Hon.  J. D.@: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
[u'Mr. Speaker, before the House proceeds with the orders of the day, I would like to announce that Her Royal Highness, the Princess L<aii\xabe, has been pleased to present to Canada, through His Royal Highness, the Governor General, for our national gallery, a valuable portrait in oil of the Duke of Kent, greatgrandfather of His Majesty the King. This painting executed by Sir William Beechey, will form a very acceptable addition to our national gallery of art at the Victoria Memorial Museum, where it is on view. The government, in accepting and acknowledging this welcome gift has asked His Royal Highness to convey to the donor, the Princess Louise, the thanks of the Canadian people for her generous remembrance.']
Mr. SPEAKER.: I find that question No. I on the order paper is improperly put, and therefore I will ask that it stand until it is corrected. It was not brought to my notice before.
Question allowed to stand.



*Mr. REID (Restigouche):: 1.	Has Wm. Storey, caretaker of the government public building at Campbellton been dismissed? If so, on what date?
2.	What was the cause of liis dismissal and on whose recommendation was the dismissal made? *
3.	Has any investigation been held in his case either before or since bis dismissal?
4.	Who has been appointed to succeed Mr. Storey ?
5.	Did the Minister of Public Works authorize the following letter to be sent to Mr. Storey ?:-
December 27, 1911.
Wm. Storey, Esq.,
Public Building Caretaker,
Campbellton, N.B.
Dear Sir,-I am directed to inform you that your services as caretaker of public building at Oampbellton, N.B., will no longer be required by this department after the 31st instant. On that date you will please hand over to Mr. Thomas Downes the keys of the

building and what property belonging to the Dominion government that may at present be in your possession.
January 20, 1912.
Win. Storey, Esq.,
Public Building Caretaker,
Campbeliton, N.B.
Dear Sir,-Pursuant to my letter of the 27th December, informing you that your services would not be required by this department after the 31st of that month, jour telegram of the 1st reporting that Mr. Downes, your successor hod refused to accept the keys of the building, was submitted to the department and I have been directed to inform you that if you be willing to continue on as caretaker until further orders, you are hereby authorized 'to remain on the premises and to continue in charge of the building as in the past.
February 24, 1912.
Wim. Storey, Esq.,
Public Building Caretaker,
Campbeliton, N.B.
Dear Sir,-I am directed to inform you that your services as caretaker of the public building at Campbeliton will no longer be required by this department after the 29th February, On that date you will please hand over the keys of the building and a!)l property belonging to the Dominion government that may at present be in your possession to Mr. Charles Watson.


Mr. MONK.: 1.	Yes, on 27th December, 1911.
2.	Political partisanship, on advice of Mr. W. S. Montgomery.
3.	Not considered necessary.
4.	Mr. Thomas Downes was appointed on 27th December, 1911, but wounl not accept; on 24th February, 1912. Mr. Charles Watson was appointed and has accepted the position.
5.	The Minister of Public Workis authorized the change of caretakers to be made. The letters were written by_ the chief architect in accordance with instructions.


INSPECTOR OF DREDGING AT LARRY'S RIVER.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Who was inspector of dredging at Larry's river, N.S., prior to September 21, 1912?
2.	Was any change made after September 21? If so, why and at whose instance?
3.	Who was appointed "as such inspector after September 21?
4.	If more than one inspector has been acting since that date, what are the names and dates of appointment, and the name of the party who reccmumended such changes?


Mr. MONK:: 1.	Mr. Andrew McGillvray from 18th August to 19th August, 1911. Mr. Ernest McPhie from 21st August to 29th September, 1911.
2.	Yes; Mr. McPhie had to leave for
college at the end of September, and Mr. McGillvray replaced him from 2nd to 30th October.	.


Mr. REID (Restigouche).: 3 and 4. (a) Mr. McGillvray from 2nd
October to 30th October. Mr. A. T. Mahoney from 30th October to 2nd December. Mr. Leo. McEchran from 4th December, 1911, to 6th January, 1912.
(b) Appointments are made by District Engineer Millidge.


PRESENTATION TO NATIONAL GALLERY.
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called.
Mr. MONK.: 

WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed the adjourned debate on the motion of Hon. Mr. White (Leeds) for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means.
['Bills and resolutions on the order paper, afterwards- Supply for the Department of Marine and Fisheries. Possibly before that, we may take the Northwest Mounted Police estimates.']
Mr. ALPHONSE VERVILLE (Maison-neuve).: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. Finance Minister (Mr. White) on the impartial manner in which he has presented the budget to the House. It is the first time in the history of Canada, as I understand, that we have had the announcement of a surplus of $39,000,000. I observe that my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean) last night expressed himself as being very anxious to have $10,000,000 expended on the defence of the empire. I hope before I get through my remarks to be able to convince the Minister of Finance that there are many other places to put that $39,000,000 instead of contributing it to the defence of the empire; I mean by a lowering of taxation as much as possible. We have heard during this present session many arguments on protection pro and con, and from many of the remarks made I for one have come to the conclusion that self-interest seems to have priority over the interest of the masses of the community. A well-read man might believe that we have gone back to ancient history, as some of the arguments used during this debate were put forward almost in the same form as far back as the fifth century.



[Stage Direction]
The protection of Trusts, which is the furnishing to the few the means of getting rich at the expense of the community at large, is nothing new and will continue I suppose as long as the masses which compose this nation allow themselves to be misled into the' belief that their interests rest on such a policy.
It is a well-known fact among those who are accustomed to gauge public opinion that this so-called protection as presented is not so popular amongst the masses as it, appears to be. The foremost answer to this is, of course, that the people of the country have emphatically pronounced in favour of the same and that it so appears by the last election returns. This, however, is far from conclusive.
Let a policy similar to that presented at the last election, go fairly and squarely before the people; let all the politicians, trusts and manufacturers be honest enough not to mix up things and cloud the issue by screaming treason, waving the flag and appealing to every shade of prejudice, and I am confident that an enormous majority of the people would pronounce in favour of such a policy.
What is this treason of which we hear so much? If any treason exist, it is the conspiracy of the Trusts to compass the ruin of the masses of the people of Canada. Is it really treason of that nature that we hear so much about? I will leave the answer to thbse interested in combines. Where political parties enter into ft fight it should be on a policy; it should be with some higher aim than simply to obtain power, and which ever party follows this doctrine will command more respect in the future.
Kings and Emperors in past centuries had more energy than our much prized ptopular governments have to-day, for as far back as the year 483 of this era, Emperor Zeno, after contemplating the effects of combinations in restraint of trade and loyal competition, had a proclamation issued to the effect that any one found guilty of preventing such loyal competition on food stuffs or other necessaries of life would be condemned to perpetual exile, whilst on the other hand any one guilty of the same offence in respect to articles of luxury was fined. It is plain to see that even in the 5th century there existed conditions and methods similar to those we have at present, and we find it also demonstrable that this Homan Emperor 1,439 years ago made an enormous distinction, by banishing the criminals for ever in the first instance so as to be sure that they would never return to elude the law.
We are not nearly so enlightened today, for the protective policy now in the ascendant seems to favour the very ones
who should be severely punished because their only possible ultimate aim must be the accumulation of millions by the impoverishment of the people at large. Shall we allow this? Another glance at history shows us that similar conditions existed in France prior to 1789 and any one who wants to read history will admit that the effects of those conditions were not strange to the revolution -of that year. It may be said with some appearance of truth that conditions in our country are not nearly so bad as any of those I have alluded to. I am not sure of that. In all _ communities it is considered good policy to cover over running sores and all things not pleasant to look upon, and we all know, at all events, that abuses of any nature are bound to bring about sooner or later the same results.
In an article on industrial and commercial conditions in Germany by Consul-General Frank H. Mason, prepared for the forthcoming ' Volume of Relations of the United States.' Mr. Mason said:
In the report of this series for 1897 the remark was made that as an incident and condition of Germany's perfect organization and industrial growth, its leading productive industries had been syndicated to an extent probably unknown in any other country.
What was true then is still more true to-dav. The two hundred Trusts and Syndicates which are in existence in Germany at the beginning of 1899 are increasing in number day by day, until there is scarcely a single important product of manufacture of which the output, prices and conditions of sale are not governed by a combination or understanding between producers. One can scarcely open a German newspaper without finding a paragraph announcing a new combination of this kind or an article pointing to the recent notable multiplication of^ syndicated industries in England and in the United States as an example of what Germany should do for self protection.
Such is the condition in the great German Empire which on the floor of this House is offered as an example of good administration, and of the benefits of protection.
Speaking on the address in reply to the speech from the Throne at the beginning of the present session, I said, if my memory is correct, that if we kept on looking at Germany until the 12th day of January, we would probably see what the masses thought of this so called model government. Well, the -12th of January has passed, and newspapers have given the results, and some have also commented, but in a very moderate way and why? Because they anticipate in the near future that social conditions in that country may be easily applied to our own.
Oppression of the people by over taxation whether it be by tariff or otherwise,
[Stage Direction]
has the same effect in any civilized country in the world. We may succeed in hampering the movement towards emancipation and freedom for a certain period, but water will find its level and any one who has at heart the wellbeing of his country, and of his fellow men should be in favour of less taxation, less scandalous profits by the mergers and trusts. In any case we no longer live in a time when the people were unorganized masses dependent for their very existence, upon the will of an absolute ruler. Thank God the army of labour is organized and able to defend its rights. The people are awakening to their strength and power and will use it if necessary. They are commencing to understand that protection is a one sided affair as they have no protection for the energy they have to sell:	labour.
What is a Trust? The courts of the United States have, in many cases rendered important decisions on this point. In the. case of Richardson vs. Buhl, the Supreme Court of Michigan said:
All combinations among persons or corporations for the purpose of raising or controlling the prices of merchandise or any of the necessities of life are monopolies and intolerable. and ought to receive condemnation of all courts.
Chief Justice Fuller in delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court in the Sugar case (known as the Knight case) said:
All authorities agreed that in order to vitiate a contract or combination, it is not essential that it shall be a complete monopoly; it is sufficient if it really tends to that end, and to deprive the public of the advantages which follow free competition.
It may be interesting to explain the mode of procedure adopted in the formation of these trusts which are a mere conspiracy to rob the public. We have a good example of these methods in the formation of the Whisky Trust in the United States on July 1, 1898. First of all it is essential to find a promoter whose mission is to carry the operation to a successful end. This promoter must possess two essential qualifications; first, he must be bold and unscrupulous, and second he must have neither conscience nor sense of honour.
To induce a number of industries to amalgamate is sometimes a difficult task; prudence must be exercised. So our promoter will first proceed by persuasion, always exposing the large amount of profits the special industry can realize, and also offering the manufacturer a good price for his co-operation. If he does not succeed he will offer a price far above the value, as is done in almost all cases, and also a special interest in the circulation. If the objections are too great he will spare no promises. If he is unsuccessful he will resort to threats, always arguing that it is Mr. VERVILLE.
of the greatest interest for the manufacturer to join, otherwise the Trust will, be formed without him and he will have then to stand the consequences. If not successful with this method he will employ the last means at his disposal which so far have never failed. War will be declared upon the recalcitrant manufacturer, a commercial war to the death. The Trust will sell to his customers the same goods at lower prices and in seme cases at cost price, knowing full well that they will be in a position to recompense themselves for whatever loss they may have sustained in the operation. They will go so far as to boycott merchants who will buy from that manufacturer. They will refuse him certain patented goods which he cannot purchase elsewhere and cripple him badly. They will then trace a circle around him and the pressure upon him will become so great that he will fall in the clutches of the Trust in a short space of time. An evident proof of this operation has been given by Mr. Clark who fought for a certain time the Whisky Trust in the United States and this is what he said:
I entered the first Trust because I was facin-ated by the gigantic benefits laid before me by the trust, and also by the intolerable persecution to which I was subjected by the organization. I-t was rather against my principles to deprive myself of my liberty. I was then a young man and well able to look after my own business. At last I decided to join and I felt remorse the very same day, although I gathered in great profits for a long time.
What Mr. Clark tells us, many others could corroborate if they dared, but the power of such organization to control the market and even the transportation in many cases prevents them from doing so. Such is the modus operandi in the formation of a trust.
Let us now examine the financial aspect in the formation of Trusts. We may cite as an example the Whisky Trust that Mr. Clark speaks about, and see how easy it is for them to realize dividends on non-existing stock better known as watered stock. On July the first, 1898, was formed the Whisky Trust. The full value of different individual industries absorbed (allowing a margin for overvaluation) was four million dollars. A corporation was then established with an authorized capital of 34 million dollars. 16 millions dollars in common stock and 8 million dollars in preferred stock. Then the following combination intervened.
A financial syndicate was formed in view of facilitating the operation of the Trust. Each of the owners of the absorbed concerns received in kind full value of then individual enterprises, $4,000,000. They received over and above $4,000,000 in com-

