries. To establish and justify free trade in all products, it would be sufficient to resort to the same process and use the same

arguments which are set forth in support of the present agreement. It is, therefore, a return to the programme of unlimited reciprocity, the only difference being that it is reached by a more tortuous way. As a matter of expediency, now as in 1897, the principle of protection, is apparently maintained. But, in reality, as I have before stated, this agreement is but a disguised return to the free trade programme of 1891, a return to unlimited reciprocity. It is quite plain that not daring to make such a move openly it is sought to attain the same and toy indirect means. -
The hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neeley) at a meeting of the faithful held at Ottawa, said:
The manufacturers are not hurt by this agreement, but they realize that once the people taste the sweets of freer trade in natural products, they will demand freer trade in manufactured goods as well.
For my part I believe in the policy of protection, especially in a young country possessing raw material and all the waterpower that can be desired; a country, moreover, surrounded by protected states. I cannot accept this agreement, which I consider wrong and dangerous for the country.
Protection saved France, and thanks to protection Germany is threatening Great Britain's commercial supremacy, and even causing the latter some anxiety as to her naval supremacy. I fear those free traders to whom free trade is as a religion. They ardently support the present measure in the hone that it is but the forerunner of a more complete surrender. I have quoted the member for Humtooldt. I might also quote the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Ralph Smith). In the course of the debate the hon. member for Red Deer, that paragon of free trade, that proud disciple of Cobden, gave full scope to his free trade ideas under the paternal eye of the hon. the Prime Minister, and as he spoke his chief seemed to drink in each one of his words as if they had sprung from the very fountain of youth. They seemed to make him twenty years younger and bring him back to the times of the 1891 campaign.
In support of this opinion, let me quote from a portion of the letter of Sir Charles Tupper to Mr. Fielding, which is published in to-day's issue of the Montreal 'Gazette,' the title of this article is 'Macdonald versus Laurier' and reads as follows:



[Stage Direction]
You say that Sir John A. Macdonald was in favour of reciprocity in 1891; but you do not explain that he was fighting a desperate battle to prevent Laurier and Cartwright, who were co-operating with Wiman and Far-rer-avowed annexationists-from carrying unrestricted reciprocity with the United Mr. NANTEL.
States, which involved Canada taking the tariff made at Washington, with its discrimination against Great Britain.
Have you forgotten that the Hon. Edward Blake left his party on the ground that that policy would end in annexation to the United States, which, at that important crisis, you supported? The policy for which Laurier and Cartwright and Wiman and Farrer were struggling.
It is true that in the struggle, which cost Sir John A. Macdonald his life, in maintaining British institutions for Canada, we succeeded. But before the election Mr. Laurier made the following solemn declaration:-
' I have read the history of unrestricted reciprocity in this way-that every reform has cost to the reformer years of labour, and those years of labour I, for one, am ready to give; and though the Democrats may be defeated in the States, and though Canadians may grow faint-hearted in Canada, the Liberal party, as long as I have anything to do with it, will remain true to the cause until that cause is successful. I will not expect to win in a day, but I am prepared to remain in the cool shades of opposition until the cause has triumphed, and you shall never hear a complaint from me. I tell you the Liberal party will never cease from the agitation until they triumph and obtain continental free trade. We are asked, sometimes, gentlemen, what is the programme of the Liberal party. This is the programme of the Liberal party, to obtain a continental freedom of trade. Success will certainly crown our efforts at no distant day. Fixing our eves steadily on the goal, we shall go on steadily until we reach it-unrestricted continental reciprocity.
Further in the same letter:
I am opposed to your agreement with the United States, because Mr. Bayard in 1888 assured Mr. Chamberlain and me that the policy of the Democratic party was to remove as soon as they were able the duties on all the articles in your agreement, and President Taft now sees that he oan only secure his re-election policy.
We owe nothing to the Republican party, and would, gain everything without any entangling alliance, which will, I fear, end in the destruction of British institutions in Canada.
You ventured to claim the prosperity of Canada as due to the Laurier government. You cannot deny that, without confederation and the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway, Canada could not have attained the great position that she has.
Further again:
Mr. Laurier (now 'Sir Wilfrid) pledged to tear up protection and triumph on its head and body, succeeded in obtaining power by a Janus-faced policy on the question of race and religion, but not until he had secretly assured the manufacturers that they would be safe in his hands, and then oalled you to his aid as Finance Minister, and you, having failed in your first effort, which I denounced, succeeded.
At six o'clock, House took recess.

After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.
Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Mr. Chairman, when the House rose at six o'clock, I had laid down as a proposition that this commercial agreement was an earnest, a preparatory measure as it were or the coming back to free trade, and in support of this statement, I had quoted extracts from a letter of Sir Charles Tupper, that veteran of Canadian politics who 'in his 90th year, is by no means willing to allow hon. gentlemen opposite to misrepresent his statements. In support of this view, let me quote a few extracts from a speech delivered a few days ago in New York by the President of the United States; Mr. Taft.
The treaty provides for free trade in all agricultural products; and in rough lumber down to the point planning. It reduced the duties on secondary food products by a very substantial percentage and it makes such reductions on a number of manufactured articles that those engaged in making them have assured us that the reductions will substantially increase the already large Canadian demand for them.
And further on he adds;
We tendered to the Canadian commissioners absolute free trade in all products of either country, manufactured or natural, but the Canadian commissioners did not feel justified in going so far. It is only reasonable to infer, therefore, that with respect to these articles upon which they refused free trade to us, they felt that the profitable price at which they could be sold by our manufacturers in Canada was less than the price at which their manufacturers could afford to sell the same either to their own people or to us. Hence it follows that their refusal to agree to free trade in these articles as we proposed, is the strongest kind of evidence that if we should take off the existing duty from such articles coming into the United States it would not affect in the slightest degree the price at which these articles could be furnished to the public here. In other words, the proposition to put on the free list for entrance all articles that Canada has declined to make free in both countries would not lower the price to the consumer here.
And further on :
It is said that it injures the farmers. I deny it. It is strictly in accordance with the protective principle that we should only have a protective tariff between us and countries in which the conditions are so dissimilar as to make a difference in the cost of production.
The president then entered into an extended argument to prove that conditions of production in Canada were substantially the same as those in the United States. The difference, if any, was in favour of the United States as that had a greater variety of product cotton and corn, and hogs and cattle fed on corn were distinctly better crops in the United States than in Canada, he said, while
the difference as to wheat and barley and oats was the same in different parts of both countries
And further again ;
He realized he said that the agitation had raised opposition to the agreement. There was one way to clarify the situation, however, and that was to give the agreement a trial. If it were found that there was an injury to the farmers they possessed sufficient control by legislation to cause the ending the agreement, as neither country was hound to continue it indefinitely.
Finally ;
There are other natural resources which I need not stop to enumerate, which will become available to. us, as if our own, if we adopt and maintain commercial union with Canada, and this is one of the chief reasons that ought to commend the CanacUan agreement to the farseeing statesmanship of leaders of American public opinion.
It appears therefore, from this speech delivered by the president, that his intention is to promote free trade between the two countries, not only in natural but also in manufactured products. One of the motives of the agreement is to give Americans free access to our natural resources.
As I am now referring to this question of natural resources, I will remark that this agreement appeals so little to Canada, that the different provinces and more especially three of the most important ones, have adopted restrictive legislation to protect their natural resources.	_
Let me first mention the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, who have enacted special statutes to protect the export of timber to the United States. And since the present treaty is on its way-it is now being discussed by the United States Senate-New Brunswick has adopted a statute to protect the natural resources of that province against American invasion.
The hon. member for Red Deer, in his speech on this question, spoke enthusiastically of the condition of workmen in Great Britain. He intimated that notwithstanding free trade, British labour is the best paid in Europe.
A most singular fact! If wages are so high in England, why should there be in that country a constantly increasing army of unemployed, offering a most difficult problem for British statesmen? Why are there so many people idle? Why has it become necessary to have recourse to special legislation for the relief of the poor [DOT]by establishing the system of old age pensions? If free trade is useful in certain respects, it seems also to give rise to many drawbacks. Is not pauperism one of the curses of England? Is it not so serious a problem that statesmen have sought .to solve it by the statute voted on

the 1st August, 1908, and which in 19091910 costs the country two hundred and eighteen millions of francs and in 19101911 two hundred and thirty millions? Therefore, _ the advantages of free trade do not go without serious drawbacks. England, that predestinated country where free trade, like the River Pactolus, was going to bring prosperity, is also the country in which the government is most at a loss to find new sources of taxation to feed the ever growing budget.
Allow me to quote here a few lines from a very interesting book entitled * The English Crisis.'
Grave still is the downfall which threatens a nation where the people live almost exclusively in cities. It is impossible to travel through England without being struck with the contrast between the labouring masses in the cities and the peasants. Nothing can be more lamentable than the sight of the populace that assembles in Trafalgar Square in winter or that of the masses that fill the political meeting halls in the populous quarters of London; the men are nervous, pale and stunted, alcohol and tea have dissolved their muscles and made them an inferior race. A gulf growing deeper every day separates this populace from the prosperous and wealthy classes trained in the sports_ of the public schools, and also from the higher class of working men who enjoy leisure and play football. To find that impression of strength formerly resulting from contact with the Anglo-Saxon, one must travel through the rural districts. There, John Bull survives: the yeoman farmer appears, his pipe between his teeth, his (hands jin his pockets, his broad sole set flat on the ground, his self-satisfied smile showing his confidence in the strength of his fists and of his jaw. It is not surprising that the founder of the Physical Education and Progress League, Sir Lander Brunton, found in the abandonment of farms for the cities, in the drift to the urban centres the primary cause of the degeneracy of the English race.
Protection, properly applied, more than any other fiscal system is calculated to secure the necessary revenue for the development of our country and for the immense works which yet remain to be accomplished in a young country like Canada. We require a large revenue to complete our transportation lines and our national public works. If this agreement were ratified, the hon. the Finance Minister might be unpleasantly surprised when he came to make up his next budget speech.
He figured that the decrease in revenue would reach $2,500,000; hut I believe the amount should be doubled to cover the actual decrease. The more satisfactory arrangement is, the more will the revenue fall, and if we are anxious to carry on existing works or to start others, it.' will be necessary to get the necessary funds.
But it is contended that the arrangement does not concern manufacturers. There is Mr. NANTEL.
no need for discussing that point; it is perfectly well known to what extent manufacturers are effected: they themselves feel the blow aimed at them and the harm it has done. They are moving accordingly, and are eloquently demonstrating the falsity of that contention. They realize the position in which they have been put, and they have reason to be suspicious. The policy of protection, definitely accepted, in 1897, by both parties, gives satisfaction to all, and they are anxious that it should be maintained. An era of prosperity and a great swing of progress had been the result of its application, but this agreement upsets and turns everything up side down. It deprives us of all control over our tariff legislation, and puts us in many respects under the thumb of our neighbour. It does away with the principles laid down by the right hon. Prime Minister who declared on several occasions that there would be no further change or alteration of the tariff without the parties interested being notified in advance, and an investigation carried on by a commission of experts in connection with which all interests affected would be heard. This agreement does away with those principles and radically changes a large part of the tariff, without putting these people on their guard. If it has been possible to effect those changes, many others may be effected in the future.
I say that this agreement will make us utterly dependent on the Americans as regards our fiscal legislation. I see, for instance, among the articles included in the free list, separators and cream separators which were, it is true, on the free list under the statute, hut to which, at the next revision, it might have been possible to ensure legitimate protection. I contend that these apparatus should be protected, even should the only result be to prevent the importation into Canada of inferior makes which are. sent from all quarters. As long as this agreement remains in force, we cannot think of protecting that industry without the consent of our neighbours, otherwise the whole agreement falls to the ground.
Then again, that arrangement will prevent American industries requiring our raw material to settle down in Canada; they will build preferably within the territory of the United States. That is only natural; but it means a loss of capital to Canada.
Another objection to that treaty is that we are dealing with a people much stronger than ourselves. A people of one hundred millions against one of eight millions; it is a giant dealing with a dwarf. At the first difficulty which may arise, the dwarf will be overcome. Force overrides right very often. It is always unsafe for the weak to associate with the strong; the story of the iron pot travelling in company with the earthen pot should teach us a