mon stock, thus obtaining a net benefit of 100 per cent. In order to receipt itself the financial syndicate received $4,000,000 of preferred stock plus $6,000,000 of common stock, net benefits 150 per cent.
The promoter for his services of very doubtful value to the consumers, received $6,000,000 in common stock. The formation of some of our Trusts in this country must surely be financed in a similar manner. Indeed we have absolute proof that such is the case. While we profess to be afraid of our next-door neighbours, from the commercial standpoint, it would seem that our great financiers are only too willing to copy in every detail their nefarious system of operations in respect Ito the formation of Trusts.
It is said that imitation is the sincerest flattery, but I doubt whether the people at large will appreciate such flattery when it is given at their expense, and at that of their feeling and educating their children.
I will now attempt to make a slight analysis of our good kind of Trusts in Canada, and if possible give some slight idea of the burden that the masses have to bear. I would also desire to suggest some material remedy, of course I cannot expect that my suggestions will immediately appeal to all the members of this House. But such as it is, the remedy I outline appears to me the only one available, and as to its urgency, I think that no one will express any doubt on the subject.
After carefully weighing the significance of the following data, still imperfect although collected at considerable pains, the members of the House will see. I hope that some drastic measures must be taken, not only to prevent the formation of new Trusts, but also to prevent the operation of those now in existence.
The ' Monetary Times ' of January 6th, 1912, published a list of about 40 mergers, giving in one column the capitalization of the merger and in another the canital of the individual companies absorbed, including bonds. The aggregate capitalization of thirty eight of these mergers, according to figures given by the ' Monetary Times,' stands as follows:
Capitalization of mergers .. $336,938,266
Aggregate capital of individual companies absorbed. including bonds .. .. 123,166,588
We can then conclude that the watered stock is .. 213,771,686
The population of Canada being 7,081,869, according to the last census returns, these thirty-eight mergers represent a mortgage of $47.50 on every man, woman and child in the country, or $250 on every family, of which mortgage more than two-thirds represent fictitious or watered stock. What 161
is more important is that every workman's family has to pay about $23 of interest yearly upon the same. This is a heavy tax; yet it does not begin to show the situation of the Canadian public with respeot to Trusts, for it does not include the Ice Trust recently formed, nor the Steel Trust whose capital, according to the 'Monetary Times,' aggregates nearly $100,000,000; nor the Sugar Trusts nor the beef, pork, milk, fruits, cereals, brewing or other food Trusts so detrimental in their present form to the well-being of the people; neither will the Oil Trust be found in the list, nor many of the Trusts on clothing. One that stands prominent is the United Shoe Machinery Company of Canada, with a capitalization of over $45,000,000, and with an annual dividend amounting to $6,117,264, nearly one dollar per head on our population. From all the information to hand, Trusts in Canada as at present constituted already represent an annual average tax of nearly $100 on each family, and this tends constantly to increase.
A glance at the business of the stock exchange of Toronto and Montreal will show this very clearly. McQuaig Bros., of the Montreal Stock Exchange, publish a list of 31 companies and mergers, of which 25 are Canadian, with a total authorized capital of $666,656,975, and a total issue of $932,712,775 which would appear to be beyond the law to the extent of $266,005,300.
Among those will be found the British Columbia Packers' Association, whose net book assets amount to $3,344,871, and whose profits in six years amount to $1,546,422, an average of 20 per cent on their total capital. ,
The Canada Cement merger is of great importance, as cement is being used more and more in building. If there were no merger, it would be more extensively used by workmen in building their own homes. This merger comprises no less than 10 companies, and appears to be capitalized as follows:	Merger capital, $29,000,000;
companies' capital, $17,000,000; watered stock, $12,000,000; net profits of merger (1910), $1,177,698.
The Canadian Locomotive Company is capitalized at $5,000,000. For a few years back their average net profits have been about 5 per cent, after payment of interest on their bonds at 71 per cent, and other charges. This year it is foreseen that their net earnings, after payment of bonds, will be about 18 per cent.
I need not speak of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. We all know what their capital is, and that a large portion of it came originally from government grants, although their earnings aggregate. 17:26 per cent, and they are issuing more stock.
[Stage Direction]


The Canadian Car Foundry Company is capitalized at some $14,000,000. Their profits, after deducting interest on bonds, amounted last year to over 14 per cent.
The Dominion Iron ana Steel Company, and the Dominion Coal Company, who are now clamoring for bounties, are rather a poor-paying concern as mergers go. Just fancy only 4:28 per cent on $35,000,000 of stock, after payment of all interest on bonds and expenses. They, of course, also are issuing new stock. The bounties they are now endeavouring to obtain would mean more than $550,000 annually, and bring their percentage of net profits to about 7 per cent on their present stock. In this connection I wish to state the real labour conditions that exist in the Dominion iron and steel industry, as given by Professor McGill, who made an investigation of them a couple of years ago. In his report he says:
The coke ovens.-These are kept going night and day, the men attending them are mostly foreigners-228 come from Europe, 15 from the United Kingdom, 61 from Newfoundland, and 58 are Canadians. Most of the work is such that Canadians do not apply for it. They are divided into shifts. Taking the total, 272 work ten hours and 63 work twelve hours per shift.
The coke ovens have been greatly extended since this report. I am told that 800 men are employed in this department, 90 per cent of whom are foreigners and1 receive $1.40 per day. Continuous operation, 7 days per week, 365 days in the year.
Open hearth furnaces.-These are kept going night and day. and the men attending them work in two shifts. Taking the totals of the shifts, 306 men work twelve hours each, 7 work eleven hours, and 82 work ten hours. Of the total force about 36 per cent are Canadians. 29 per cent are Europeans, 19 per cent are Newfoundlanders, 8 per cent are British, and the remainder are Americans or West Indians.
In his department I am told the force employed is about 600. Melters, about 20, receive from $4.50 to $5 per day, and helpers $2.50, third helpers, $1.80, general labourers $1.40, the latter class constituting the majority.
The blast furnaces.-These also operate continuously, and the men are divided into two shifts. Taking the totals, 226 work twelve hours, 13 work eleven hours, and 64 work ten hours.
In this department blowers and heaters get $3.50 per day, second helpers $2.50, third helpers $1.80, and about 120 general labourers $1.40.
The mills.-There are about 430 men at work in the blooming, rail and rod mills. Of these, over 350 work in twelve-hour shifts, and the remainder work ten hours. The day Mr. VERVILLE.
force is larger than the night force. About fifty per cent of the men are Canadians, and about twenty-four per cent are from Newfoundland, so that the percentage of European labour is small. The mills _ are kept going continuously. There is some time lost.
In this department the pay is about the same as the above. There are a few well-paid rollers and heaters, but the majority receive a bare existence, or, to be concise, 14 cents per hour. A new feature has been introduced in the shape of a staff beginning work at nine o'clock Sunday evening, truly a remarkable state of things in a Christian country.
Speaking of the Transportation Department, the professor says:
There are about sixty-four men engaged at the piers loading and unloading vessels. This work lasts only during the summer months. The men are employed only during the summer, differing in this respect from the dock and wharf labourers in Halifax. When there are no vessels at the piers, the men are paid time wages, and the work is cleaning, &c. When the vessels are in, they work two twelve hour shifts, and aTe paid tonnage rates. It w'ould be impossible for them to do as much in eight hours as in twelve. An eight hour law would mean the employment of three eight hour shifts. This would mean an increase in the force, and if the system and rates of wages remained the same, a decrease in individual earnings. The work, while the vessels are in, is steady, hut when there are no ships in, it is light.
There are from 80 to 100 men running the engines, &c., on the company's tracks. These work in two twelve hour shifts.
Regarding work on the pieTS, it is true the work is seasonal, it is worse, cases have been known of men working 48 hours continuously in loading the vessels.
In the case of the locomotive men, please note that it calls for seven days per week with a 24 hour shift every two weeks.
Yards.-(350 men at $1.40 per day). In the yards, and stables about 200 men are employed. A few of those work twelve hours, and the majority ten per day. Much of the work requires no skill, and a considerable percentage of the labour is foreign. An eight hour day would lead to the employment of a larger number of men, but it is impossible to say what increase would be Deoessary.
Other Employees.-There are about two dozen gateman, watchmen and janitors, and about the same number of timekeepers and scalemen. All these ' work ' twelve hours. An eight hour law would necessarily mean three eight hour shifts.
I am informed that the general labourers in the yards are ordered out on- Sundays, on the one hand necessity is the whip and failure to turn out means the * sack.'
The other employees not mentioned are the innovation of General Manager Rutter, to wit:	The spies and blue coated
gentlemen under the charge of one Noble by name, but otherwise by occupation.

The employees have asked for an investigation by the Labour Department about two years ago, on the grounds that the fair wages resolution applied to the steel company, as receiving grants from public funds. They claim that the company were not paying current wages in the case of bricklayers, carpenters and others as labourers. Mr. Dubreuil, fair wages officer of the Labour Department, -went to investigate; he sought an interview with General Manager Butler, who politely told him and the government he represented that they could go to a warmer tolace than in the tovens of the company, that they would not stand for any interference with their business.
The report continued:
Foreign Labour.-A little over 40 per cent of the employees are Canadians, 28 per cent are from the continent of Europe, 20 per cent are from Newfoundland, 7 per cent from the United Kingdom, and the remainder from the United States and the West Indies. The European labour comes mainly from Poland, Hungary, Italy and France, though almost every European nation is represented. The European labour is found chiefly in the yards, coke ovens and among the helpers at the open hearth furnaces. The Newfoundland labour is found also in these departments, and to a greater extent at the blast furnaces and in the mills. All told nearly 60 per cent of the labour is imported.
Wages.-The majority of the men are paid by the hour. A system of payment by tonnage or bonus has been introduced and is being extended. Between 500 and 600 men were affected by this system during the year 1908.
An anaylsi9 of the labour cost taken from their own figures of 1908 as being 2.03 which includes superintendence, will show the $1.40 men to be the major portion of the employees of this corporation.
The Mechanical Department.-About 400 .men are engaged in this department. Of these 70 work twelve, and the remainder ten hours per shift, the day shift being much larger than the night shift. About 70 per cent of these men are Canadians, and nearly all the others are from Newfoundland and the United Kingdom. The men are machinists, foundry men, boiler makers, blacksmiths, pipe fitters, carpenters, pattern makers, &c.
' Regarding the machinists, half of the staff are ordered out each Sunday.
Another incident worth noticing is the percentage of Canadians, which is dwindling, their places being taken by ' British born.'
The schedule for the trades is as follows:

[Stage Direction]
Machinist, from 30 cts. to 17* ots. ,
Moulders, from 30 cts. to 17i ots.
Pattern makers, from 27j cts. to 22* ots.
Carpenters, from 224 cts to 20 cts.
Bricklayers, from 40 cts. to 36 cts.
161*
Blacksmiths, from 27* cts. to 17* ots.
Boiler makers, from 27* cts. to 17* cts.
Pipe fitters, from 25 cts. to 17* cts.
The policy of the company is to pay perhaps half a dozen in each department the maximum, the remainder having the incentive bf the higher pay to lure them into all the pathways of envy, hatred, and uncharitableness. That is how they keep men divided.
The Nova ScQtia Steel and Coal Company, however, has done better than this. The percentage earned on common stock, in 1910, was 10.97 per cent, and if they ever received bounties, this company will be placed on a really handsome basis as to prbfits.
The Dominion Textile Company, who have been clamouring that it was impossible to pay reasonable wages to men, women and children in their employ, and have tried to convince the Department of Labour that their employers had to submit for the present at least to starvation wages, are capitalized at about $14,000,000, and after payment of all charges the company nets annually some $990,000 to be divided amongst the shareholders, leaving besides a substantial surplus. Last year the holders of their preferred stock received the equivalent of 22.4 per cent on their holdings. In the last few days this company have had remorse and have decided to increase the wages of those ptoor people who have been clamouring for an increase for so long. I suppose -when they are in a position to pay 22 per cent on their stock, which will probably run to 35 per cent tor 40 per cent, they feel that they can give a slice of their vast earnings to those who have placed them in a position to earn that money.
The Montreal Cotton Company, Limited, on the other hand, with a capital of about $7,000,000, only shows an average earning *of about 10 per cent on all stock.
Let us take the mergers of tramways and see the profits realized by them:
Per cent.
Halifax	 14-32
Montreal (preferred stock).. .. 39:85
Toronto	 15-14
Ottawa	 15-38
Winnipeg	 io
The Quebec Tramwav Company is so overcapitalized that they were ashamed to publish their figures.
The holders of preferred stock in the Lake of the Woods Milling Company in 1907 earned 28.53 per cent on preferred stock, but having increased the latter by $1,250,000 in 1908 the dividends fell to 18.81 and 9.45 respectively, but this is far below the average and a mere accident.
As for the* Montreal Light Heat and Power Company that very modest company only earned 12.38 per cent last year on a
[Stage Direction]
capital of $27,000,000, but they expect to do much better and pay an average semi-annual dividend of 10 per cent on all stock, which would mean more than 20 per cent.
The William A.: 
Mr. LALOR.: Is the hon. gentleman sure bf his figures as to the capitalization, when he says $12,000,000 and some odd hundred thousands? I can tell the hon. gentleman that he is positively wrong.


Alphonse Verville: My hon friend will have to blame the official journal from which I have taken the figures. I have taken from the ' Monetary Times.'


Francis Ramsey Lalor: As an officer of that company, I may tell the hon. gentleman that the capital is $2,200,000 preferred stock, and the same amount of common. I am glad to correct him in his figures.


Alphonse Verville: As I have already said,
I am always citing from the 'Monetary Times', which is an official journal, and which has a pretty good standing. Of course I am willing to accept any correction the hon. gentleman may make; but at the same time it would be proper to have the correction made in the 'Monetary Times' likewise, which is a journal scattered over the country. Now if we are well informed a great many of these small institutions have since the formation of the Trust been closed, the consideration of small towns or villages has had no consideration, the consumers have felt to a large extent the formation of the Trust also the producer who has now only one buyer. The Trust I am informed goes further by setting the retail price to the corner grocery store. Here I wish to cite some paragraphs of the agreement which I have taken from the ' Grain Growers' Guide,' not a bad authority. The agreement has already been cited in the House more than once, but there are some things in it which I wish to put on the 'Hansard' in this connection.
I am quoting from the selling contract between the Dominion Canners Limited, and the wholesalers.
In- consideration of the terms and conditions hereinafter contained, the wholesaler agrees to purchase exclusively from the company for a period of one year from date, all domestic canned fruits and vegetables which the wholesaler may require in their business of all kinds manufactured by the company and will also purchase at least 50 per cent of their total year's requirements of any other goods of a kind manufactured hy the company, such as baked beans, jams, jellies, preserved fruits, condensed milk and evaporated cream, and further agrees not to contract for season 1914-12 or later nntil after July 1st, 1911.
1.	The canned fruits and vegetables shall he 6old under two groups known as ' A ' and ' B ', a list of which shall he published and

sent to the wholesaler hy the company, such list price to show the prdoes at whioh the goods will he sold in the different territories. The difference in prices between group ' A ' and group ' B ' being 2i cents per dozen.
2.	All private brands or labels shall be listed in group 'A '. The opening standard brands for groups ' A ' and ' B ' goods shall be lowest of the season for those brands.
3.	On or before December 1st in each year, the prices of all canned fruits and vegetables sold under the brands comprised in groups 'A' and ' B ' shall be advanced at least 2J cents per dozen and may be advanced at other times as the company see fit.
4.	The price of said goods shall be payable sixty days after the shipment without discount, or if paid within 20 days after shipment, a discount of llj per cent will be allowed. The company have the option as to the terms on which the goods shall be sold.
5.	The company will assemble goods for assorted oars where inter-factory shipments are necessary at an extra cost of one cent per case on the whole car. Cars will he loaded at the nearest factory at which the goods can be most conveniently assembled.
6.	The wholesaler hereby agrees not to sell or to allow any one in their employ to sell directly or indirectly to any person, who has not executed a similar contract and has not violated the same, either wholesaler or retailer by agent or otherwise, any of the products of the company whether now in stock or owned by them or to be acquired after the date hereof wheresoever or howsoever obtained, at less than the stipulated selling prices and terms in force from time to time as per lists to be issued by the company, a copy of the current selling price lists to be mailed to the wholesaler as soon as issued.
7.	The wholesaler also agrees that they shall not give cash or credit notes, discounts, rebates or other benefits upon sales made or to be made of such products, nor shall they give or sell at a reduction or at an advance, other goods in consideration of sales of the products aforesaid which would in any way violate or reduce the selling price.
8.	The wholesaler also agrees not to buy domestic canned fruit or vegetables manufactured by any other manufacturer nor shall they sell either on their own account or as agent or otherwise, the product of any other Canadian manufacturer of canned fruit or vegetables.
9.	The wholesaler also covenants that they have not contracted for or bought any canned fruits or vegetables of the pack of 1910, put up by any other Canadian manufacturer, and any canned goods which they have in stock at the present time of other brands not listed in groups ' A ' and ' B ' shall be sold by them at not less than the prices fixed hy the company for the sale of said ' B ' group of canned fruits and vegetables.
10.	The purchase and selling price lists in force from time to time during the continuance of this contract may be changed and other prices established, by mailing them, or otherwise notifying them to the wholesaler; opening prices to he named as late as possible in the season.
Mr. VEItVILLE.
11.	The wholesaler agrees not to sell or otherwise supply the produots of the company to any person or company who have violated their contract with the company, after having received notice from the company that suoli violation has taken place. The company consents to the wholesaler selling to any _ other wholesaler who shall have exeouted a similar agreement hereto at the wholesale price, provided permission is first obtained from the company. The wholesaler also agrees to advise their salesmen of the terms of this contract, and the company also reserves the right to cancel the order for goods or any part thereof remaining unshipped in the event of the wholesaler committing a breach of any of the terms of this contract.
12.	The wholesaler further agrees that when called upon, and in any event before payment of the discount hereinafter mentioned, they shall give unconditionally to the company a declaration sworn to by the wholesaler or by any member of the wholesale firm or by any traveller or any one in their employ designated by the company, showing that this contract has been carried out in all its terms. The wholesaler shall not be entitled to _ the discount until such declaration has been given and all invoioes for goods sold have been paid. Said discount shall he forfeited as liquidated damages for failure to comply with all the terms of this contract. The said discount cannot be anticipated by deducting the same from the invoices.
13.	In consideration of the wholesaler purchasing exclusively from the company, as hereinbefore set forth and complying with all the terms of the contract, the company agrees to pay and allow them a trade discount of ten per cent upon f.o.b. factory price of all canned vegetables so purchased, such discount to be paid half yearly on the first day of February in each year.
14.	All canned fruits and vegetables sold to the wholesaler are hereby guaranteed as to quality.
15.	Travellers' order hooks in quadruplicate will be provided hy the company if required.
16.	In case the wholesaler shall sell goods outside the province in whioh their head office is situated, upon request the company will supply them with price lists of the prices ruling in any other province in which they may solicit business, and they agree that in all cases they shall observe the price, terms and conditions ruling in such province.
17.	The company reserves the right to introduce a special group at somewhat reduced prices, terms and discounts in order to meet special conditions in any locality or localities, if considered necessary.
18.	In the event of a short pack caused by frost, drought or other unexpected causes, and consequent inability to put up a full pack, -the company will make to full extent of their pack a pro rata delivery to all buyers whose orders are accepted prior to July 15. On any undelivered portion of 60 per cent of such booked orders -the company will pay wholesalers 15 cents per case of two dozen tins. Subsequent orders to be booked subject to pack.
19.	The company cannot guarantee delivery of any particular brands from any special