lesson; at the first jar tire earthen pot goes to pieces. When Canada's population reaches the twenty-five or thirty million mark; when it has completed its system of transportation, and built the Georgian Bay canal, it may then be desirable for us to negotiate a treaty of commerce with the United States. But I believe that until we have reached that point of development, it would be highly imprudent to conclude such an arrangement with our neighbours.
Now, it is stated: this is a new market which is opened to us and we are not in any way deprived of our present markets. That is so, provided this treaty has not the effect of injuring our local market, for this new market can toe taken away from us at the very moment when we least expect it. The interprovincial trade is of great value to us, and as evidence I may point out that timothy seed-an article which the farmer cannot do without-is so scarce just now in Montreal that it is selling at $15 a hundred pounds. Why? Because, it appears, the seed sown last year has been shipped to the west to fill orders of the trade in that district. That gives an idea of the importance of the local and interprovincial trade. I believe that if we should lose that market, we would find no equivalent in the one which this arrangement proposes to secure to us.
In respect to loyalty, it is contended that our loyalty to the British flag should not be made dependent on the sale to the Americans of a few bushels of wheat or a few bales of hay, more or less. Quite right. On the other hand, fortunately, the future of Canadian trade, thanks to the energy of our Canadian statesmen, since the abrogation of the treaty of 1854, no longer depends on the sale of these few bushels of wheat or bales of hay to the Americans. Owing to the sacrifices we have made, to the great works we have carried through, we are independent from those who were intent on starving us in 1854. Why should we once more put ourselves at their mercy? We have secured to our products a goodly part of the British market, the best in the world; let us endeavour to retain it and develop it as much as we can.
Are there any who sincerely believe that if the treaty of 1854 had not been repealed, Canada would occupy a position as prominent as that it now occupies. I say no. Had not that treaty been denounced, we would have remained forever under the control of the Americans. That repeal was then beneficial to us. Why should we once more agree to being dictated to by the Americans?
Annexation has been referred to. I for one have no fear of wilful annexation, especially as long as tihere are in Canada French Canadians having a word to say
on the subject, for my fellow-citizens feel that they are fairly dealt with under the protection of the British flag, that their religion, their language and their institutions are secure under the constitution and that they enjoy greater safeguards in the folds of that flag than they likely would in the folds of the stars and stripes.
I am aware of all that,., but I am also aware that the most prominent of American statesmen who discussed the question of reciprocity in rather reckless fashion made a plea for annexation which should induce us to be careful, and which even statesmen in Germany have considered worth while discussing in their parliament.
I am also aware that several of our most prominent Canadians, whip are no longer in politics, have pointed to annexation as the inevitable outcome of it all. In any case, if there is no real danger of annexation, it must be admitted that the Americans have not been able to conceal their innermost thoughts in this connection.
However, a real danger is that of the seceding of some of the western provinces, especially if there be no closer control exercised over the character of the immigration going into that part of the country. Americans have been coming into Canada for several years back at the rate of 50,009 or 60,000 per year, on an average. Should those proposals be ratified will the result likely be to attract here a still larger number of Yankee settlors? It seems to me it will. I stated in 1909, on the floor of this House, that this immigration was not of the best and the most desirable type. I sav so once more.
Those American railways which have terminals in our country and make themselves at home in our country are another source of danger; they attract our trade as so many suction pumps, and take it to the other side of the line.
A striking fact is that the originator of the policy which is responsible for the two danger points implied in these proposals, the man who more than any other helped to bring them into existence, the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton), has-seceded from his leader on this very question, and is fighting the government. It is unfortunate that he did not find his Damascus road at an earlier period.
It is contended that the markets which are open to us to-day will continue to be open to us in the future. Yes, provided they are not injured by the new impulse given to our trade in other directions. It is evident that should the bulk of our trade take the direction of the United States in direct line from north to south, along the various railway lines owned by James Hill, acting as so many suction pumps and drawing our wheat towards the

United States flour mills, our railway and steamship lines will be running empty and the companies w'ill soon be tired of carrying on an unprofitable business. It will be found more difficult to undo such a state of things than it would be to prevent its establishment. That is a grevious danger whidh these proposals will only tend to make worse, a danger to which we should not close our eyes.
The hon. Minister of Finance, speaking the other day at Montreal, said:
There is a distinct danger that the east and west may be brought into antagonism if not into open hostility.
Further on he added:
The west is going to dominate Canada and we who live in the east, if we are wise, may as well see that and look ahead.
What kind of west is it going to be? A wise prudent and sympathetic west, or a rash, reckless and dangerous west.
Yes, the west may turn out to be actually an element of danger, not only from the economic, 'but from the national point of view. Has not a movement in favour of secession been launched in former days in the maritime provinces for reasons of minor importance if compared with those existing in the west? And tihe hon. minister wonders what will be the complexion of the west. I say the west will be such as you make it. If you continue bringing into the west Americans by hundreds of thousands, and if you throw them in with other hundreds of thousands of people who have come from all parts of the world, booked at the rate of five dollars a head, a mixture of all nationalities, it is much to be feared that these Americans will remain Americans or will not easily be Canadianized. I think you will hasten and intensify the danger toy persisting in that Obnoxious immigration policy.
If the east is one day to toe controlled by the west, it is incumbent on us to defer and prevent as much as possible that danger, and with a view to making that state of things more bearable, immigration should be more closely scrutinized and a better selection made of those who are destined to rule over us. We should make it a point to direct towards the west settlers from the other provinces of the Dominion; for instance, from Quebec and Ontario, and also from the British Isles, instead of promoting the immigration of American settlers on our soil. If we are bound to be ruled by the west, let us keep an eye on those whom we admit into the country, as foreigners may make trouble for us.
In the midst of that medley of settlers of all nationalities who take up lands in the west, the Yankees who are educated, wilv and ambitious, will in the end secure Mr. NANTEL.
the leadership. Canadianization w'ill progress slowly and may never be accomplished thoroughly and satisfactorily. The stars and stripes will be unfurled as often as the national emblem.
If you give to all these people the advantage of trading more freely with the corresponding States of the Union, than with the Canadian provinces, it is not necessary to peep very far into the future to detect the danger that is awaiting us, to realize its full consequences.
If it is the ultimate destiny of the west to dominate in this country, let us make it our duty to send there only desirable settlers coming from the United Kingdom and from the older provinces of the Dominion. We must deal fairly with those who are there already, but there is no need to spoil them by undue favours the only effect of which would toe to give them wrong dispositions. Our aim should be to allure them towards Canada rather than direct them towards the United States.
Mr. Chairman, I will vote against this agreement because I see in it more dangers than real advantages; because the prosperous state of affairs in this country is so general that we are not at liberty to run such risks; because it is desirable, in my opinion, to see the great bulk of our trade to continue by the routes we have opened and maintained at the cost of tremendous sacrifices and energy; because I would rather see the bulk of our commercial transactions done with the people of England than with the people of United States, who at a time that we were in great need of them, have wantonly closed their doors against us, and have put us in the necessity of seeking an outlet for our overproduction upon the English market; because I am satisfied that we will fare better with England than with the United States; because we can always expect fair play from John Bull if we know enough to resist his encroachments, while Uncle Sam might be found wanting in a moment of need. Above all I will vote against this agreement because the electors have not been consulted and have had no occasion to decide upon the advisability of this new policy, no more than upon the naval policy. I consider it a wrong principal not to .consult the electorate beforehand upon such important questions, and to appeal to the people afterwards and ask them to ratify what has been done.


Mr. J. G. TURRIFF (Assiniboia).: Mr. Chairman, as I represent a constituency that for over 110 miles borders the United States, and one which is settled by 50,000 people, chiefly engaged in agriculture, I feel that I would not be doing justice to the people I represent, or to myself, did I not.

even at this late stage of the debate, express the views that I, and the great majority of my people hold upon this question. This is the most important question that has been presented to the consideration of the Canadian people since confederation. Every government in Canada has been in favour of reciprocity, and has done its best to make an agreement such as we have ot are about to accomplish now. I am not going to dwell particularly on what was the attitude of the Liberal party, forty, thirty or even ten years ago, and I am still less concerned as to what was the attitude of the Conservative party on this question during these past years. What we have to consider now, and what we have to decide is whether this agreement that has been arranged between the people of the United States and Canada is good for the peoiple of Canada to-day. If it is we ought to put it into force. If it is not we should not put it into force. That is the question that we have to decide in the very near future. We have had a good deal of opposition developed to this agreement, but it has been developed pretty much during the last three months. I remember very well that when my hon. Iriend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) read this agreement to the House hon. gentlemen opposite were surprised, they were pleased and they cheered the Finance Minister almost as much on that side of the House as we did on this.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds).: Not a cheer, not a chirp.


John Gillanders Turriff: Why is all this change being made? Because since that time they have been whipped into line. Now, Mr. Chairman, it has been stated time and again in this House that we should not go on with this agreement because we have no mandate from the people of Canada. I have been through three Dominion elections and on the platform in these elections-


An hon. MEMBER.: We will fix you at the next one.


John Gillanders Turriff: Well, if you can do it you are welcome, and I would be very glad to have my hon. friend across the way who has spoken come out, and try it. I was about to say that I have been through three Dominion elections, and on every one of these occasions I advocated reciprocity or better trade relations with the United States. But, I am not the only one to advocate reciprocity or better trade relations with the United States in the last election. My hon. friends opposite did the same thing in my constituency, let me tell you that, Mr. Chairman. The year before the elections, in the fall of 1907, the hon.
leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), made a tour through the west. He did me the honour of having a meeting in my constituency, at Weyburn-the only meeting he held in southern Saskatchewan -and at that meeting there was a gathering of the clans from east and west, brass bands in attendance, flags flying and everything lovely. In the evening they held a demonstration, and on the principal banner which was stretched across the skating rink were the words ' Reciprocity with the United States.' I am not going to try to make a point against the hon. leader of the opposition, because I do not suppose that he knew anything more about that declaration being put up there than I did. But, it shows that the Conservative party in the west, the year before the last election, which is exactly three and a half years ago now, were in favour of, and advocated reciprocity with the United States. One of the speakers at that meeting referred to the banner, and pointed out the advantages that would flow from a deal of that kind. So, when I say that not only the Liberal party, but the Conservative party have been in favour of that proposition I am stating the absolute facts of the case. It is no discredit to Sir John Macdonald that he did not get reciprocity. He tried his utmost to get it, and it was not his fault that he failed. The failure was due to the fact that the people of the United States at that time were not ready for reciprocity. It was not the fault of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) that he did not get reciprocity when he went down to Washington not so very many years ago. Imagine, Mr. Chairman, if you can, the attitude^ of the hon. member for North Toronto if, this agreement that we have now before us being made available to us by the people of the United States, my right hon. friend the leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laur-ier) had refused to accept it? _ I can imagine him making this council chamber ring with the denunciation of the party that having an opportunity to get such an agreement for the people of Canada, and would hesitate to take advantage of it.
Let us see for a few minutes who are the people who are opposed to reciprocity. In the first place we have the Manufacturers' Association of Canada; in the second place we have some of the large financial institutions and some of the bankers; and in the third place we have the Conservative party in the House of Commons, not in the country, but in the House of Commons. Let us see to what extent these people are good judges


Richard Blain: What about the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton)?