factory, but they will give early orders and shipping instructions the preference.
2fl. The company agrees to ship the canned fruit and vegetables when ready. Payment shall be made by the wholesaler for goods ordered but not shipped on 1st December, and they will be held by the company for reasonable length of time thereafter, the wholesaler to pay storage at rate of J cent per case per month and insurance after that date.
21. The wholesaler agrees that all goods sold prior to December 1, 1910, shall be charged and dated from time of shipment, and that any unshipped portion or order so taken shall be charged up not later than December 1, 1910. The wholesaler also agrees that in the event of an advance being advised by the Dominion Canners or or before December 1, 1910, that all goods sold and unshipped at that time shall be charged immediately upon receiving notice of suoli advance. On all canned goods sold after the 1st December the Wholesaler agrees to charge up to date of shipment at the prices ruling at the time of
this shipment. Dated this	day of
	1910.
An analysis of the business of the Montreal fish corporation will give us another million of watered stock, and $60,000 annual taxation.
Another food trust worth mentioning is the Matthews-Laing Ltd., operating in Montreal and Ottawa. It appears to be over-capitaiized to the extent of $5,000,000, the merger capital being $7,000,000 and the three concerns included, namely, Geo. Matthews & Co. Ltd., Park Blackburn Co. Ltd., Laing Packing & Provision Co. Ltd., These aggregate only $2,000;000, which it is said is itself an over-capitalization. In any case this would prove an additional annual charge of $300,000.	,
These five food trusts which are but a trifling portion of the combining actually accomplished in food, therefore represent $22,500,000 of fictitious values, upon which the people pay without receiving any benefits whatever. Therefore an annual tax of $1,290,000.
There are still a large number of other combinations which could be exposed, but I will leave for other members of the House the task of bringing to light some of their operations.
William Miller Collier, in his book on Trusts, tells us some of the effects of the Trusts on wages, and this is what he says :
The effects of excessive capitalization, and the attempt to pay dividends upon such capitalization, are a tendency to create artificial earnings upon an artificial capital both by artificially raising the price of the article produced, and by the depreciation of the wages paid. The result to the public from an economical standpoint is objectionable.
The question has more than once been asked: What remedy should be applied to such a state of things, and what action,
legislative or otherwise, can be devised in order to prevent this undue development of mergers, every time the answer has been legislation. In my opinion this is a mistake, we have too much legislation on the statute-books at present, and it would take up all the time at the disposal of our courts of justice to enforce the laws already made. Let me mention them:
1.	By the British Wages Act, section 91, subsection 2, in the parliament of Canada is vested of legislation in matter of trade and commerce.
2.	The Trade Union Act of 1872, reenacting in substance the British Trade Union Act of 1872, forecasts legislation against combinations in restraint of trade by exempting before hand trade unions from the operation of any such laws. Embodied in the Eevised Statutes.
3.	In 1889, subsequent to the findings of the committee of the House of Commons and of the Labour Commission of 1888, parliament enacts a law for the suppression of combinations in restraint of trade. Embodied in the Criminal Code, sections 496-498 (Revised Statutes, 1906).
4.	The usefulness of the above provisions was materially increased by parliament in 1900, by an amendment omitting the word ' unlawful ' in the definition of a conspiracy in restraint of trade, thus shifting the burden of protof upon the accused.
5.	In 1895, and again in 1898, the Hon. Dr. Sproule introduced Bills to regulate Trusts, but they are not carried through.
6.	The Customs Tariff Act of 1897, section 18, provides that when it shall be established that there exists any trust or combination with regard to any article of commerce, the Governor in Council shall place such article upon the free list, or so reduce the duty as to give the public the benefit of reasonable competition.
7.	By an amendment to the Inland Revenue Act (chapter 17, 1904) the minister is empowered to cancel the manufacturing license of any company selling goods under restrictive conditions.
8.	Parliament adopted in 1910, 9 and 10 Edward VII, chapter 9, an Act to provide for the investigation of combines, monopolies, trusts and mergers, the object of which is to make the ouerati'on of such concerns public through the action of the courts.
Reference can be made to the * Labour Gazette,' and to some cases of great importance. In Vol. XI, pages 1024, 1028, in the case of the sugar trust, also on pages 1170, 1408, will be found valuable information in that respect. Also a good account of the first attempts at litigation against trusts in Canada is given by Mr. W. W. Edgar in the ' Journal of Political Economy,' 1906, page 427. In 1901, action

was taken against the Canadian Paper Manufacturers under the Customs Tariff Act, 1897, an account of which can be seen in the same journal, 1906, page 431. In 1904, action was taken with reference to the American Tobacco Company and the Empire Tobacco Company under the Inland Revenue Act, as amended in 1904, an account of which can also be found in the 'Journal of Political Economy. In 1907 action was taken, through the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the conditions of the grain trade, with reference to the Winnipeg Grain and Produce Exchange. Explanations can be found in the ' Labour Gazette,' vol. VIII, page 708. We have also the famous case of the United Shoe Machinery Company of Canada, reference to which can also be found in the ' Labour Gazette,' vol. XI, pages 969, 1260, 1272.
_ Such is the present condition of Trusts in Canada, so far as I have been able to discover it up to the present time. Of course, those who have studied these questions seriously are well aware that the only real and permanent protection that the people can find against such vampires is organization and co-operation. By such means they will paralyze the Trusts. But they must never cease watching. ' Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty '-and of life. However, apart from this permanent and radical remedy which can only be slowly and gradually' applied, there are others of a temporary nature, yet efiBcac-ious in their way, provided by legislation. The Customs Tariff Act of 1897, section 18, provides, as we have seen, that when it is established that there exists any Trusts or Combines on any article of commerce, that article shall be placed in the free list. This is supplemented by the Combines Investigation Act, and I call upon the government to apply the law to the glaring cases that I have just described. 1 have reason to believe also, that the workingmen of Montreal and elsewhere will soon be in a position to test the efficacy of the Combines Investigation Act and that full light will be shed upon these conspiracies,
If we stop to consider and compare the actions of the Trusts on the other side of the line, we can conclude why these very same institutions are moving heaven and earth to effect a speedy organization.
The Industrial Commission of the United States, whose report fills some 1,300 pages with valuable information on this subject, shows that one combination is selling 90 per cent of the sugar output; another more than 90 per cent of the tin plate product; that a third controls at times as high as 95 per cent of the production of spirits; that a fourth is selling from 75 to 80 per cent of the total output of steel rods and smooth wire and from 65 to 95 per cent of Mr. VERYILLE.
wire nails; that the same company by its patents has a practical monopoly on barbed wire and woven wire fencings that another company produces from 90 to 96 per cent of the refined petroleum and 'all of these monopolies fix their own price.
I	believe that I am justified at this present moment in expressing my views and impressions as to the waving of the flag and as to the cry of ' Canada for Canadians.' So much has been said on this subject and with so great an appearance of sincerity that some people might at first sight be impressed by these expressions and actions, but a closer mvestigation and inquiry will reveal the utter uncertainty of the politicians and others who indulge in them.
Any one who follows the financial transactions of the country would be led to believe that we are selling a good part of the natural resources of Canada, and if there is to be any waving of the flag it should also be waved in such instances. The amount of foreign capital invested in Canada is enormous; still we have not heard any alarming utterances from the so-called champions of the principle of * Canada for Canadians!'
If we take the last report, we find that we have invested in the country:
From United States	$417,143,220
France	 70,750,000
Germany	 30,725,000
Belgium	 11,676,000
Holland	 11,000,000
Turkey	'	 3,000,000
Russia	 1,500,000

We have then foreign capital. $
American	
British	
139,589,650
417,143,221
1,860,000,000
Grand Total

If this total amount of capital is divided by the total population of the country, we have an indebtedness on every man, woman and child of $341, or in other words, the interest at 6 per cent would mean $20 on every head, an annual charge of over $100 per average family.
American capital seems to dominate in British Columbia. We have 209 branch companies with an average capital of $600,000 or a total of $125,400,000.
Investment	in	mills and timber .. $65,000,000Investment	in	mines	
60,000,000Land deals	
8,500,000Packing mostly in British Columbia	
6,000,000
According to this statement the Americans would own about 75 per cent of the timber industries in British Columbia; 50

per cent of mining industries are also the property of Americans. We conclude that about one-half of American capital is invested in British Columbia out of the total amount invested in the Dominion. We find that about 25 millions of dollars are invested in land deals in the prairie provinces and 10 millions in lumber and mines in the same provinces. We also find insurance companies with a capital of 43 millions and we know that those companies possess very little real estate.
If we take the report of our Canadian Superintendent of Insurance, we find that for the year ending 31st of March, 1911, the total assets of American life and fiTe insurances in Canada, was $55,456,527 the two principal items being bonds and debentures. Their assets represented by debentures and stocks are as follows:
Debentures	$43,293,221
Stock	 162,141

Yet from all appearances the country has not been in danger. The prairie provinces, which have less American capital, have clamoured less about being thorough Britishers than British Columbia, where more than half, of,all capital invested is American. If Trusts are increasing in capital and in numbers also, industries are diminishing in number, which fact shows clearly that with the present system we may anticipate having some day only one Trust; then the whole population of our Dominion will be the subject of that Trust.
At present we have a system of_ cold storage in the country, which, from its origin, has done more harm than good. At its inception, the cold storage system was built up and subsidized from a humanitarian standpoint, but the invention has been abused, and the cold storage warehouses have furnished the means to overtax our population and to starve them to a certain extent. If it were possible to obtain the number of pounds of food stuffs in cold storage warehouses, the price paid for merchandise stor ed in the months of November, December and January, and also the retail price paid by the consumers, we would understand the enormous profits made by these institutions.
We are told that millions of pounds of butter and cheese are now in storage in our large cities. Butter that was bought for 24 cents per pound is now being sold for 45 cents. Eggs are being imported, though there is a good quantity now in storage, and they -were sold lately for 50 cents a dozen, and they were far from being fresh. Cheese is now being sold at 20 cents a pound, though it was stored at less than 13 cents a pound. Quantities of cereals, fowls and fish have been stored for more than two years. Instead of putting fresh
produce on the market, in many instances, it is two years old or more, and then we are wondering why we don't get good food.
If any legislation is to be enacted on this subject, a law should be passed that will prevent any storage company from keeping foodstuffs longer than is absolutely necessary, and for a specific time, as they have in the state of New York They should also be compelled to make a weekly report to the government.
The cost of living is increasing, the purchasing power of money is diminishing, tnd we are wondering why the masses are not satisfied. Let good enough alone, we say, except when the interests of Trusts and of certain manufacturers are at stake. Well, the time has come when the people will not and cannot 3tand this any longer. The full weight of the protectionist tax upon the workingman was placed in evidence before the Tariff Commission in 1905, and with the permission of the House 1 will put on ' Hansard ' these facts, which strikingly illustrate the manner in which the woTk-ingmen are protacted:
The workingman, sleeping peacefully upon a 30 p.c. mattress covered with a 30 p.c. quilt and a 35 p.c. comforter, awakes to gaze upon a 20 p.c. chromo hanging on the wall, covered with a 35 p.c. wall paper, Lifting his head from a 30 p c. pillow, he steps upon a 25 p.c. carpet, where he alights upon a 30 p.c. tack. He lifts a 35 p.c. window blind, removes a 35 p.c. flannel nightgown, slips into a 35 p.c. shirt and 35 p.c. trousers, 35 p.c. socks and 25 p.c. shoes, ties the shoes with 35 p.c. laces and washes himself with 35 p.c. soap. The drying operation is performed with a 30 p.c. towel, and the combing of his hair with a 35 p.c. comb. He adjusts a 35 p.c. collar, after hunting for a 35 p.c. collar button, and probably finis a 25 p.c. pantaloon button missing, necessitating the tightening of his 35 p.c. suspenders The request for the replacing of the button in the proper place is met by his wife in a 35 p.c. corset and other highly protected clothing. She does the necessary stitching on a 30 p.c. sewing machine, with 25 p.c. thread, the final act being performed with a 30 p.c. needle, assisted by a 30 p.c. thimble. Before leaving for downstairs he adjusts his 10 per cent artificial teeth, and then descends to light a fire in a 25 per cent stove with 25 per cent charcoal, which he carries in a 25 per cent pail. He may perhaps use some of Rockefeller's 30 per cent coal oil to assist matters. He then sits down on a 30 per cent chair at a 30 rer cent table covered with a 30 per cent table cloth, his knees being protected by a 30 per cent table napkin. In due season he has his choice of the following articles of food: apples, 40 cents a barrel; bacon and ham, 2 cents a pound; cheese, 3 cents

a pound; butter, 4 cents a pound; coffee, 10 cents a pound; potatoes, 15 cents a bushel. He assists himself with a 35 per cent knife and a 30 per cent fork, likely soiling his 35 per cent cuffs in the operation. Before he leaves for work he arranges for his children to regale themselves with 35 per cent sugar candy during the day, with 35 per cent dolls; that they shall go to school with 30 per cent school bags and 35 per cent copybooks, decked with' 35 per cent ribbons. These things arranged, he daily takes his 30 per cent tool bag filled with 30 per cent nails, 30 per cent tools, .25 per cent axe, carries a 30 per cent crowbar, lights his 35 per cent pipe with his 50 cents a pound tobacco, fixes his 30 per cent hat firmly on his head and hustles off through the dark of the morning guided by the light from 30 per cent gas lamps. His daily routine of work may mean shoving a 30 per cent wheelbarrow and wielding a 30 per cent pick, but he works his nine or ten hours as the case may be, and returns at night to his well protected home. His wife smiles at him through a 15 per cent window, probably thinking of the new 30 per cent bonnet which she has purchased and glad of the fact that her day, too, is over, with freedom from 35 per cent clothes wringers, 35 per cent curtains, 20 per cent brooms, 25 per cent brushes, 35 per cent baby carriages. After a protected supper he adjusts his 30 per cent spectacles, lights the 30 per cent gas, coming through a 39 per cent gas meter, listens to his wife playing a few hymns on a 30 per cent organ, and is warned by a 25 per cent clock that the retiring hour has come. Tired and protected to death he seeks his bed chamber thinking of the struggle of the morrow and succeeding days. After a few years he dies, 20 per cent crape appears on his door, and he is finally buried in a 25 per cent coffin. He is protected from the cradle to the grave. This statement may seem ridiculous, but nevertheless it exposes clearly the well protected workman.
I	will now endeavour to expose to the House the cost of living, and also compare it with other cities.
At present the cost of living is higher* in Canada than in the United States, while the scale of wages is lower. I am in a position to speak with some knowledge of the cost of living, especially in Montreal, which city can be compared with some American cities of similar population, and I have prepared from data at my command certain statements on the subject which I will communicate to the House. They confirm to a great extent the findings of the Massachussets Commission on the cost of living which reported in 1910. The consumer gets on the average fully as much value, more variety, and in some Mr. VERVILLE.
cases a better article for ms money in the United States than in Canada. (Page 355 of the report). I have not found as stated in that report that meats are 10 per cent higher in Boston than in Montreal, but it is quite true that groceries are at least 4 per cent lower in Boston. Bread, the staff of life, was last year 13 per cent higher in Montreal than in Chicago. Eggs are also higher in Canada, millions of dozens being imported from the United States.
United States consular reports confirm this view as to the cost of living in both countries. Prices no doubt vary greatly in different localities, but it will be found that United States export, prices for food stuffs are almost invariably lower than Canadian wholesale prices for the same articles. Here are some examples. Quotation from 1911 prices, which have increased since:
Boneless bacon.. ..
Dressed beef	
Fowls	
Hogs (owt)	
Lard	
Butter (creamery)
Cheese	
Flour (per barrel)
Canadian	V. S.
Wholesale.	Export.
.. $0 15-4	$0 10-9
.. 0 10-5	0 10-4
.. 0 13-1	0 13-2
.. 7 29	5 79
.. 0 13-8	0 10-7
.. 0 28-2	0 29-5
.. 0 12-7	0 13-1
.. 5 00	5 81
It will be seen that prices as a rule are higher in Canada.
This will appear more clearly if we enter into the details of expenditures of a workingman's family. I have prepared such a statement for Montreal, carefully excluding every item not absolutely necessary to prevent weakening and degeneracy. Let us take a family of five living under the very cheapest conditions:
Per annum.
Rent, $9 per month	$108 00
Water rates, 5 per cent	[DOT] [DOT]	0 28
Fuel (3 tons of coal at $7, wood,
$8)	 29 00
Lighting (i gal. oil per week)..
5 72

Clothing for man.
1 suit per ye-ar	$10 00
1	extra pair trousers	 2 00
3 suits of overalls at $1.25.. ..	3 75
2	bats at $1.50; 1 oap, 75c.; 2 pairs
of gloves, 50o	
4	751	pair shoes, $2; 3 pairs	at $1.50.	5	002	shirts at 75c.; 4 at 50c	
3	50t suits of underwear at $1.50 ....	6	005	pair of socks at 15c	
0	90t overcoat	
8	006	collars at 12c.; 2 neckties at15c	
1	051 pair of rubbers	
1	00Other necessities	
6	00
51 00
Clothing for woman.
1	dress per year	$6002	dresses, common, at $2	
4	002 hats at $4	
8	001 oape	
6	002	pair of shoes at $2, and rubbers, $1	$ 5 00Other necessities	
14	75
- 43 75
Boy 7 years of age.
3	suits per year at $2	 $6 00
4	shirts at 30c.; 6 pairs of socks at
20c	
2	404 pairs of shoes at	$1	
4	001 overcoat, $2.50; 3	caps at 40o..	3	703	pairs of mats at 30e.; 2 suits ofunderwear at 75c	
2	40Other necessities	
5	00
23 50
Girl of five years	$12	00
Girl of three years	' 8 00

to give them a respectable existence. Now to prove the correctness of the figures I have given on the allowance of food for the family of a workman, I will quote, by way of example, the ration allowed to each soldier in the army. It is as follows:
Bread, 1J lbs. per day, 547 lbs. per year
at 5c	$27.35
Sugar, 2 oz. per day, 45 lbs. per year
at 7c	 3.15
Chocolate, 1 oz. per day, 22 lbs. per year
at 25c	 5.50
Tea, J oz. per day, 5 lbs per year at 25c.	1.25
Fresh meat, 1 lb. per day, 365 lbs. per
year at 14c	 51.10
Fresh vegetables, lb. per day, 182 lbs.
per year at	lc	
1.82Flour, 9 oz. per day, 205 per year, at 5c. 10.25 Currants and raisins, 1J oz. per day, 34 per year at	10c	
3.40
Total per man per year .. 103.82
These figures, as we can see, do not cover all the items of everyday life, far from it; so they can reasonably be multiplied by four for a family of five. This would give us $415.28. This shows plainly that my calculations were not exaggerated.
Labour demands justice and equality, though not in the sense in which those words are often used. Labour men do not wish to go beyond reason. But they recognize that the law of itself is not powerful enough to prevent vast combinations representing millions of dollars of capital from organizing to oppress labour, to control and monoplize .production and prices, and to carry into effect the purpose of such combinations.
Statesmen of to-day should read the prophetic words written by the great American statesman, Abraham Lincoln, in 1865:
I see in the near future a crisis approaching that enerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.
As a result of the war corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow and the money power of the country will endeavour to prolong its reign upon the prejudices of the people until all the wealth is aggregated into a few hands and the republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of the country than ever before even in the midst of war.
The crisis feared by Mr. Lincoln is upon us, and it is the duty of every member of this House, regardless of political allegi-' ance to prevent it.


Mr. ANDREW BRODER (Dundas).: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Maisonneuve who has just addressed the House, but I could not but think that if he had had the moral courage to have made that speech on the Mr. VERVILLE.
budget a year ago, it would have come with bejtter grace from him. He has been /denouncing a legacy that we have received from that outgoing government, and his speech is a terrible arraignment of his friends whom he has supported for the last eight years. I cannot understand a gentleman having such knowledge of the evils that existed in this country sitting quietly behind his friends all these years and saying nothing about it, consistently supporting them and saying that everything was right. He gives us to understand that this condition of things has been brought about since September 21 last. I suppose the tariff has not been changed since September 21, I suppose that these Trusts have not all grown up since September 21. Have they? He says there are 39 combinations and Trusts in this country. They must all have grown up, of course, since last December, because the hon. gentleman did not say a word against them during the last eight years.


Alphonse Verville: I know my hon. friend does not desire to misquote me. I did not say that they were formed since September 21.


Andrew Broder: But you did not find fault with them in all that time. As shrewd and observing a gentleman as he is would surely have said something about these Trusts before that time if they existed, but he did not want to worry his friends. The hon. gentleman has been talking about the tariff. The Cobdenites have been in power for 15 years and we have a tariff with an average of 27 per cent, or nearly so, on dutiable goods and on dutiable and free goods of 16 per cent- after 15 years of free trade rule. I do not think much of the men who stand on the doorstep of Cobden and shout free trade principles to the present generation. 1 think a tariff of 26 per cent on an average is a protective tariff, that it has_ the principle of protection as much imbedded in it as any tariff we have ever had in this country. And now our friends waken up the moment they are out of power to the realization that there is something wrong in this country. If there is something wrong in this country it is a legacy left by hon. gentlemen opposite, and we are going to probate the will, and we will probate it in the interests of the people, not in the interest of a party. Combinations have grown up, yes, and what do you think of hon. gentlemen * Who were willing to carry this country over into the arms of the. greatest Trust company in the world, the United States? That was their effort, to put us at the mercy of the greatest combinations in the world, where we could not deal with them, and they had not the courage to deal with the Trusts at home.

Insincerity can be charged against hon. gentlemen opposite. There are 39 combinations found in this country after 15 years of their being in power, and these combinations have a combined capital of $575,000,000. Now, these gentlemen wake up to the fact that there is something wrong. They did not kick from under the blanket while their friends were in power, they were as quiet as mice in their nest in the winter. Now they are up in arms, there is something wrong in this country. Yes, there is (something wrong in this country, it is well it is not worse after hon. gentlemen have ruled it, for so long. It will have to he dealt with. I have no quarrel with capital. What we want in this country is capital properly invested. The hon. gentleman speaks of meeting these difficulties with a combination, but the combination that he suggests may be as arbitrary as the combinations we are attempting to meet. What we must realize, in this country is that we want a reasonable tariff, and a stable tariff, that capital will know that it is safe to invest in. Canada and1 that it will be secure, and not at the caprice of any sect of men. Hon. gentlemen may shout now from the house tops about their free trade nrinciples, 'but the country has had an experience of these gentlemen and will question their sincerity in the future. There is only one Cobden medal in this country and that is enough because it is not worn as it ought to be worn, because the man does not deserve it who has it; he has never been a free trader since he came into power. We may talk as we like about free trade, but why are hon. gentlemen opposite anxious to go to a country where the tariff is higher than it is here for the blessings they are seeking?


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer).: Does the hon. gentleman desire me to reply; he is looking directly at me? When I came to Canada-this question applies personally to me-I came to seek free land n'ot restricted trade. I believe in freedom all the time.