John Gillanders Turriff: My hon. friend does not need to ask me about the hon. member for

Brandon. I admire and respect the hon. member for Brandon a great deal more than any member on that side of the House does, and if the hon. members on that side of the House had one-tenth of the political honour and honesty of the hon. member for Brandon it would not be three members, as we have on this side of the House who are not in favour of reciprocity, but it would be three dozen on the other side of the House who were in favour of reciprocity. Now, Mr. Chairman, let us see to what extent these people that I have mentioned-the Manufacturers' Association, the financial institutions and the Conservative party in the House of Commons- are good judges of what is good for Canada and what is not good for Canada. You will remember, and every member of this House will have it in mind, that fourteen or fifteen years ago, when the Fielding tariff was first brought in, in 1897, the Manufacturers' Association was up in arms, the financial institutions were up in arms and my hon. friends on the opposite side of the House were up in arms and denounced the Fielding tariff as a tariff that was going to ruin the country, wipe out our manufacturers and, in fact, was the worst piece of legislation that could be put upon the statute-books. Did anything of that kind come to pass? Has not the country continued to progress more and more ever since? The hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Nantel), who has just taken his seat, pointed out not five minutes ago that the country was so prosperous that we should not make any changes. The financial institutions took the same course and it turned out that they also were wrong and did not know what was good for Canada. My hon. friends in the House of Commons did the same thing and it turned out that they did not know what was good for Canada. Then, again, when the preference in favour of Great Britain was introduced, every one of these people opposed it in just the same way as being the worst possible that could happen in the interest of the people of Canada, and yet the results were such that even if my hon. friends opposite were in power to-morrow they would not dare lay their sacrilegious hands on that British preference although they opposed it tooth and nail. When this agreement comes into force, as come it will, and when it has been in force for six months, if such an unlikely thing could happen that hon. gentlemen opposite should come to this side of the House, they would no more change that agreement than they would dare change the preference to Great Britain.
I want to say a word or two, and I will be as moderate as I possibly can, to the manufacturers of Canada, and especially to the Manufacturers' Association. If the manufacturers have one great onemv in Canada, in my judgment it is not the Liberal party and it is not this government, but it Mr. TURRIFF.
is the Manufacturers' Association. The Manufacturers' Association have done more to put the people of Canada against the manufacturers than any other individual, or combination, or association could do. Last year, my right hon. friend toured throughout the west, met the farmers, heard their grievances and told them that he would take these matters into consideration. No sooner had he got home than the Manufacturers' Association got up a party to tour the west to counteract the effects that the meetings and delegations of farmers and grain growers might have on my right hon. friend. The result of that was to force the grain growers and farmers of the west to get up the big delegation that came down here last fall to interview the government and try to press home their arguments.
When the delegation from the west was in Ottawa I noticed that hon. gentlemen opposite were very anxious to show them around and to be gracious to them and to say what very fine fellows they were just then. Of course, the delegates were asking for something and these gentlemen opposite thought the government was not going to give it to them, and so they posed as friends of the farmers and the grain-growers. But since this agreement was put before the House which gives the farmers of the west-not all they had asked for in some respects it is true, but in other respects a great deal more than they had asked, and that they had ever expected to get-since then these gentlemen opposite cannot say too much against the Grain Growers' Grain Company which is part and parcel of the Grain Growers' Association of the three prairie provinces. Well, my friends in the west, the grain growers will know how to size up these gentlemen opposite pretty accurately. I want to point out to the manufacturers that this agreement does not hurt them to any extent, and I say further that if there is one class of people on this earth who should favour it and have nothing to say against it, it is the manufacturers of Canada, because, practically, they are left untouched. The result of this agreement will be that the people of Canada will be much more prosperous under it, and will make greater progress in the future than even in the past, in consequence of which there will be a larger market for the manufacturers of eastern Canada. Some people think that we in the west will become a manufacturing people, but personally I do not think so. I think it will always be cheaper to bring manufactured goods to the west than to transport the raw material and manufacture it there, because there is no question that the cost of living is higher in the west than it is in the east, and for many years to come we must be the consuming part of Canada, buying the bulk of the
815.3

goods that we use from the manufacturers of Ontario and Quebec. It stands to reason that the more people you have in the west and the more prosperous they are the more goods will the Canadian manufacturer sell. As has been pointed out by the Minister of Finance, there are now two million people in the west, and they consume more per capita than the people of other sections of the country because they earn more and they spend more, and inside of ten years it is safe to say that there will be five million people west of the Great Lakes. Now, if the manufacturers of Canada have five million people to supply instead of two millions or less as at present, look at what advantage it will be to them. I want to say to the manuiacturers that it will behoove them to just be a little careful because as hon. gentlemen opposite know the people of the three prairie provinces are to a large extent low tariff people whether they are Liberals or Conservatives,-of which we have evidence by certain motions moved by these gentlemen on the other side,-and if the manufacturers insist on looking for trouble they will be very apt to find it in the end. Therefore, in heir own interest the manufacturers ought to be careful. "Why, the grain growers, the farmers and the people of the west generally are the most reasonable people on the face of the earth. They want a square deal; thev do r.ot want to be hewers of wood and drawers of water inr all time to come. The day has gone when you could make a farmer in the west or in the east either believe that protection protects him, but at the same time they are willing to pay their fair share towards meeting the expenses of the country. There are a good many things on which the tariff must be reduced, but if we get this agreement through and secure the American market for the products of the Canadian farmer, we will have made a great step in the right direction, and the people of the west will be reasonably well satisfied. Let me tell you that if this agreement is not carried into effect there will be a general agitation that will never be put down until there is a reduction of the tariff all around, which would take in a great deal more manufactured articles than this agreement deals with. I speak for the western farmers principally-there are gentlemen in this House who can speak for the eastern farmers-I speak for the western farmers in what I say as to this agreement. It has been stated time and again in this House, by Igentlemen opposite that the American market is not. as good as the Canadian market and will therefore be of no advantage to us. Even supposing that were true we do not stand to lose anything. If the American market is lower than the
Canadian market we won't ship our goods there, and we do not lose the British market, nor do we lose our home market. But as a matter of fact that is not so. I lived for twenty years on the prairie right near the American boundary, and I make the statement that from the day the territory of Saskatchewan had a bushel of wheat for sale-I do not speak as to the last two years, because I have no personal knowledge as to that period-but previous to the last two years there never was a year during which at some time of the season the Canadian farmer could not draw his wheat across the line and get for it from five cents to ten cents a bushel more than he could get at home.


Glenlyon Campbell: And pay the duty?


John Gillanders Turriff: No, and under this agreement he won't have any duty to pay.


Glenlyon Campbell: And he won't get any ten cents more.


John Gillanders Turriff: I am not going to say that wheat should have been ten cents higher on the American side, but I do say that there has never been a year when the big milling associations and the big wheat exporters and domestic buyers have not been able to put the price down below the actual value of the wheat in Canada, and so, by taking it across the line our farmers got better prices. I know what I am talking about, because I have grown wheat in the west and I have bought wheat and I have sold wheat. I do not say that at all times of the year there is that difference or that there will be that difference in the future at all times of the year, but I say there has been a better market generally all along the border line on the American side than on the Canadian side, and we will get the advantage of that when this agreement is put in force. But wheat is not the only article the western farmers have to sell. They grow a great deal of flax and a great deal of barley in my section of the country, and I will give you an actual incident that has taken place.
About a month ago one of my constituents spent a few days with me in Ottawa. He is a farmer in the western portion of my district, an educated and wealthy man, a young man who went out there twelve or fifteen years ago as a school teacher, who has now made enough money to retire easily if he wished to, although he is still a young man. He told me that last year he had as a side crop 2,000 bushels of flax. Last year it cost him exactly $500 in cold cash to put that flax into Duluth, where practically all the flax from that part of the country goes. There is a duty of 25 cents a bushel on flax entering the United States, and that made $500 on his 2,000 bushels, which went

into the coffers of the United States treasury. If he could have loaded his car on the American instead of the Canadian side of the line he would have got exactly $500 more for his two carloads of flax than he did get. As he said to me in my house:	Do
you think you are going to make me more loyal to Great Britain or more loyal to Canada by taking $500 out of my pocket on one side crop in one year? He said, the thing is absurd; if I had that $500 I would not bury it in the earth, that money would have been in circulation and a great deal of it would have got back again to the east in payment for manufactured goods. That is only one farmer; I have scores and scores of farmers who raise from 500 to 2,000 bushels of flax. In the southern portion of the district of Regina there are hundreds of thousands of bushels of flax raised and there will be a great deal more in the future, because if you get a market for your flax without paying 25 cents duty, our farmers will grow a great deal more, and the day will come when we will have to grow less wheat. This very season if we should happen to strike a good crop in the west we will have in the three prairie provinces more wheat for export than Great Britain ever bought in any one year.


Glenlyon Campbell: Oh, go on with you.


John Gillanders Turriff: My hon. friend says, go on.


Glenlyon Campbell: That is nonsense.


John Gillanders Turriff: Last year Great Britain bought 163,000,000 bushels of wheat from all over the world.


Mr. AMES.: 250,000,000.


Glenlyon Campbell: 275,000,000.


John Gillanders Turriff: And we will have, if we strike anything like a good crop, more than that much to export. I am not ashamed to acknowledge if I have made a mistake; possibly I have omitted what has gone in in flour. Even admitting, an my hon. friend said, that Great Britain imported over 200,000,000 bushels, at any rate it will be only two or three years until we have 250,000,000 bushels for export. If we take some land out of growing wheat and put it into growing flax, for which there is an immense market in the United iStates, it will be better for the land, better for the farmer, and better for everybody.


Mr. THORNTON.: Does my hon. friend attribute the better price of wheat in the United 'States to free trade?


John Gillanders Turriff: No, I do not attribute the better price in the past to free trade, because we did not have free trade in wheat in the United States in the past, but we have had a better price there.


John Gillanders Turriff: *


Charles Jonas Thornton: Was it free trade in the United States that made the better price?


John Gillanders Turriff: I never understood that the United 'States was a free trade country; I always understood they had a tariff, so I do not see the point of my hon. friend's question.
Turning to the question of barley, in my part of the country they grow a good deal of barley. This same constituent told of another case where he would have made more money under an agreement such as this. Three years ago he had 3,000 bushels of barley for sale. There is 30 cents a bushel duty on barley going into the United States. He had to sell that barley at home, and got 48 cents a bushel, a good price for barley at the station; but if he could have loaded that barley on the south side of the line on that very same day on which he sold it for 48 cents he could have got 70 cents, a difference of 22 cents a bushel.


Charles Jonas Thornton: If the duty was 30 cents a bushel, why was it not worth more on the American than on the Canadian side?


John Gillanders Turriff: Sometimes there is a difference of exactly 30 cents, sometimes more than 30 cents, and sometimes less than 30 cents; on this occasion it was 22 cents, so that he lost on his 3,000 bushels just $660. So that that one farmer on two side crops made $1,160 less than he would have made under such an agreement as is proposed.


William D. Staples: What is that farmer's name?


John Gillanders Turriff: Frank Moffatt of Wey-burn, and any one may write to him and he will confirm that statement.
A further advantage under this agreement and the consequent increased growth of barley would arise from the fact that by growing barley you can very often serve the same purpose as by summer fallowing your land, that is you can clean out the weeds before you sow the barley in the spring. If we had a good market in the west for our barley and flax, as well as our wheat, the farmer would be able to rotate his crops, to keep his farm cleaner and to put it in better shape. In addition to that there are millions of acres of land in the northern part of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta that will never be suitable for growing wheat; the soil is right, the moisture is right, but you are subject to summer frosts. By going into the raising of bailey there are millions of acres where you can grow barley and have a certainty of good crop where you would not be at all certain of a good crop of wheat. That will be a very very great advantage


Glenlyon Campbell: Where are those millions of acres?


John Gillanders Turriff: In the northern part of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.


Glenlyon Campbell: What part?


John Gillanders Turriff: Just north of where you live, north of the wheat growing belt.


Glenlyon Campbell: My constituency runs right to the northern boundary of Manitoba and we grow wheat successfully right at the line, and good wheat. My hon. friend must be talking of some place further north, in the frozen Arctic regions.


John Gillanders Turriff: I was talking of the province of Manitoba as my right hon. friend the Prime Minister offered to make it.


William D. Staples: Why didn't he make it?


John Gillanders Turriff: Because the Prime Minister of Manitoba still wants to keep it as a postage stamp on the map for electioneering purposes. It is not only in grain products that the people of the west will benefit. It is also in cattle. I happened to be in the west not long ago, since this discussion began, and I naturally kept my ears open, on the cars and in the hotels and got into discussion more or less with the people, many of whom I did not know-I did not know either their names or their politics and the general impression through the western portion of the country was that it would be worth $6 or $7 a head to them on cattle that were fit to export to have the American market free.


Richard Blain: I thought the consumer paid the duty under the policy of my hon- friend's party.


John Gillanders Turriff: In this case there would be no duty* My hon. friend does not seem to realize yet the meaning of the agreement.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend was pointing out a few moments ago the amount of money a farmer would make on his barley. What I said was that my hon. friend's party had always told the people of Canada that it was the consumer who paid the duty.


John Gillanders Turriff: I am trying to tell my hon. friend that there would be no duty to pay, and that the farmer would get a better price for his products. Now, my hon. friend is a doubting Thomas, and I am going to convince him, if he can be convinced. I was in Winnipeg less than a month ago, and one rancher from Alberta, not far from the boundary line, made the statement that last fall he had sold between 200 and 300 steers to be
delivered at the railway-and let me say here that when cattle are sold in the west, it does not matter to whom they are sold, those for export go to Gordon and Ironsides, and those to be butchered go to Pat Bums. Before this man could get his cattle rounded up, twelve of the steers had drifted across to the American side of the line. The boundary line there is not visible, at least, the cattle do not know when they cross it. On each side of the line there is a Cattlemen's Association, and the association in Montana look after all stray cattle, and, as a rule, every stray animal that is fit for market is shipped to the market at once, in order to get it off the grass, which is wanted for the cattle that are not fit for the market. These twelve stray animals were shipped to Chicago, the freight was paid on them, the commission was paid to the man who sold them and exchange was paid on the money coming back, and this rancher on the Canadian side said that a few months afterwards he got a cheque for the twelve steers, and it amounted to exactly $8 a head more than he had got for the cattle that he sold at home. In the face of these facts, what man is going to say that reciprocity is not good for the western farmer?


Glenlyon Campbell: I am.


John Gillanders Turriff: My hon. friend says he
is,	but he will have a nice time with his electors. I am delighted to see the hon. gentleman toeing the mark and standing up with his party to vote against reciprocity. I was afraid at one time that our hon. friends opposite from the west were going to vote for it. If they vote against
it,	I can tell them that many of them will not warm seats in this House in the next parliament.


Glenlyon Campbell: The fear is mutual. We thought you were going to be with us.


John Gillanders Turriff: I want to say a word or two about some of the bankers. I refer more particularly to the letter written by Sir Edmund Walker. Some ancient said, ' Oh, that mine enemy would write me a letter.' Well, if the Liberal party had sat up every night for a month, I think they could not have made any better literature for themselves than the letter Sir Edmund Walker wrote.


An hon. MEMBER.: What about the farmers?


John Gillanders Turriff: I am speaking as a representative of the farmers. If Sir Edmund Walkejr had given the matted a second thought, he would not have been so ready to fly to the newspapers on the question of reciprocity. If there is any

class of people who have been well treated by all governments in Canada it is the bankers. Just let us see what position they occupy; and I am not going to criticise what has been done for them. I believe it has been in the interests of the country generally to give them what they have been given, but there are some things they have been doing that I think are open to criticism. I am going to give some figures which I have taken from the returns in the Canada ' Gazette ' of April 20. I find, after deducting the 5 per cent of the circulation which the bankers have to put up to guarantee the notes of all the banks, that the banks of Canada have at the present moment $77,364,134 of bank bills for which they do not pay one cent of interest, they have also deposits of $278,171,792, that do not bear interest, making a total of $355,535,925 which they get from the people of Canada absolutely free of cost; and they get that money to loan it out to .you and me or any one else who has to borrow it, at 6 per cent, and when times get a little hard, they charge us 7 per cent. In addition, they have $533,032,466 for which they pay at the outside 3 per cent. Then they have at the present time invested in the United States $149,477,172. As I have said, I quite believe in the policy of putting the banks in a good- position. I think it has been all right to give them that currency free. I think it all right for the banks to take that $149,000,000 down to Uncle Sam's territory and use it to move the southern cotton crop and to loan it out on call loans at from two to fifty per cent according to the state of the market; because I realize that if they did not do that, they would have the money more or less idle at home. But what I do object to is that while Sir Edmund Walker took the millions from his bank and sent them to New York and Chicago to make money for his shareholders without affecting their loyalty or the Royalty of himself, he thinks that the farmer, who puts up that money, cannot be allowed to sell a steer, or a horse or a pig, or a carload of barley, or flax in the United States without becoming a disloyal man, ready to disrupt the empire. Did you ever hear anything more absurd in your life?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Never.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


John Gillanders Turriff: You are not going to ^stampede me or rattle me. I got up to say a few things, and I am going to say them. The fact that you like them or the fact that you do not like them will not make any difference.
Now, I wish to take up the question of railways for a minute. The hon. member Mr. TURRIFF.
for Terrebonne (Mr. Nantel), was very much afraid that the railway traffic was going to be diverted to the south. He said that J. J. Hill had a number of lines built on the American side close to the Canadian boundary, and if this amendment went into force, all our traffic would go into the United States. Well, let us look at the situation for a moment. The Canadian Pacific railway, the only transcontinental line in Canada that is completed, has one road from the west to the east. But how many lines has it west of Winnipeg running from Canada into the United States? One would think, to hear hon. members on the other side talk about the disloyalty of trading with the United States, and the danger of ruining the Canadian Pacific railway, that the Canadian Pacific railway would be very anxious to keep away from the United States. But the Canadian Pacific railway has some seven lines, built by themselves without any assistance from Canada, and without any request from the people of Canada to build them, running from Canadian territory into the United States-six or seven lines west of Winnipeg. And the Great Northern railway and the Canadian Northern railway have each two or three lines running into the United States in the same way. Was it disloyal to build these lines running into the United States? And as to our traffic being diverted to the United States, I just want to say this: The Canadian Pacific railway was largely built by the people of Canada. The Grand Trunk railway is being largely built by the people of Canada. The Canadian Northern railway is being largely built by the people of Canada. The Canadian Pacific railway is the only completed road, and it has the shortest line from the prairies of the west to tidewater. It has a line 275 miles shorter than any American road. And if, with the shortest road and with -a railway more than half built for them, they cannot carry this traffic as cheaply as the American lines which would have to pay for every dollar of their construction, then the Canadian Pacific railway ought to lose the traffic. If they want to retain the traffic all they have to do is ts^ lower their freight rates. And look at the position:	The Canadian Pacific railway is paying not only interest on its bonds and dividends on its preferred stock, but it is also paying 10 per cent on its common stock which is largely composed of water. The Canadian Pacific railway during the last half year set apart as a rest no less than $10,500,000, and in the previous half another $10,000,000; that is, in one year they set aside $20,500,000 as a rest fund. And last year they paid 9 per cent, and they are to pay 10 per cent in the future. So, I say, all they have to do in order to retain the trade of the country is to lower

freight rates, and I can assure you their freight rates would stand lowering. I heard of one extraordinary instance, and I want to take advantage of the opportunity new to bring it to the attention of the Minister of Railways. It seems to me it raises the question as to whether the Railway Commission of Canada should not be instructed to look into its tariffs and find out if they are not iniquitous, and not wait for the individual who has suffered injustice to bring a case before them. If a merchant or manufacturer in Ottawa wishes to send a carload of goods, half, let us say of class 5 and the other half class 6, he can ship that to any place from here to Halifax or from here to Port Arthur, paying the carload rate on the higher class. But, if he ships to west of Port Arthur, he cannot get a carload rate at all; he has to pay by the 100 pounds. If that is true-and I believe it is -it is iniquitous, and it is a matter for the Railway Commission to take up, not waiting for anybody who suffers the injustice to bring their attention to it.
Now, when I started to speak I promised some of my friends that I would not occupy more than three-quarters of an hour. I have taken up about that time, and I do not wish to take up any more. I am thoroughly in sympathy with the agreement; I believe it is the best bargain the government of Canada has ever made and that it is a 'bargain that will lead to increased prosperity for the country. I have been seven years in this House and before that I was often in the gallery a listener. And, so far as I know-and if I am wrong my right hon. friend the leader of the House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) can correct me-there has never been a year I think, when hon. members opposite did not come forward with resolutions denouncing the policy of the government, and trying to show that the country was not as prosperous as it ought to be. But, since this reciprocity agreement was introduced, hon. members opposite have changed their tune altogether, and, they declare, like the hon. member for Terrebonne, the country is now so prosperous it would be a crime to make any change. If hon. members opposite are right now, they have been wrong for fourteen years. According to the theory of probabilities they were more likely to be honest when they went thirteen times in successive years in one direction than now when, to suit their political exigencies, they try to make out that this is not a good agreement. If there were no politics in this, not one in twenty of them would be against this agreement. So, I hope the right hon. Prime Minister will go right on with this question, pound it right through and not take back water for a moment. It is the will of the people, and we were sent here to represent the people. We believe that 258
this agreement is a right thing; and for my part 1 am satisfied that if this agreement is put in force, a new era of prosperity will dawn for Canada, even greater prosperity than we have had in the past; and I believe that Canada will grow and thrive and occupy an even higher position in the great sisterhood of nations making up the British Empire to which we are so proud to belong.


William Henry Sharpe: My constituency in the province of Manitoba is situated a good deal the same as that of the hon. member (Mr. Turriff), who has just taken his seat. My constituency extends along the international boundary for about eighty miles. The farmers in my constituency can see the farmers across the line receiving a higher price for their wheat, they can see the farmers across the line receiving a higher price for their barley, and as my hon. friend says, they also get a higher price for their stockers. I saw the apparent relief that this Bill would give our people, on the 26th day of January when the Finance Minister unfolded this plan to the House. I saw that it would apparently be an advantage to them, I .saw that our people might possibly get a better price for those articles. But let me ask, is this the relief that the people of western Canada have been asking for? Is this the relief that they are entitled to? I say no, not by any means. On account of this apparent relief to the people in my constituency, I received many resolutions from the grain growers asking me to support this proposition of reciprocity, but after listening to the discussion in this House and studying the question for myself, I decided that so far as I was concerned I would not support it. Apparently the people in my constituency wanted it; the men who had voted for me and sent me here apparently wanted it. If they wanted it, and I had decided not to vote for it, what was my duty under the circumstances? I made up my mind to go home and to lay the matter plainly before my constituents, and if a majority of my supporters still wanted it, then I was prepared to resign my seat and allow them to send some one else who would vote for it. In order to ascertain their opinion I held four meetings within the local constituencies in the Dominion constituency of Lisgar and gave every person an opportunity to attend the meetings. After I had held those meetings and explained my position fully, I asked all those men who had voted for me in the election of 1908, to remain, as I wished to go into the matter a little more fully with them, and I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that after I had laid my ideas before them, there was only one man at all



those meetings who stood up and voted for reciprocity, and opposed my stand. Notwithstanding what the hon. gentleman from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff), has said, I am satisfied that when the people of Canada understand this deal they will reject it entirely. This government has forced through the Autonomy Bill without submitting it to the people, they have forced through the Grand Trunk Pacific deal without submitting it to the people, last year they forced through the Navy Bill without submitting it to the people, but I want to tell the Prime Minister that the Conservative party in this House will not allow this deal to go through until it has been submitted to the people. We are prepared at any time to abide by the will of the people, and we now ask the Prime Minister to submit this question to the people, and I am satisfied that when he does so we will come back from western Canada stronger than we are now.
The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat has gone into the conditions in western Canada. Who is responsible for those conditions? Why, it is the Prime Minister of this country, who has held the reigns of power during the past fifteen years and has not done one thing yet for the grain growers or farmers of Canada, He has allowed them to be fleeced in every way. Sir, what are the conditions in western Canada at the present time? The beef combine and the pork combine have driven the producers out of business entirely, and that is the chief reason for the high price of those articles in western Canada at the present time. Time and again we have appealed to this government for relief, and they have refused it. Take this cement combine. The government allowed that cement combine to be formed, and helped it through. Our people in western Canada are using more cement every year. In my little town of Manitou we put down cement sidewalks to the value of $13,000 or $14,000 before this cement combine was organized. If we had waited until after the combine had been formed to buy our cement, it would have cost us $1,300 or $1,400 more. My hon. friend from Assiniboia has said that the railway companies are robbing the people of western Canada, and that is true, as every one knows who is acquainted with the conditions. Our people are paying twenty to eighty per cent higher rates than the people are paying on the^ other side of the line, and the Prime Minister of this country is responsible for it. The wheat combine are manipulating grades and prices and are trimming the farmers, there is no doubt about that. The farmers on the other side of the line get higher prices than we do. Again, the Prime Minister is responsible for that. The implement com-