Andrew Broder: We will let you be free if you behave yourself. There is nothing wrong, we are glad to see you on the land, but I want to say that we do not want to see the labour conditions of Europe transferred into this country, and I question whether the hon. gentleman does. A gentleman met me in the west and said they had a poor man's tariff in England. I said: They must have because they have a million paupers there whom ' the people have to take care of; it must be a poor man's tariff. My hon. friend who just sat down said that the labouring roan got more wages in the United States I and a less Cost- of living. How does he I
find that in a country where they have about 40 per cent of a protective tariff when he cannot find it in this country where we have a 26 per cent tariff. Why does he go to a high protective country to find his blessing? Why does he not go to a free trade country?


Michael Clark: The tariff does not make the land.


Andrew Broder: I am not speaking of land. If 40 per cent protection makes prices cheap in the United States, I do not see how 26 per cent can make them dear here. There is a lack of consistency in the argument.
My hon. friend referred to some mergers and indicated some of the men in them. He might have referred to a cement merger in which he would have found a prominent gentleman pretty closely allied to hon. gentlemen opposite, but he did not see fit to refer to it.


Mr. CARVELL.: Yes, he did.


Andrew Broder: He did not refer to any names. It is a very significant fact that during all these years these combinations have been doing their mischievous work in this country, very few of them were prosecuted. Why were they not prosecuted' by hon. gentlemen opposite? We had the Paper Trust. Who prosecuted the paper combination?
The press of this country agitated against it, and the Canadian Press Association prosecuted it, and at very large expense to themselves, and proved their case. But the government refused to pay the expense; so that the newspaper men had to pay it out of their own pockets. Then, when the grocery combination was prosecuted publicly, the case was not proven; and it cost them $10,000 to defend themselves. A prosecution is going on now against the United Shoe Machinery Company. Why were not these combinations prosecuted! by hon. gentlemen opposite? Why, they did not wish to touch a hair of their heads. But now they are beginning to shout about it all over the country-'somebody else is in power. But what about the sincerity of -hon. gentlemen opposite? These mischievous organizations can grow up and do their evil work, but those interested must prosecute them or there will be no prosecution, and they have to pay the expense them-/ selves even if they prove their case. So, it ill becomes any one on that side of the House to criticise the present condition of things, for the present condition of things is the outgrowth of their rule in this country for fifteen years.
The hon. gentleman went on to tell about the duty on clothing, on the towel, on the I dishes, on the nightshirt, on the blanket,

and on 'shoes. But all these duties were put there with his friend's consent, and his own. So, it ill becomes him to raise; his voice so hurriedly about the evils that exist. If there is an evil existing in reference to any of these combinations it should be dealt with. But hon. gentlemen opposite did not deal with any of them. These combinations grew up under their rule, and attained their great proportions. A combination need not be an evil; it may be used to get rid of overhead charges and1 so to cheapen production. If it does this, and gives the public a better deal, the combination is not an evil. Combination may be a blessing, as capital is a blessing. These things have to be taken cognizance of, and dealt with in the interest of the public generally.	_	_
I do not pretend to say that it is a wise thing for any public man to arouse a suspicion against any class of people; on the contrary it is a misfortune. The callings of peo/ple in this country are largely a matter of their own selection. A man chooses to be an agriculturist, or a merchant, or a mechanic, or a professional man, and the door is open to him, he can reach the position he desires, no matter what his birth may be. It is largely a matter of choice. But when be makes his choice, it is not right for him to question the sincerity of another man who makes a different choice; they follow different lines to success. Now I do not follow with prejudice or hatred the man who leaves the log-house and makes his way up through the battle of life to _a palace. I follow that man with pride in his success.	_
There are problems before this country; hon. gentleman opposite have left many problems unsolved that they have at least attempted to solve in the interest of the people. These problems to-day are at the threshold of the Conservative party; and I hope that party will have the genius, the sincerity and the ability to deal with these problems and solve them in the interest of the people of Canada. Why should this country, a great agricultural country, after fifteen years of Liberal rule, and with a practical farmer as Minister of Agriculture, be importing four or five of the most important agricultural products for table use? Why should we be importing butter from New Zealand, and potatoes, meat and eggs from other countries? And this after fifteen years of Liberal rule. Have these hon. gentlemen done their duty to the agriculturists? They tell us that this importation is due to increased consumption. Well, should not an agricultural country keep pace with the consumption of its own people? Have these hon. gentlemen solved the problem of the agriculturist or [DOT]assisted him to cope with the difficulties Mr. BRODER
that confront him? I say, no. There is one way to feed the people more cheaply and at the same time to assist the agriculturist; and that way is to get down to the man in the furrow, if you will, make him understand the possibilities of his soil; show him that to double the product of each acre will mean more money from his farm. While the artisans and people generally will be more cheaply fed, the farmer will be better off. That is the solution of this problem,	but it is
a solution that hon. gentlemen opposite never attempted to make. And this is-within our reach. Why should we be decreasing in the output of our butter and of other products? It is because of the [DOT]serious shrinkage in farm labour. Has there been a serious attempt on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite to bring to the oldest province of this country from the old country the necessary help that would go on the farm and become a fixture in the social life of this country? No successful attempt, no serious attempt in this direction was made by hon. gentlemen opposite. I say to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Burrell), who sits here as Minister of Agriculture, that one of the serious problems before him is in this question. Let the farmer build a house for ms hired man, if you will, let the man marry and raise his family, arid you have gone a long way towards solving the problem of domestic help. These are questions that the government ought to take cognizance of, and deal with, and solve. But hon. gentlemen opposite did not deal with them. I have in mind an instance in an adjoining county of what one man could do towards solving this question. He told me only the other day that he, through his personal efforts in bringing immigrants from the ships at Montreal, had brought five hundred men into the county of Russell. The government did 'not do that. That man had several cheese factories. He found that the. farmers were keeping fewer milch cows, and on inquiring the reason he found that it was because of lack of help. Bo he commenced to soive that problem by bringing suitable agricultural immigrants into that county. And what is the outcome? The outcome is that only five out of that five hundred have proven unsatisfactory. That is what is possible and if the government of this country take that matter up and deal with it along those lines, it will go far to do away with the complaint of the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Vervilile)-increase the produce of the country, increase the fertility of the acre, improve the con- . ditions of the agriculturist and keep him on the soil, that is what is necessary for the future welfare of this great countrv.
Now, here is an instance of a man who came up through the influence of this genmarch 14, 1912
tleman into that county. He came here with six or eight children, he had about $1,200 to the good after paying expenses. There was a farm offered for sale for $8,500, along with the stock and implements. This individual encouraged that stranger to buy that farm. He bought it, and he has paid interest and $1,000 a year since; he has also bought the hundred acres next to him for $6,000, and he will pay for that. That is what is possible, that is part of the solution of our difficulties in this country. Now, this is a matter of history that might well be repeated in every county in the province of Ontario, and in a good many counties in the province ot Quebec.


Mr. NESBITT.: How long was that gentleman in bringing in the 500 people?


Andrew Broder: Only about four years since he commenced.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Did this man buy this second' farm within the four years?


Andrew Broder: Yes, of course he has the debt, but he has 40 milch cows on his farm to-day. That is the kind of men we want brought into this country. An agriculturist with $3,000 to $5,000, with his economy, and with his industry, will make a success in any part of Ontario or Quebec. Surely it is in the interest of this whole country that that should be done. Many of our people are going west. You cannot proscribe any one of our people from going west. Now, we must, in order to maintain our social conditions, our schools, our churches, and all those things that pertain to a good neighbourhood, we must do something to maintain them in their strength, and in their usefulness, and to my mind1 that is a solution of many of the difficulties that we have just heard mentioned.
But what has been done by hon. gentlemen opposite to bring to the notice of that class of people in Europe the older provinces of this Dominion, within the last ten years? Do they know much about Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Ontario? I fancy that our hon. friends opposite have not done their duty in that respect. The opportunities in the older provinces are equal, are as good, are as permanent, as they are in any other part of Canada. For my part, I hope the present government will take up those matters and solve them along these practical lines, upon which they can be solved1. We must keep the people on the land, and in order to keep them there we must improve conditions, and that is possible. Take up a list of the people that are going out of the older provinces into our western country-and it is a good thing to have
them go there, I am not finding fault with that, it is a good thing to have our eastern people go into that western country. But we must do something to fill up the gap that is created by their departure, we have got to make an effort to do it. I fancy hon. gentlemen opposite did1 not make an effective effort, if they made any at all, to solve that problem, and that is one of the difficulties that lie at our door pressing for solution. I believe it is now possible to solve them. I think it is one of the first duties of the government to attempt to solve them. Why, Sir, what do we find? We find this agr.cultural country, with all its splendid possibilities, buying its butter, its meat, its eggs, and some other produce from other countries. I can't understand it. That is where we find ourselves, after fifteen years cf this progressive government that has gene out of power. But some hon. gentlemen say that condition of things is caused because we cannot get reciprocity. Well, I am not going to talk much about reciprocity. The jury has pronounced upon that, and they say they don't want it, and I give them credit for being an honest jury and for having good common sense. We have heard a good deal about the possibilities of marketing our 200 million bushels of grain. But hon. gentlemen, with amazing inconsistency, say:	We will drop our present
market and go where they are exporting grain now. I cannot understand it. For every bushel you send into the American west, you have to send a bushel out of Boston or New York. I say, find your market, suit your market, keep your mai'ket. That is what you have got to do, and that can be done. But the difficulty is that some hon. gentlemen seem more anxious to keep up the discontent in the west than to allay it. I believe that is not fair-play. The people of that country have got to help solve their own problems. The conditions are abnormal, and these conditions will be best solved, not by fanning the discontent, but by showing that you are making an honest effort to remove the difficulties. That is the position I think we ought to take as public men, interested not only in the west, but in the east.
My hon. friend (Mr. Verville) thinks that this surplus should be expended in lessening taxation. Well, there is another legacy that has been left us by hon. gentlemen opposite, the enormous expenditure on the Transcontinental railway, an expenditure double or treble their own estimate. That is a legacy we have received, and that we must carry. We have got to meet that responsibility. We are proposing to meet these responsibilities that are thrown upon us, I say largely by mismanagement, if not by mismanagement, then by miscalculation. Take their levised estimates, and where are wo to-day? I say that no set of

men governing this country should have launched out into an undertaking of that magnitude without, knowing more about it. They should have known approximately, at least, what it was going to cost before they undertook it. They said they had mountains of information Yes, and t.hev have nad mountains of difficulties, but they did not have the information. No man can justify tihe action of hon. gentlemen opposite in that respect. Now that responsibility is thrown upon this country, that responsibility must be met. It is an obligation, and the honour of the country is bound to carry out its obligations. .For that Teason it is necessary that the revenues of this country should be large, so far as is consistent with the welfare of the people. -All these obligations must be met, but they cannot be met without a revenue, and you cannot have a revenue without a tariff.	_
I do not say that we should have a high tariff in this country, but I venture to say that, while it may not be much higher than hon. gentlemen left it, it will be more consistently adjusted and will not be hugger-mugger until you do not know where the tariff is. There is nothing in heaven above or in earth beneath like it. There is nothing in any country in the world like the tariff which these hon. gentlemen left on the statute-books. They have a preference, a maximum, a minimum, and dear knows what. They go to the farmer and they say: We have lowered the duty on carriages; under the British preference the duty is lowered on carriages from England. But, it was raised on carriages coming from the United States and that is where people buy their carriages. They fixed the tariff so that they could go to this man and say: We have lowered the tariff, and so that they could go to the other man and say:	We have raised the
tariff. They could go to the carriage maker in Ontario and say:	We have raised the
tariff, and they could go to the man using a carriage and say: We have lowered the tariff. That would be tne truth, but it would be only part of the truth and that is equivalent to something I am not going to say anything about. That is the condition of the present tariff. How many mowing machines or carriages do we buy in England? The articles on which the duty has been lowered under the British preference to the farmer are the articles that he does not get from Great Britain at all. He gets them from the United States against which you have raised the tariff barrier. You claim that you have lowered the tariff under the British preference. That is scarcely fair-play to the innocent man, yet, that is the fact. I say that the tariff in this country should be a tariff that would be understood. It requires an expert every day in the year, except Sunday, and he has Mr. BRODER.
to think of it then if he is honest in his endeavour to act in the public interest, to tell what the tariff means as applied to different goods that are coming into this country. He has got to sit up nights in order to apply it, and then he makes mistakes. That is the tariff that has been left on the statute-book by the free traders who have gone out of power. They are getting back to the old platform. The_ right hon. leader of the opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laur-ier) said away back in 1893 when they were making their platform, that he did not intend to skin the bear till he killed it. Oh, no, he killed the bear but he never skinned it. It is there with its skin on as much as it ever was.