William Henry Sharpe: panies are charging us a third more than they should for our implements, at least we think so. Take a case that occurred at Miami, in the province of Manitoba. Three farmers there who were growing corn wanted to buy a corn binder, and they went to the three different companies who were selling binders in the town of Miami. The Deering Company and the McCormick Company offered to sell a binder for $150.
I understand that corn binders are not manufactured in Canada by those companies and these companies import them and pay duty on them. Then these farmers went to the Massey-Harris Company who asked $160 for a binder, the same article, without paying any duty at all. That is the condition of affairs in western Canada at the present time. Is it, therefore, any wonder that the people are ready to grab at anything which looks like relief to them? There is a combine to keep up the prices of every thing they have to buy, and there is a combine to keep down the prices of everything they have to sell. That is the condition the government has allowed to grow up during the past fifteen years. That is the condition the Prime Minister found when he went to western Canada last summer. At every point he was met by a delegation of farmers who asked for relief. But the Prime Minister knew that he and his government were not strong enough to cope with those conditions they had allowed to grow up.
What did he do? Why, Mr. Chairman he gave us reciprocity with the United States as a cure-all for the troubles m western Canada. The hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) made the statement that he had it on the authority of the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Finance that they had gone as far as they intended to go_ in the interests of the producers of this country. Afterwards, when it was put up to the Prime Minister he said, yes, the hon. member for North Oxford had that authority. I want to tell the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Finance that the grain growers of western Canada, the only time they ever had an opportunity of pronouncing upon this proposal, absolutely refused to endorse it. At the time the Minister of Customs and the Minister of Finance were in western Canada, in 1905, they put this proposition up to the grain growers and they refused it unless the duties on everything were lowered to a revenue basis of 17 per cent. I just wish to read the resolution that was submitted to these hon. gentlemen at that time. This was moved by Mr. Andrew Graham, one of our grain growers in western Canada:
Resolved, that in the opinion of the executive of the Manitoba Grain Growers' Association and the Manitoba Live Stock Association,

816G
the present tariff on dutiable goods be reduced to a revenue tariff of an average of 17 per cent; that all goods at present on the free list be retained thereon with the addition thereto of all kinds of lumber; that in consideration of this reduction to a revenue tariff we are willing to have all agricultural products placed on the free list.
That was the only proposition that the grain growers of western Canada ever presented to the government of this country, and that is a proposition to which the government refused to accede. It is true that the grain growers, when they were here on the 16th December last, presented a resolution to the government in connection with reciprocity, but there was not one word in any way, shape, or form, in connection with reciprocity in the original resolutions passed by the grain growers associations throughout the western country. Reciprocity was never spoken of in connection with these resolutions until the delegation arrived in the city of Ottawa. I am credibly informed that it is an absolute fact that on the arrival of the grain growers from western Canada a certain gentleman visited the Prime Minister and there was hatched the resolution in connection with reciprocity.
I wish to say a word or two with reference to a publication we have in the city of Winnipeg known as the ' Grain Growers' Guide.' Last fall the ' Grain Growers' Guide ' came out with an editorial saying that they were going to send a representative to the press gallery in this House, and that this reporter would give an unbiassed report of everything that took place in regard to western Canada during his term here. But, on the 15th of March this paper came out with a very severe attack on the Conservative members from western Canada. They called us blockers, objectors, obstructors, and they almost called us traitors to the people we represent. They also claimed that we had voted against reciprocity. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that if there is one principle that this paper has stood for during the time in which it has been in existence, from the very first issue that came out, it is the referendum and recall. That is one of the cardinal principles of this ' Grain Growers' Guide,' and I thought for one that if we ever had an opportunity of voting for submitting any question to the people of this country we would get credit for it from this paper, instead of what we did receive. I wish to read the resolution that this paper condemned us so violently for voting for. It was moved by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, and it reads as follows:
That in the opinion of this House the said resolutions should not be proceeded with until the electors have had an opportunity of pronouncing upon their merits.
We simply wanted to have this recipro city deal submitted to the people of this country. That is what I voted for, and that is what we all voted for. But, that did not suit the ' Grain Growers' Guide ' and they went for us in the manner I speak of. When it came to the question of the terminal elevators, a question that is of vital importance to the grain growers, my hon. friend from Souris (Mr. Sehaffner) moved a resolution, every Conservative in this House voted for that resolution, and every reformer voted against it, but the ' Grain Growers' Guide ' never mentioned all the names in connection with that proposition whatever. The same thing took place in connection with the chilled meat trade. My hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) brought in a resolution in connection with the establishment of a chilled meat trade in this country. Every Conservative voted for it and every Reformer against it, but the ' Grain Growers' Guide ' never mentioned all the names in connection with the matter, and how each man voted. They only mentioned the names of those speaking on the different questions. I consider that the ' Grain Growers' Guide ' has forfeited the confidence of the grain growers of western Canada. My hon. friend (Mr. Turriff) has said that reciprocity is the most important question that has come before the people of Canada since confederation, but in my humble judgment it is the most important question that has ever come before our people, even including confederation, because as we all know confederation was adopted to unite the different provinces together, and the direct outcome of confederation was the building of the Canadian Pacific railway, which has been followed, through the sacrifices made by the people of Canada during the past forty-two years, by three transcontinental railways which are now almost completed. But, is this reciprocity pact calculated to bind the Canadian communities closer together, is it meant to further build up the interprovincial trade we have established? I say it is not. If it should be carried into effect, Alberta and British Columbia will deal with the western states, Saskatchewan and Manitoba will deal with the Dakotas and Minnesota, Ontario and the eastern provinces will deal with the eastern states, and instead of having our lines running from east to west as now, the outcome will be that our lines will be running north and south. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Turriff) also said that both parties in this country have been trying for many years to get reciprocity with the United States. I wish to say that in my humble judgment, what was good for this country between 1854 and 1866 might be a very bad thing for the country in 1911. Canada is a very difficult country to govern; our seven and a half

millions of people are located in a narrow territory, 100 miles wide and 3,500 miles long, and the diversified conditions of commercial interest, and racial distinctions, make it one of the most difficult countries in the known world to govern. But, if we want to build this country up to what we all hope to see it some day, we must in each province be prepared to give and take. We hear from the different provinces a great deal about class legislation. Just look for a moment at what we have been fighting for for western Canada since I have been in this parliament, and what the grain growers asked for on the 16th of December last. They asked for government ownership and operation of the terminal elevators, for government ownership and operation of the Hudson Bay railway, for the establishement of a chilled meat trade throughout western Canada, and these three things alone would cost $75,000,000 or thereabouts. And, while eastern Canada will have to help build up western Canada in these things, there are other things in respect to which the west will help to build up eastern Canada, and there are other things which will be of special advantage to British Columbia, and in which the prairie provinces can assist. We must, therefore, be prepared to give and take in the building up of a great diversified country such as we have in Canada. The Prime Minister has changed his mind a good deal on this reciprocity question since 1899, because in that year he spoke as follows, as reported in ' Hansard ':
If we know the hearts and minds of our people at present, I think 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 Canada would have given many things to obtain the American market; there rwas a time when the market of the great cities of the union was the only market iwe had, but these things are past and over now. We are not depending on the American markets now.
That was the idea of the Prime Minister in 1899. The United States left us alone for forty-five years, and absolutely refused to have anything to do with us in trade relations, and why is it they ask at this particular juncture for a reciprocity deal with the people of Canada? The best answer to that question is to be found in the words of President Taft's message to Congress on the 26th of January, 1911, when he said:
The Dominion has greatly prospered. It has an active, aggressive, intelligent people. They are coming to the parting of the ways. In the reciprocal trade agreement numerous additions are made to the free list. These include not only food commodities such as cattle, fish, wheat and other grain, fresh vegetables, fruit and dairy products, but also rough lumber and raw material useful to our own industries. Free lumber we ought to have. By giving our people access to the Mr. SHAKPE (Lisgar).
Canadian forests we should reduce the consumption of our own, which in the hands of a comparatively few owners now have a value that requires the enlargement of our available timber resources.
I think these words of President Taft answer the question a good deal better than I can. I would like to give a short list of the natural resources of Canada that the United States would like to get hold of; it is estimated that we have 500,000,000,000 feet of standing timber; our wheat fields are about 600 miles wide by 1,000 miles long in western Canada; it is estimated that we have 117,000,000 acres of wheat lands, 12,500 miles of coast fishing; 440,000 square miles of fresh water fishing, our coal is estimated at 172,000,000,000 tons, we have produced $260,000,000 worth of gold, our silver mines are the third most important in the world: we have three-fifths of the world's supply of nickel, in 1901 we produced 160,000,000 tons of iron and in 1904 we produced 509,000,000 tons of iron.
We have untold millions of tons of iron. Our water-powers are estimated at 25,000,-0C0, and of fisheries $30,000,000. This is only a partial list for we have in this northern country the greatest undeveloped country in minerals $90,000,000; of timber cut $63,000,000, and of fisheries $30,000,000. This is only a partial list for we have in this northern county the greatest undeveloped country in the known world. It is these natural resources that the United States are after, and these, if this Bill goes through, we will allow them to exploit. Why do they want our natural resources? Theirs are almost gone, they have wasted their natural resources in the past, and now they want the natural resources in this northern country to keep the flame of prosperity going in the United States. Are we prepared to hand over to the United States the prosperity that is coming to Canada? We stand to-day just about where the United States stood 100 years ago, and for my part I say:	Keep the natural
resources for the Canadian people. They want our hard wheat to mix with their soft wheat to sell in the markets of the world to compete against our wheat. They want our bran and shorts to feed to their cattle and hogs, to compete against our cattle and pork in the markets of the world, But if we want to import any of that same bran and shorts, ground from our own wheat back into our own country to feed our own stock, we must pay a duty on it of 12J cents.
But some say the United States can do this anyway, by simply taking off the duty. I say if the United States want to do that, let them do it. Why should we pull the rope that will hang ourselves? I am not prepared to do it. But even if they did do that, it would not let in 12 other foreign

countries into our markets, nor would it admit all the British possessions throughout the world into the Canadian market while we have only the one market opened to us. These markets will all be closed to the people of Canada and there will be only the one market for us. The countries which will have the same privileges in our market as the United States under this Bill are the following: Austria-Hungary, Argentine Republic, Bolivia, Colombia, Denmark, Japan, Norway, Russia Spain, Sweden, Venezuela and France, besides all the British possessions. In addition to opening our market to these countries, I would point out that we pay in subsidies to steamship companies, plying between Canada and these countries, over $1,000,000 a year, and thus these ships will be able to bring the products of these countries that much cheaper to our markets to compete against our people.
Some say that there is no danger of any of these countries sending anything into Canada. Let us look for a moment at the products shipped by these countries into Canada during 1910, in the face of a fairly high duty:
Article.	Imports.	Canadian duty.Butter	
393,000 lbs.	4c. a lb.Eggs	
884,000 doz.	3c. a doz.Potatoes	
219,000 bush.	20c. a bush.Cheese	
683,000 lbs. 3c. a lb.
Beef (salted).. . .1,446,000 lbs. 2c. a lb.
Article.	Imports. Canadian	duty.Bacon and	hams.5,471,000 lbs.	2c. a lb.Mutton	2,094,000 lbs.	3c. a lb.Pork (in brine). .8,910,000 libs.	2c. a lb.
Other meats.. .. 1,950,000 lbs.
Sheep	
35,844	head. 25 per cent.Horses	
6,759	head. 25 p.c. over
value $50.
Cattle	 1,012 head. 25 per cent.
Swine	
2,760 head.	ljc. per lb.Barley	
167,000 bush.	15c. per lb.Oats	
38,000 bush.	10c. per bushWheat	
55,000 bush.	12c. per bushVegetables	$1,121,000	30 per cent.
This makes a total of about $8,000,000 worth of those products which we imported
into Canada last year. I wish to place on 'Hansard' some figures in regard to the surplus production of some of these countries for 1909, because after all it is what these countries export that will indicate the extent of competition this country will have to face.
If the Chairman will allow me to place these figures in 'Hansard' without reading them, I shall be much pleased.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The Chairman has no power in that case. If there is no objection on the part of the House-


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is no objection.
Mr. SHARPE (Lisgar) The figures are as follows:


EXPORTS BY COUNTRIES.
[Stage Direction]
-	Butter.	Cheese.	Meat.	Eggs.Lbs.	Lbs.	Lbs.	Doz.196,639,227 55,644,925 35,904,096 112,437,216 8,799,964 40,019,414 8,455,227	261,240 193,204 44,867,984 981,144	284,348,288 322,958,857 290,277,054 32,651,460 679,570,565 7,718,198 384,682 24,992,918	32,011,645 10,359 4,838 215,709,833
Russia					
Sweden	
Norway	4,620 264,881	3,236,457 6,5261,032,192 2,925,730	937,440 3,501,214	20,803,449 620,455,967	United States	4,948,435461,907,991	51,011,727	2,290,161,429	255,928,1034,615,380 2,595,357 1,103,837	180,859,886 179,937,468 154,490	60,669,584 59,247,031 452,040	160,650 33,465 35,732

[Stage Direction]
-	Horses.	Cattle.	Sheep.	Swine.Argentine	4,765 7,801	132,450	88,636	33
New Zealand.   ..@: 975	5,315	229Aust.-Hungary. British India...	57,003 218	147,965	36,736	7,454Denmark	22,053	124,903	511	43


New Zealand.   ..@: 1,602	299	6,987	630Norway	202 82,407 3,991	16 97,715 9,767	44	217Sweden	1,753	301*Great Britain...	121,072 27,590	2,360	7,418	745United States..	184,957	54,618	11,886Sdsi "4	329,304	701,407	202,018	21,538Canada	2,762	157,386	111,107	390


IMPORTS INTO CANADA FOR HOME CONSUMPTION FROM MOST FAVOURED NATION COUNTRIES DURING SIX YEARS.
[Stage Direction]
Article. Butter	
Cheese	
Eggs	. .lbs. .dozens	Quantity. 2,894,416 2,901,815 4,600,534	Value. 685,306 566,786 944,704 276,648 926,693Potatoes	.bushel	1,422,829	Beef (salted) .. .	..lbs.	10,G10,533	502,831Bacon and hams.	. .lbs.	35,140,613	4,312,359Mutton	6,317,785	440,317Pork (in brine) .	. ..lbs.	51,826,804	4,250,673Other meat products, lbs.	13,028,0GO	1,567,251Cattle	45,086	640,514Horses	57,565	2,920,117Sheep	359,447	1,151,022Swine	184,779	12,696Barley	..bush.	280,314	174,501Beans 	307,211	490,343
Buckwheat .. ..: 6,311	6.177
Oats	1,168,226	603,264Pease	51,241	120,840Rye	145,920	112,950Wheat	373,979	317,748Hay	49,374	853,059Flax seed 	4,702,090	5,747,612Apples	barrels	239,647	975,870Vegetables (except potatoes)	4,755,908

The United States people do not need our wheat for consumption in the United States, because they are exporters of wheat and flour, as we are and will be for the next 50 or 100 years, as I shall show. They are producing more wheat every year. These figures are taken from ' Reciprocity with Canada,' being the White-book of the United States, on page 94. In 1908 the United States produced 634,000,000 bushels of wheat, in 1909, 664,000,000 bushels, an increase of 30,000,000 bushels; in 1910 they produced 737,000,000, or 72,000,000 bushels more than in 1909; so that they are going on producing more and more wheat every year. This proves that they Mr. SHARPE (Lisgar).
do not need the wheat of our country for consumption. When the Reform orators go through the country saying that they are opening up the markets of 90,000,000 people for Canada, it sounds pretty good to the people throughout the country; there is no doubt about that. But I would like to ask you, Mr. Chairman, what good are the markets of those 90,000,000 people if they are producing the same goods as we are, year after year, only in far larger quantities. If the markets of those 90,000,000 people are good for the farmers throughout Canada, surely the same markets would be good for the biscuits manufactured by the Minister of Customs or for the coa'l produced in the province from which the Minister of Finance comes. But we find that they do not want the markets of those 90,000,000 people for their own manufactures or the products of their own province. These 90,000,000 people are exporting the same goods that we are, year after year, onlv in far larger quantities. I wish to state a few of the items that they are exporting at the present time. In 1908 they exported 151,000,000 bushels of wheat, 37,000,000 bushe'ls of corn, 14,000,000 bushels of oatmeal, 2,333,000 bushels of oats, 8,262,000 bushels of barley, $9,303,000 worth of flaxseed or linseed oil cake, and 437,000 bushels of flaxseed. It is true they are not exporting as much raw material as they did in the past; but when you look up the manufactured articles that they are exporting, you will see that they are exporting more and more of them every year. In 1905 they exported $42,000,000 worth of meal and flour, and in 1908 $66,000,000 worth, an increase of $24,000,000. Look at their exports of live animals and meats. Of live animals they exported in 1906 $49,000,000 worth, and in 1909 $ 22,000,000 worth, showing that they are not shipping as many live animals. But look at the finished article. Of beef, fresh and cured, they exported in 1905 $47,000,000 worth, and in 1908 $51,000,000 worth. Of pork, cured and fresh, they exported in 1905, $106,000,000 worth, and in 1908	$121,-
000,000 worth, an increase of $15,000,000. The	total animal matter exported in 1905 was $224,000,000 worth, and in 1908 $238,000,000 worth. In the face of these figures, I would like to ask what good the markets of the United States w:ll be to us in Canada. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat told us how much better price we would get for our export cattle. I believe that he is very largely correct. For stockers also we would get perhaps a little better price. But take dairy cows, and you will find that they are higher in Manitoba than in North Dakota. The price in North Dakota is from

$33 to $39 per head, whi'le in western Canada the price is from $39 to $41 per head. I would like to ask, is it the proper policy for the people of western Canada, or any other part of Canada, to sell their Stockers to the United States? I say it is not. If the government would establish what the grain-growers have asked for, and what the Conservative party in this House has voted for, that is, a chilled meat trade throughout western Canada, they would drive out of business the beef combines of western Canada, and secure for the producers there a decent price for the products of their cattle. This deal will let in the beef trust of the United States. I wish to read what the grain-growers had to say on this question, on the 16th of December last, when they were here. They did not ask for reciprocity for their cattle by any means. They asked for the very opposite of that. They prayed the government to keep out the beef trust of the United States, but by this very deal the government are going to al'low the beef trust of the United States to come and get control of the markets of Canada. This is what the delegation of the western farmers asked for, as will be found on page 27 of the report:
We wish also to draw attention to the danger we are in while we leave the opportunity open for the United States meat interest to capture and control the export trade from our country. We contend that it is a very vital importance, if the Canadian meat trade is to grow and prosper as our natural resources will permit, that Canada must have her own route and equipment. Another serious condition arises when from any cause a crop is of poor quality, and there is not sufficient stock in the country to consume it. Still another complication, due to the poor and uncertain price for beef, is the deterioration of our beef animals through crossing of dairy breeds with them and the tendency to careless breeding of inferior stock.
The farmers, in view of this situation, believe that the remedy for this condition of affairs is the establishment of an export trade in dressed beef.
That is what the western farmers asked for in December last, and you are doing the very opposite. The beef trust of the United States went into the British market a short time ago, and opened stalls throughout England, and they found one of their strongest competitors in a firm called Park Brothers, who could compete with them, and who did compete with them in the selling of meat to consumers in England. The beef trust wanted to get rid of Park Brothers, and what did they do? They started to hunt up where the supply was coming from that Park Brothers were receiving. They went to the Argentine Republic and looked into the conditions there. They found that Park Brothers were getting
their cattle from three large ranches in that country, and that they had a contract with these ranches to supply them with meat for five years. But there was a proviso in the contract that if, at any time the ranches were sold, the contract was to be terminated. And what happened? The Beef Trust of the United States bought up these three ranches in the Argentine Republic and put Park Brothers out of business. The meat trust of the United States went to Australia and was going to try and get control there. But the government of Australia met them at the wharf with both hands raised in warning and said:	We
dont want you; stay away from our country; we want our people to get a fair deal. But this government is satisfied to open our markets freely to the beef trust of the United States. What we need for the beef trade of this country and especially in western Canada is the establishment of chilled meat trade operated and owned by the government, so that our people may be assured of getting a fair deal. They have not been getting a fair deal in the past, but have been robbed time and time again. And, as I have said, this government has been appealed to many times by the beef producers and pork producers of western Canada, but it has always turned a deaf ear to their plea.
Sheep also are higher in price in Canada than in the United (States. The price throughout Canada varies from $4 to $7 per head, but in the United States it varies from $3.90 to $5.30. Swine also are higher in Canada than in the United States; the average price throughout Canada is from $10 to $13, while the average price throughout the United States is $10 to $11. The fruit question would be affected by this agreement in a way that would be beneficial to my constituency-no doubt about that. Any person who buys fruit knows that free fruit will be an advantage to western Canada. But, while that is true, it is also true that the fruit growers of British Columbia and the fruit growers of eastern Canada will have to pay their share towards the terminal elevators, and towards the Hudson Bay railway, and towards the establishment of the chilled meat trade. And that being so, surely, the people of western Canada are manly and loyal _ enough to pay a fair price for their fruit. I was here . on the floor of this House when the fifteen hundred fruit growers came into this Chamber and laid their case before the government. I heard them tell about how their work was being ruined by this deal, and I heard them state that they represented capital to the amount of $200,000,000. These men had spent their lives in building up homes and fruit orchards, and they saw that they were t >
be entirely ruined in