Mr. BURNHAM.: That is a skin game.


Andrew Broder: Yes, he said that in that 1893 convention right here in this town. Yet, these hon. gentlemen opposite did not do what they promised. It was free trade that they promised then.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Blue ruin is their platform now.


Andrew Broder: We are in power to-day and they are driven back in desperation to the idols of old. I do not blame them for that. This recalls to my mind a story, and it is a lawyer's story, that I am going to tell to these free traders across the way. There was a man in Ireland who wandered into a grave-yard to amuse himself. You can amuse yourself in a grave-yard in Ireland. He came to a grave-stone on which was the inscription: Sacred to the memory of Mr. So-and-So, an eminent lawyer and a Christian. He said:	This is a strange
country; I see they bury two men in one grave. That is the kind of graves we will have all over this country when these men die. They will be putting two men in one grave. I do not see how you could bury them in any other way, because you will have to bury the free trader and protectionist in one grave. They were all buried on the 21st of September, and all we have to do now is to put the inscription on the tombstone. I am suggesting that we will have to bury two men in one grave. That is the kind of country we are living in.


Mr. McKENZIE.: Leave well enough alone.


Andrew Broder: Yes, we are going to continue as we are. Do you want things left as they are? Do you want the principle of protection to be continued in the tariff?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I said: Leave well enough alone.


Andrew Broder: I want to know if you want the tariff left as it is to-day. If the Iron, gentleman said that he did, for the next ten years he could not say a word.

They do not want to leave things as they are. They expect them to be improved and they will not be disappointed. The people 'of this country expect practical, common sense in the government. They do not want a lot of rhetoric; they want something that is tangible, and they want an improvement in the present conditions. I believe that they can be improved and that the government who are in power to-day have opportunities that perhaps no government that ever came into power, in this great country, with its possibilities, have had. The public men of the country must use the common sense they have, get down close to the people and help them solve those serious problems which must be solved not only in the interest of the country at the present time, but with a view to its future welfare.


Mr. OLIVER.: Mr. Speaker, the address we have just heard is the most ample justification for the choice of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) in filling the position of Minister of Agriculture in his Cabinet. However good the stories of my hon. friend (Mr. Broder) are, I think all will agree that his political arguments are hardly worthy of this place and the subject matter that is under discussion.


Andrew Broder: I was dealing with the arguments from your side of the House.


Frank Oliver: I do not remember any argument on this side of the House with regard to that man who made $6,000 farming in three years after starting with $1,000.


Andrew Broder: I do not wonder the hon. gentleman does not like that argument.


Frank Oliver: If a man got along as fast as that in . the cattle country in the west the police would be after him, because they would1 expect that he had lived on his neighbours. I would like, however, to point out to my hon. friend the case of this particular gentleman who made so great a success


Andrew Broder: I want to ask


Frank Oliver: Mr. Speaker, may I please point out

	[DOT]


Andrew Broder: Do you dispute my statement?


Frank Oliver: I am not disputing my hon. friend's statement for a moment. I hope he does not dispute mine. What I wanted to point out to my hon. friend was that this remarkable success of this gentleman was achieved under the administration of the Liberal government.


Andrew Broder: Will my hon. friend allow me to say that it was not under his department; it was the case of a private individual relying on himself.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend should keep his seat when he has nothing to say. I repeat that if this statement is correct-and we are bound to accept his statement-that certainly the conditions in this country making for agricultural success, under the policy and administration of the late government, were all that any reasonable man could desire. That my hon. friend (Mr. Broder) was not suited with these conditions is the evidence I have to offer to the House as to his not being a reasonable man.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Broder) criticised the condition of this country under the tariff policy of the late government. My hon. friend's friends have been in power for five months and they have come down to this House with a budget which absolutely confirms the tariff of the late government; not changed in one line, in one word; not changed by the dotting of an ' i ' or the crossing of a ' t.' It was good enough apparently for the last fifteen years, and it is going to be good enough at any rate for another year under the administration of these gentlemen. May I say just this word with reference to the tariff policy under which this country achieved the magnificent success it did achieve commercially, industrially, financially, as a people, and as a country, during those fifteen years; that any government would be wise in exercising due caution in making changes in that tariff that my hon. friend said was not like anything in the heavens above, or the earth beneath, or the waters under the earth. The slogan of the party he supported in the late election was; leave well enough alone, and I say that certainly in my judgment the Conservative party is well advised that yesterday, after five months in power, when it was for them to do as they saw fit in the interests of the country, when it was in their hands to change that tariff, they did not change it by one jot or by one tittle.


Andrew Broder: How long were your friends in power before you made any changes in the tariff; it was nearly a year, my dear man.


Frank Oliver: Possibly it was. Again let me draw attention to the argument as to the condition of this country in regard to mergers. My hon. friend from Maison-neuve (Mr. Verville) read to the House a istate of facts that certainly cannot be considered by any man responsible in any degree for the welfare of this country, and having knowledge of it, without recognizing its gravity, without recognizing that a condition exists that calls for the most



509fi
careful attention of any government that may be in power. The only criticism my hon. friend (Mr. Broder) had to offer was that this condition had grown up under the administration of the late government. That is true. It is a condition that grew naturally out of the prosperity of the country, but it is a condition with, which the late government was dealing in the arrangement they placed before the electors last September, and upon which issue they were defeated. The late government went to the country on an anti-combine policy, and they were met by a party absolutely in alliance with-and may I suggest the possibility of it being subject to-the combines, and, the combines won. My hon. friend said the reciprocity policy of the late government was going to throw this country into the hands of the United States, a country of greater combines. Well, my hon. friend (Mr. Broder), is excellent at telling stories, but he is not so good at making political arguments. By the reduction of the tariff as between this country and1 the United States, there was to that extent competition promoted between the combines on that side of the line and the combines on this side of the line, and the proposal was fought by the combines on each side of the line. There is no use of my hon. friend (Mr. Broder), trying to becloud' the issue. The issue was dedecided between the combines and the people, and the combines won. And my hon. friend (Mr. Broder), sits in this House supporting a government which holds its place, because of	the	support received from the
combine interests of this country. Now, it may be that the government will not realize for their friends the expectations that have been entertained; I do not know as to that. Certain members of the government have certainly failed to realize the expectations of those who elected them, within the last few days. I do not know, but the rest of the government may also fail to realize the expectations of those who elected them.


Andrew Broder: That is on that side of tire House.
Mr. OLIVEK, Not at all my hon. friend; the condition I speak of exists on youn side of the House, and on that side alone and I say that when the government of the day at a future session of parliament frames a tariff for this country, it may be that it will not realize the expectations of those who were chiefly instrumental in putting it in power. But, if it does not realize these expectations, there certainly will be very much the same sort of de-' nunciation-it may not be as public-proceeding from the merger interests, as is Mr. OLIVER	. '
to-day proceeding from the interests which elected my hon. friends the Postmaster; General, the Minister of Public Works, and the Minister of Inland Revenue. I do not suggest, and1 I shall not suggest, that the present leader of the government or his colleagues are going to be false to their friends. I do not think for a moment that they will be. The evidence we have had so far as this session has proceeded is that they will stand by their friends, and that the tariff legislation of this country, when the government comes to the point of framing it, will be framed in the interests of the combines, will be framed for the purpose, and with the intention of creating values for those enormous numbers of millions of fictitious capital that have become associated with our industrial enterprises in this country.
Our hon. friends have made many campaigns upon their assertions of insincerity on the part of the party on this side of the House in regard to tariff matters. They have been able from time to time to becloud the issue, and they have won their seats as a result; but from this time forward, as the result of the elections of the 21st of September, there will be no beclouding of the issue. It is straight and square: it is for the combines or for the people. Now, I do not want to be understood as declaring that the membership of a combine is not just as legitimate a business proposition as the ownership of a farm. I do not wish to be misunderstood on this point. I want it to be understood that capital has a perfect right to be invested in any enterprise and under any reasonable circumstances; but when combinations of capital are made with a view of securing an undue profit from the people at large, it is the business of the people at large to protect themselves as well as they may against the consequences of that act. It is not that the man who is concerned in a merger is not as good a citizen as my hon. friend who has just spoken or as myself. No question needs to be raised on that point. But the point is that he is able,-or if he gets the legislation that he hopes to get from this government he will be able,-to make my friend and myself contribute an undue share of his wealth and success. That is what we object to; that is the point on which the camps are divided.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Hadn't you better wait till it happens?


Frank Oliver: I think it is evident, from what has been read by my hon. friend from Maisonneuve, that it has been happening.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: For fifteen years.