one night by this deal. I heard their explanation that the early fruit from the United States would be shipped into Canada, and in that way would kill the market in Canada. For we all know that when a man goes down street in the early fruit season, if he sees a bunch of grapes or other fruit in the window it looks very tempting and there is no doubt that he will pay two or three prices for it. These fruit men claimed that it. was from the early crop they made their money, and that the later crop would only pay expenses. And what did the Prime Minister answer these fifteen hundred Canadians who had come to present their requests to him? Was it what it should have been?-Here you are, fifteen hundred Canadians, and I am the Prime Minister of Canada:	I will investigate
your case, and if what you say is right I will remedy the trouble. That is not the answer they received. On the contrary the answer they received was:	Your doom is
sealed; the pact is signed, sealed and delivered to the United States people; you are too late; there is no use in your coming to me, if you want relief you must go to Washington, not to Ottawa. I say I know that the people of western Canada are manly enough to pay a decent price for their fruit and to help these men against competition from the United States.
Then, there is the oats question. Of course, there has not been much discussion of this on the other side of the House, because of course oats are higher in Canada than in the United States. The United States in 1910 produced 1,126,765,000 bushels of oats, and the average price to the farmer in the United States was 34 cents a bushel. We produced in Canada 325,500,000 bushels, and the average price to the farmer in Canada was 35 cents a bushel. They produced in South Dakota in the same year 35,075,000 bushels at an average price of 30 cents a bushel. We produced in Manitoba 41,000,000 bushels of oats, and the average price paid the farmer throughout Manitoba was 31 cents a bushel. So, I do not think there is any use wasting more time on that subject.
There has been a good deal of discussion in connection with the barley trade; the question has been taken up by almost every speaker on that side who has spoken on this measure. It would hardly do for me to pass it by without saying a few words. In 1910 the United States produced 162,237,000 bushels of barley.
The average price paid to the farmer throughout the United States for that year was 57 cents per bushel. The United States exported 8,262,961 bushels of barley. We produced in Canada 45,147,000 bushels, and the average price paid to the Canadian farmer was 47 cents per bushel. We export-Mr. SHARPE (Lisgar).
ed 1,446,307 bushels. South Dakota produced 20,727,000 bushels, and the average price paid to the farmer was 51 cents. Western members will recollect that last year North Dakota produced very little barley, and they had none to sell, consequently I am using the figures for South Dakota. Manitoba produced 13,836,000 bushels of barley, and the average- price paid to the farmer was 39 cents per' bushel, or a difference of 12 cents between the price the Manitoba farmer received and the price the South Dakota farmer received. Now, it looks at first sight as if our farmers in western Canada would receive this extra 12 cents per bushel if the duty was taken off. But I wish to direct your attention to this fact, that while the South Dakota farmer received 51 cents a bushel for his barley, the Minnesota farmer, a state lying alongside South Dakota, received 60 cents a bushel for his barley, a difference of 9 cents in two states under the same tariff. In Montana the farmer received 62 cents a bushel, in Wisconsin 64 cents, in Maine 76 cents, or a difference of 26 cents a bushel between the price in South Dakota and the price in Maine. Up to 1894 the duty on barley going into the United States was 30 cents a bushel. In that year it was changed to 30 per cent ad valorem which meant a reduction to about 15 cents a bushel. Now the very year the duty was lowered on barley going into the United States, the price throughout the whole of the United States dropped 11 cents a bushel. Some may claim that this was because of a large crop that year, and I thought perhaps that might be the case. Therefore, I took the three years before the duty was lowered, the three years during which the duty was lowered, and then the three years after the duty was put back to its former point, Let me read again from the White Book called 'Reciprocity with Canada/ at page 101, where I find that in the years 1892, 1893 and 1894 the average price of barley throughout the United States was 44 cents per bushel; during the next three years, 1895, 1896 and 1897, during which the duty was lowered to practically 15 cents a bushel, the average price was 34 cents a bushel. Then at the end of these three years when the duty was put back to 30 cents a bushel, that is for 1898, 1899, 1900, the price throughout the United States went up to 43 cents a bushel. Now I would ask any fair-minded man what would the price of barley be in Canada the moment the duty was taken off entirely? It is my opinion that we would not receive one cent more for our barley in western Canada than we do at the present time if the duty was taken off. According to the official report of the Board of the Agricultural college, it takes three to three and a half lbs. of barley to produce one pound of pork. The ' Farmers' Sun ' gives the average price of Canadian pork for the
81T7

last ten years as $7 per 100 lbs. Taking three and a half lbs. of barley to one lb. of pork would give 96 cents per bushel; taking three lbs. of barley to one lb. of pork would give $1.12 per bushel. So according to these undisputed authorities it works out that the Canadian farmer, by feeding his barley, realizes from 96 cents to $1.12 per bushel, in addition to which he has the by-products to enrich his farm.
Now I wish to deal shortly with the wheat question. Most of our friends think there is not going to be much gain to our farmers on the wheat question if this deal should go through. I will quote from the 'Agricultural Year Book' of the United States, and by the way this is where I get the most of the figures that I have given to-night, except when I have quoted from the 'White Book on Reciprocity with Canada and the United States.' And I find by these records that the United States exported in 1906,
127,000,000 bushels of wheat, and in 1908 it exported 151,000,000 bushels. The average price paid to the farmers throughout Canada was 93 cents a bushel ; the average price paid to the farmer of North Dakota is 90 cents a bushel ; the average price paid to the farmer in Manitoba was 80 cents a bushel. Now these figures look as if there would be some advantage to the farmers of Manitoba if they could get this extra 10 cents a bushel. But I wish to remind you that the millers of Minneapolis are no doubt paying the farmers of North Dakota a premium on their hard wheat at the present time. The moment the markets of the United States are opened to the people of western Canada and our 63,000,000 bushels of surplus wheat are thrown upon their markets this price will go down to an absolute export basis. They will no longer pay a premium on hard wheat at the Minneapolis mills. Take the condition at Morden and Plum Coulee at the present time; the Great Northern have branches in there from the United States and they can ship our wheat through in bond, grind it, ship it out again and it will only involve a duty of about one-quarter of one per cent. Do they pay our people as high a price as they pay in the United States? Not by any means. Our buyers in Manitoba are beating them out at every point. At Plum Coulee our buyers ship by the Canadian route about 100,000 bushels while they only ship 20,000 bushels through the United States. If they wanted our wheat and would pay a price of from 8 to 10 a bushel more they could take all the wheat from every point they touch, but they do not do it. I would like the Minister of Agriculture to explain to us-he took very good care not to touch upon it at the time he made his speech-why it is that the farmers in Quebec received $1.19
a bushel for their wheat while the Ontario farmer only receives 89 cents a bushel. If the Minister of Agriculture will explain that I will give way.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I might be tempted to suggest that we have better wheat in Quebec, but I do not suppose my hon. friend will accept that explanation.


William Henry Sharpe: I do not know.
I would like to have it explained any way because it is something that has puzzled me ever since I have seen the figures. The South Dakota farmer received 89 cents a bushel for his wheat while the farmer in Minnesota, the very next state, received 94 cents for his wheat, a difference of five cents a bushel between these two states without any tariff wall at all. The Washington farmer received 78 cents a bushel for his wheat, or two cents a bushel less than we in Manitoba received for ours. The difference between the price that the Washington farmer received, 78 cents, and that which the Minnesota farmer received, 94 cents, is 16 cents a bushel. There is a far greater difference between these two states in the union than there is in the price that the Manitoba farmer receives and the price that the Dakota farmer receives.
We have had several speeches on this question. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) touched on the wheat question when he was speaking, and this is what he said in connection with it. You will find it in 'Hansard,' page 3730:
I do say this, however, that so far as I have been able to examine the matter-and I have looked into it with some care-I cannot see any reason why we should expect any very great increase in the price of wheat for exportation to the United States. There may be a reason, and there may be an increased price, but I am not able exactly to find out how it will come about.
Neither am I. I would like to quote also my hon. friend from Provencher (Mr. Molloy). He represents the next constituency to mine, he knows the conditions in Manitoba just as well as we do, and he has gone on record in connection with this wheat question. What does he say? ' Hansard,' at page 4267, he uses these words:
I do not pretend that it will increase the price of wheat to the Canadian producer, but I say it will maintain the present prices.
That is as far as he would go. That_ is as far as any man can expect to go with reference to this arrangement, but I want to tell you, Mr, Chairman, that I am not satisfied with maintaining the price at the present figure. I want to see the Manitoba farmers and the farmers of western Canada get a better price, and the way to do that is by the government owning and operating the terminal elevators. It will mean

two or three cents a bushel on all the grain grown in western Canada. More than that I have no hesitation in saying that if the government will own and operate the Hudson Bay railway it will add from four to six cents to the value of every bushel of grain we grow in western Canada. These are the things that I have voted for in this house; these are the things that hon. gentlemen opposite have voted against on every opportunity. In 1905 the amount of wheat produced in the three western provinces was 84,000,000; oats, 78,000,000 bushels; and barley 16,000,000 bushels. In 1908 the production amounted to, wheat, 147,000,000 bushels; oats, 197,000,000 bushels and barley 31,000,000 bushels. The increase in these three years was, wheat, 63,000,000 bushels; oats, 119,000,000 bushels, and barley 14,500,000 bushels. Saying nothing about the amount that we exported in 1905, but taking the amount of the increase alone, put these surplus products on the markets of the United States, and I want to ask you Mr. Chairman, or any fair-minded man, where will the price go in the United States? It is bound to go down; there is no doubt in the world about that. Why are the farmers in North Dakota rising at every point to protest against this deal? It is because they know the moment this deal goes through the premium that they have been receiving in the past will be wiped out, and their price will he put upon an export basis. I say, Mr. Chairman, that the proper policy for the people of Canada is to leave reciprocity alone, remedy the troubles we have at the present time and build Canada up, work out our own salvation and let the people of the United States do the same. I wish to read further the following statement by the Hon. P. C. Knox, and I quote from 'Reciprocity with Canada,' page 6. He says:
In providing for free wheat we also take into account the facilities which the United States possesses for handling a part of the surplus Canadian crop and thus preventing the demoralization of prices which results through the dumping of-large quantities upon the European markets, where the world's price is fixed. The free admission of grain from Canada thus meets the present situation and provides against future contingencies when the Canadian surplus becomes greater by placing the control in the hands of our own grain growers. They have no cause to fear a demoralizing influx under the conditions which will result from the reciprocity agreement.
At page 44, of this book Mr. Wilson, Secretary of Agriculture of the United States savs:
The United States produces surplus wheat above domestic requirements. This surplus production is sold in foreign countries. The price of our exported surplus is governed by the world's requirements, being regulated by Mr. SHARPE (Lisgar).
the law of supply and demand, and the price of wheat in the United States while we are exporting, is governed by the price at which the surplus is sold, as a general proposition. Occasionally wheat corners may interfere with the law of supply and demand, and temporarily affect the price.
Distance from markets has much to do with the prices of grain. So this proposition is modified by proximity to markets and cost of transportation. While Canada is exporting wheat or other grains and the United States is also exporting wheat, there is no particular reason why Canadian wheat should come here, unless it be that a mixture of Canadian and American wheat may be desirable on the part of our milling exporters, and our millers may find it profitable to handle the Canadian surplus. But the price to the Canadian for this surplus wheat will be substantially the same whether sold in Europe or the United States. However, if the handling of Canadian wheat iby United States railroads, merchants and mills has a tendency to reduce the price it will be reduced to Canadians; and if it should reduce the price of bread to the American consumer, wise statesmanship may find it necessary to do that to avoid greater evils.
At page 46 he says:
We can handle the Canadian export grain crop with facility. If it is brought inside our borders and milled, as it would he, our dairy men could use with great profit the byproducts of the mills. This is the feature-bran and shorts-that makes dairy products and robs the soil. If we cannot increase our yield to meet the demands cf increasing population, free wheat from the nearest fields would be desirable. The influences at work are enabling the American acre to produce more, but it is a question whether this increase will meet the requirements of our rapidly growing population. Wheat growing for sale from the farm, as the pioneer practises it, can only be temporary. The land refuses to yield profitable crops >after a few years, when recuperative farming must be resorted to to build up the soil where the soil robber has reduced it by grain growing. This is the reason the older prairie states, turn to grass, corn and domestic animals as soon as they can bring about the change. The United States could with great profit and benefit to the land take all the grains Canada has to sell and devote its land to less exorbitant crops, as is evidenced by the older prairie state farmers who grow no grain 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 become so profitable that lands in those states have risen in value to $100 and $200 per acre, and rents from $4 to $6 per acre.
I want to say, Sir, that I have the honour to represent one of the oldest constituencies in the province of Manitoba, and that is mighty good advice to the farmers of my constituency. We have been growing wheat crop after wheat crop in southern Manitoba, and we have come to a

time now when we must change our methods, and, therefore, it is that I say that the advice given by Mr. Wilson to the farmers of the United States west is mighty good advice to the farmers of my own constituency. Mr. J. J. Hill has had a good deal to say on this wheat question, and no one has studied it more closely than he. Speaking at St. Paul, Mr. Hill said:
Now, then, what will the imperial federation plan mean to the United States and how will it affect the wheat farmer of the northwest, or of any other section of the country? In the first place, there is this established fact: The surplus of any given commodity fixes its price. It is our surplus wheat we export that fixes the price of our wheat, and that price is fixed in the Liverpool market. That is true of everything we export.
As a local illustration, the difference between the price of wheat at [Minneapolis and in Winnipeg is about 5 cents in favour of the northwest. So far well and good. Reciprocity would not materially raise or lower that difference.
Suppose, now, that Canada joins the imperial federation of English colonies, as is proposed. A reasonable differential that England might impose on our wheat would be 15 cents a bushel, and that would mean our wheat growers would find their whole product lowered that much per bushel in value. The average crop is 700,000,000 bushels. Figure it out for yourself. And right on top of that we would face also this proposition: Great Britain would take over practically all of the $200,000,000 in round numbers that Canada now pays us for manufactured articles we export across the border,. then add the six hundred and more millions we export to Great Britain, and we find that, if we fail to adopt the reciprocity agreement with Canada and drive it to an imperial federation, we are cheapening our (wheat crop annually, say, 15 cents per bushel, and at the same time we are losing $800,000,000 of export business to England and Canada. Can we afford to do this? I say, no, and I think every man who gives this matter the study of the situation due it, will agree with me.
He wants us to step into the reciprocity deal and put it through on this side of the line and say good-bye to the mother land entirely. For my part I am not prepared to do it.
President Taft also made a speech at New York on April 27. He said:


MOST CRITICAL TIME.
[Stage Direction]
' I have said that this was a critical time in the solution of the question of reciprocity,' concluded the president. ' It is critical because unless it is now decided favourably to reciprocity it is exceedingly probable that no such opportunity will ever again come to the United States. The forces which are at work in England and in Canada will derive an impetus from the rejection of this treaty and if we would have reciprocity with all the advantages that I have described and that I earnestly and sincerely believe will follow its adoption, we must take it now or give it up for ever.'
That is the idea of President Taft. Representative George W. Prince, of Illinois, gave his version of this proposal, and I wish to read a few words from his speech:
I say to our neighbours on the north, be not deceived. When we go into a country and get control of it, we take it. It is our history, and it is right that we should take it if we want it, and you might as well understand it. The Speaker has so said; the party back of him has so said, and it does not deny that that is its desire. Now let us see if the people of Canada believe in reciprocity and annexation.
For my part I am not in favour of that kind of thing; I do not think it is the proper policy for us in this country. I say that we should keep on in the channels in which we have been working during the past 42 years, and build up this country in connection with the British Empire. They talk about opening the market of
90.000.	000, who are growing and exporting the same goods that we produce, only in larger quantities. If the government wanted to do anything for our farmers and open up new markets for the people of Canada, why did they not go to some importing countries that would have been of value to us? For instance Switzerland imported in 1908
12.000.	000 bushels of wheat, Japan 7,000,000 bushels, Italy 50,000,000 bushels, Germany
77.000.	000 bushels, Belgium 69,000,000 bushels, Sweden 7,600,000 bushels, France 13,000,000 bushels. These countries together imported 226,000,000 bushels of wheat in 1908. Here were markets that would have been some good to us, countries consuming just the goods that we have to export. But it is farthest from the minds of the government to open up a market that needs our goods, they want to open the markets of a fcountry that want to take our goods from us and make money in manufacturing them and re-exporting them
I say that, in my opinion, this is not in the best interests of the people of this country. I heard the Finance Minister say some time ago that this deal was made for the masses, and not for the classes, and I wondered at that time whether he remembered the masses when he was paying the classes $17,119,000 of the masses' money in bounties to the steel companies throughout this country. He forgot the masses when he was paying this $17,000,000 out, but now he turns the cry and says he is working for the masses. It is something new if he is.
In 1910, we produced in Canada farm crops amounting to $507,000,000, and dairy
[Stage Direction]
products amounting to $98,000,000, a total of $605,000,000. We exported about $105,000,000 worth and we used at home about $500,000,000 worth of those products of the farm. I think that the home market is by long odds the most important market we have, because every bushel of grain that we consume at home takes that much from the markets of the world, and thereby just to that extent raises the world's price and every bushel that we export into the world's markets lowers'the price just that much. In 1910 we exported 52,000,000 worth of wheat. Of this $49,000,000 worth went to the British market and $3,000,000 went to other markets. In the same year we exported $1,107,000 worth of barley, of which $744,000 went to the British market and $363,000 went to other markets. In the same year we exported $21,607,000 worth of cheese. We sent to the British market $21,481,000 worth, and $126,000 worth went to other markets. It looks to me as though we had established markets now, and I think that we should remedy any troubles that we may now have, and keep on in the road that we are travelling. Who will benefit by this Bill if it does go through? I say that it will be the American paper trust, the Chicago beef trust, the United States steel company, the Minneapolis milling trusts and James J. Hill's railways. These are the companies and the trusts that will benefit by this Bill if we allow it to go through, not the grain growers of western Canada. When the grain growers were here on December 16 last, they asked for government ownership and operation of the terminal elevators, government ownership and operation of the Hudson Bay railroad, the establishment of a chilled meat trade, the extension of the British preference to 50 per cent, an amendment of the Banking Act and amendments of the Railway Act in connection with cattle guards, and live stock on railways and in relation to freight rates. They also asked for a Bill for the establishment of co-operative societies, and presented their resolution in connection with the tariff. I have worked for and voted for most of these things that they have asked for-in fact, all of them, except the tariff resolution.
Mr. MACDONALD (Pietou).: What does my hon. friend think should be done about the tariff?


William Henry Sharpe: I think there should be a permanent tariff commission appointed which would have absolute control of the tariff of this country. Look at the tariff question in western Canada. A few years ago we had a duty of 35 per cent on agricultural implements coming into that country. It is lowered to-day to 17} Mr. SHARPE (Lisgar).
per cent, but we are paying as much for our implements as we did when the duty was 35 per cent. I say there should be a permanent tariff commission appointed to have absolute control over the tariff of this country.


Mr. WILSON (Lennox).: Subject to parliament.


William Henry Sharpe: Of course, always subject to parliament. I wish to say that in my meetings in western Canada I have said that I am not a free trader. No man who has voted for me in either of the elections that I have run has ever heard me say anything in regard to free trade with the United States, because I want to say distinctly now that I do not think free trade is the proper policy for Canada at the present time. Take the history of all the great countries of the world to-day. Take England herself, take Germany, take France, take even the United States, what has built these countries up to what they are at the present time? Protection; there is no doubt about it. After they have had years of protection and have grown to what they are at the present time, ready to face the world, they are willing to have free trade with Canada, because they want to get ' control of ' the natural resources of this country. I say the policy of this country is protection-as my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has said, adequate protection-all the way through. But we should have some arrangement whereby we can control the manufacturers of this country, and make them sell at a reasonable price to our people. This deal would allow us- I am speaking of my constituency-to benefit perhaps a little on cattle and barley; but we would lose on butter, eggs, cheese, pork of all kinds, mutton, horses, oats, vegetables, swine and sheep. Just take the egg question for a moment. When I was home, my partner, who is running our store, told me that on the 10th of March he went into the city of Winnipeg and offered some eggs he had for sale; and he found a man in Mr. Codville's wholesale house from the United States who offered to lay down eggs in Winnipeg for 21 cents a dozen. We paid 25 cents and were paying that to the farmers throughout my part of the country at that time; and this American offered to deliver absolutely fresh-laid eggs delivered in Winnipeg at 21 cents a dozen, after paying a duty of three cents a dozen and the freight. It meant that we would lose five cents a dozen on every dozen of eggs; and what happened? We had to sell eggs at 20 cents a dozen in our own town. The moment my partner went back to the town of Manitou, he had to put the price of eggs down to 20 cents, and the farmer was the loser. If the duty had been off eggs,

they would have been selling them at 17 cents instead of 20.
Now, to sum up. The right hon. the First Minister offers us reciprocity with the United States. He will open the markets of 90,000,000 people who do not want our goods at all, who are growing and exporting the very same goods that we are, and they will only export our goods if we send them over there. Why can't we do it ourselves? I say the policy of Canada is to manufacture these and export them ourselves. Now, what does the Conservative party offer in opposition to that? What have I said, in my feeble way, ever since I have been in this House, and what principle does the Conservative party stand for to-day in opposition to this infernal pact called reciprocity? We as a party stand for government ownership and operation of terminal elevators; government ownership and operation of the Hudson Bay railway; the establishment of a chilled meat trade throughout western Canada; a permanent tariff commission; putting Manitoba on an equal footing with the other provinces of the Dominion. We also will work for and stand for preferential trade within the empire. We will hold Canada for the Canadians. We will welcome all who will come to Canada; but we absolutely refuse to send the prosperity of this country out to others. If they want to enjoy the prosperity of this country, they must come to Canada. Why, Mr. Chairman, the government went into this deal without knowing anything about what they were doing. They had no prices of wheat, horses, cattle or anything along these lines in the different provinces of the Dominion or in the different states of the union. That is proven quite conclusively by the returns brought down some time ago. My brother, the member for North Ontario, asked for a statement showing the average prices of butter and eggs in London, England, for the past five years, in comparison with the prices respectively in the eastern provinces, in Montreal, in Toronto, in Minneapolis, in Chicago, in Detroit, in Buffalo, in Boston and in New York. And this is the answer he received:
File No. 12297.
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.
Enclosure.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
E. C. T. O'HARA, Deputy Minister.
Thomas Mulvey, Esq.,
Under-Secretary of State,
Ottawa.
This proves conclusively that they knew nothing about prices, and in every case where we have put them into a corner it has been shown that they knew absolutely nothing of the facts relating to these matters. The Postmaster General (Mr. Le-mieux) proved that conclusively some time ago when he was talking about the lobster question. He told the House what a great thing free lobsters would be for the people engaged in that industry in the maritime provinces until I understand the hon. member for Digby (Mr. Jameson) informed the hon. gentleman that lobsters had been on the free list in the United States for a good many years.
I have tried in my feeble way to show to you, Mr. Chairman, and to this House, my ideas of this deal, and the reasons why I cannot see my way clear to support it. And I believe that the people of my constituency will back me up and give me a better majority than before. For the reasons I have given I cannot see my way clear to support this proposition.
Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds) moved that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and progress reported.
Mr. FISHER moved the adjournment of the House.
Haughton Lennox: I wish to give notice that, when the House is next moved into Committee of Ways and Means or Committee of Supply, to-morrow, I will move an amendment:
That all the words after the word ' that ' in the proposed motion be omitted and tho following substituted therefor:-
This House regrets that in permitting the Farmers' Bank of Canada to commence and to continue business, the Minister of Finance and the Treasury Board failed to exercise such proper care and to take such reasonable precautions as were necessary to prevent evasion of the law and to protect the public interest.


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


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I thought we were going on with Ways and Means. If the hon. member (Mr. Lennox) moved that motion -Well, would he have any objection to leaving it over for another day?


Haughton Lennox: I do not understand why. I propose to move it on motion for Committee of Ways and Means.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Probably to-morrow.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 11.21 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 2, 1911.