Frank Oliver: Precisely, for fifteen years, in a greater or less degree. As the pros-

perity of the country increased, as capital was more and more available, as the financial magnates got the habit, the number of these mergers and combines increased, so that the condition in the latter years of the period referred to has been immensely accentuated as compared with the condition in the beginning of that period. Who would have thought of forming an industrial merger or combine in 1896? The suggestion is absurd on the face of it; and should there arise in this country another condition of depression such as that which existed in 1896, there would be no more forming of mergers and combines. If our hon. friends are as successful as my hon. friend from Dundas (Mr. Broder) hopes they will be, in preventing the formation of combines, I can only say that if they achieve that result by bringing about a condition of depression such as existed in this country in 1896, then I think we had better have the combines than have that _ condition. but it is not to that condition that we look for relief. All that we ask is that there shall be a fair consideration of the needs of the revenue in the framing of the tariff, and any industrial enterprise that is able to flourish under that condition is welcome to flourish; everybody will wish to see it flourish. But the industrial enterprise that must secure an unjust toll from the consumers, that must be protected in order to flourish, occupies a position that cannot receive the support of the majority of the people-cannot at any rate receive the support of those who are on this Bide of the House. Let there be no misunderstanding of the question. As my hon. friend has said, there is nothing wrong about the formation of a combine. A combine that decreases the cost of production and tends to improve the methods of distribution is not injurious. It only becomes injurious when means are taken to secure an unfair return on the capital invested, and the government has partly to do with that matter in the framing of the tariff. If the tariff is framed with a view to securing to this enterprise a return upon the capital invested and the stock issued, instead of being based upon the needs of the revenue, then we say that such a tariff is unjust to the people.
I was struck by some of the remarks made by the Minister of Finance yesterday, and they were in line with utterances of the Premier and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, made in the early part of the session. He spoke of the bounties of Providence, the success and development of this country due to ils natural advantages and to the energy of its people. The inference which I think he desired to convey, and which the Premier and the Minister of Trade and Commerce certainly desired to convey, was that the administra-162i
tion and policy of the late government had practically nothing to do with the desirable financial conditions that prevail in the country at the present time, when its revenues are higher than ever before, when it has a greater surplus than has ever before existed, when immigrants are coming in greater volume than ever before, when its prosperity is increasing at a greater ratio than ever before. I have heard the Minister of Trade and Commerce in previous sessions make the same suggestion from this side of the House. Now, there cannot be success without the foundations of success. A country cannot succeed and be prosperous unless it has the material means whereby success may be achieved. But if a country, no n atter how advantageously situated, can succeed without capable and competent direction, then a country is the only institution or organization in the known wond that can succeed on these terms.
Inasmuch as the government of a country is the most complex piece of machinery that exists in connection with any human enterprise, I submit that in the very nature of things the policy of the government must to a stupendous degree be given credit or blame for the result that is achieved in the well-being of that country. I say this not because I wish to claim any credit on behalf of the late government, but to point out to the friends of the present government and to the people of Canada that if our friends undertake to conduct the government of this country on the principle that it does not make very much difference to the welfare or prosperity of the country whether the government has a forward or * a backward policy, whether it has a developing or a restrictive policy, they will find, and the country will find, that they have made a great mistake. The policy of a government, in the nature of things, must have a great effect upon the well-being of the country, and if our friends have not yet realized that fact then I hope they soon will realize it, because we are all anxious to see development and progress in Canada.
If it is thought that the progress and prosperity that has been achieved has come simply because the sun has shone and the soil is fertile, and our people are energetic and industrious, I would ask, was it the fertile soil or the industry of the people, or the act of Providence, or the shining of the sun that entered upon the undertaking of the National Transcontinental Railway? Was it Providence that deepened the canals? Is it Providence that is building the port of Montreal? Is it not the aggressive-and intelligent action of a progressive government having a progressive policy that has absolutely and directly brought into being this condition of affairs?

A word with regard to this eastern section of the National Tarnscontinental railway. My hon. friend from Dundas (Mr. Broder), as his friends have always done, decried the building of that section of the railway, and yet the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce on former occasions in this House tried to discredit the late government because that railway was not completed before to-day. Did you ever hear of men taking such an attitude? These gentlemen exhausted every effort that could he put forth to prevent the construction of that great public enterprise, and when they could not prevent its construction, no later than some two or tlhree weeks ago in this House, on their responsibility as ministers of the Crown, they attempted to discredit it as a profitable enterprise, after attacking the government because it was not completed more quickly.
I said that the government was not changing the tariff. They are entitled to credit for that, and I am sure that this country breathed a sigh of relief when the announcement was made yesterday that there would be neither changes in the tariff nor the establishment of bounties. We really got off better than we exipected, but we were not less gratified to hear tlhat the policy of constructive development which had been entered upon iby the late government, and which had been carried so far towards completion, is to be still continued by our 'friends on the other side of the House. The two Transcontinental railways and the Hudson Bay railway are all to be completed, and the ports are to be equipped. All that the late government undertook to do or had in progress of doing is to be carried on without change by our friends the new government. For this again the country is thankful.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Frank Oliver: Shortly before the House rose at six o'clock, I had alluded to the fact that the budget recently presented to the House offered no variation from the tariff prevailing when the late government went out of power. That, however, is hardly a complete statement of the situation. The position of the late government in regard to tariffs is set out, not in the schedules on the statute-book, but in the proposition placed before the country, generally known as the reciprocity arrangement, This arrangement was the policy of the late government in regard to tariff readjustment, and was their policy also in dealing with the questions that were then up for immediate consid-Mr. OLIVER.
eration in the interest of the people. The tariff as represented in the reciprocity arrangement involved a policy of reduction of taxation and expansion of trade. The reduction of taxation was the means taken by the late government to deal with the question of combines, the question of the high cost of living and also the question of the readjustment of the burden of taxation. It is futile to say that the late government did not move as it should have movecl in the direction of lower tariffs. The tariff as it was proposed under the reciprocity arrangement was especially a reduction in regard to food products; it was essentially aimed at the high cost of living. It was believed that by taking the duty entirely off the more important food .stuffs and reducing the duty in regard to practically all others, the cost of living to the people of Canada would be reduced. This could not be done without, in some degree and to some extent, affecting the profits of the combines and mergers which had been formed during the preceding years. And, as soon as it was announced that the policy of the government was to reduce the cost of the food of the people, at once these combines, trusts and mergers, whose organization was entered upon for the express purpose of levying an unjust toll upon the food of the people, rallied in antagonism to the late government and its policy. And the result of that rally is the success of our hon. friends on the other side. It has been said frequently that the late government was not true to low tariff principles because for so many years of its term in office no serious reductions had been made in the tariff. Let me point out that, situated as we are alongside of the United States, the half of our total trade being done with the United States and that country being a food-producing country like our own, if at any time during their fifteen years of power the late government had removed the duty on food stuffs, those who to-day criticise, and on all previous occasions have criticised, the late government because it 'did not move more rapidly towards reductions of the tariff, would have been the loudest in their declarations against its attitude and action. It was not practicable, in the ordinary sense of the word, for Canada to abolish the duty on foodstuffs unless our neighbours on the other side of the line did the same. But, when the government of the United States saw fit to reverse the policy it had followed for forty years of maintaining a high tariff on foodstuffs, the Liberal government, the government of low tariffs and fair-play to the individual citizen, did not lose one moment in closing with the proposition and staking its existence as a government upon the acceptance of the proposition by the

people. Whatever allegations may be made against the late government, the allegation of bad faith toward the principle of low tariff can never, in fairness, be made in view of their record on that occasion. It is a surprising fact that, in face of the high cost of living prevailing in Canada and of the complaints that have continually been made in regard to that condition, such a proposition did not receive the approval of the majority of the electors. That it did not receive their approval is only another tribute to the strength, and vigour the energy, and, may I venture to say, the unscrupulousness, of those interests that, on the sound of alarm on the declaration that the government was for lowering the tariff, rallied their forces in opposition, stopping at no consideration of honesty or fair-play, or loyalty to either Canada or the empire, in order to secure the defeat of the government.


John Hampden Burnham: May I ask the hon. gentleman if he will be good enough to say how he thinks this lowering of the tariff on foodstuffs would affect the prices paid to the farmer?


Frank Oliver: I should be very glad to be permitted to proceed with my argument without interruption


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Frank Oliver: But, inasmuch as my hon. friend (Mr. Burnham) has aSKed a question -certainly a fair question-I hope the House will bear with me if I digress for some little time from the line of my argument in order to deal with the point he has raised. My hon. friend asked how I expected to secure a higher price to the farmer for his products and a lower price to the consumer.


John Hampden Burnham: No, what I asked was: How does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) think the reduction of the tariff on the foodstuffs would affect the prices paid to the farmer?


Frank Oliver: On such foodstuffs as are produced in Canada, not for export, I should take for granted that the abolition of the duty upon these food products, eliminating the question of the cost of distribution, would tend distinctly to the benefit of the consumer, and to that extent would be to the prejudice of the farmer. I think there is no question about that.
But let me point out that the cost of transportation comes into this question of the price of the food product to the farmer and to the consumer respectively; and not only the cost of transportation, but the exactions of the middleman.


An hon. MEMBER.: He is always there.


Frank Oliver: He is always there, and when he has a hard and fast combine such as the Canners' Combine, he is able, Mr. Speaker


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Frank Oliver: We in the west feel the Canner's Combine very severely, and the hon. member for Selkirk (iMr. Bradbury) knows as well as I do, that when a combine has control of a certain food product the price which the farmer receives bears no necessary relation to the price the consumer has to pay; that is a well known fact. Take the article of canned goods; it is a matter of absolute record that the producer on the south side of the line gets a better price for his product, and the consumer on the south side pays a lower price for that manufactured product.


Mr. MARSHALL.: I would ask the hon. member why canned goods are higher on the other side of the line than they are here? I can quote the prices. The hon. gentleman is entirely mistaken.


Frank Oliver: Well, it is not necessary for my hon. friend and myself to enter into an argument on this subject.


Mr. CURRIE.: Of course, because you would get the worst of it. He knows his business and you do not.


Frank Oliver: That is where the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Marshall) has the advantage entirely over the hon. memher for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie). I say there is no need of the hon. member for Elgin and myself getting into an argument on this question. The matter hais been before the public continuously, and whatever my hon. friend may say-I do not question his word at all, I do not question his knowledge of the subject, but I repeat that my information is, and I have the fullest confidence in it, that the price in the United States to the producer is higher and the price to the consumer is lower on the very goods that his combine puts on the Canadian market.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Does the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) state that the producer is paid less in Canada?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: That is absolutely incorrect.


Frank Oliver: Very well, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend, of course, has full knowledge of the facts so far as the Canadian end of it is concerned. But my hon. friend does not know any more about the conditions on the other side of the line than I do, or any one else, and I am responsible for the statement I make to the House, there is no question about it. So far as my information goes, the facts are

as I have stated. There is no question that since the formation of the Canners' Combine the price of canned goods in Canada has been increased very considerably,
I suppose my hon. friends will not deny that. Now, let them tell this House, and they know this of their own knowledge, will they say that the price to the farmer for his product has been increased in the same proportion?


David Marshall: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it has increased.


Frank Oliver: Has it been increased in the same proportion?


David Marshall: Yes, and I will tell you why. Eight years ago we paid the farmer $20 a ton for peas, to-day we are offering him $34 a ton for peas. Eight years ago we paid him 18 cents for tomatoes, to-day we are paying him 30 cents. Eight years ago we paid him $5 a ton for corn, to-day we are paying him $8.


Frank Oliver: How many cans of tomatoes will a bushel make?


David Marshall: I suppose I am interrupting the hon. gentleman, and I do not want to do it.


Frank Oliver: Aid right, this is important.


David Marshall: We are paying for our labour twenty to thirty per cent higher than we did eight years ago. Our teams cost us more. Everything we use in our business costs from twenty-five to thirty-five per cent mox-e than it did eight years ago. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have here both the American prices and the Canadian prices, and I want to tell the hon. gentleman, or any other gentleman in this House, that when he makes these quotations he is altogether wrong. I have the prices and I can give them to the House any time.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Let the hon. member make his speech later on.


David Marshall: I say I do not want to interrupt the hon. gentleman. I am sure that he is not familiar with the facts, or he would not make that statement. I have that confidence in the hon. gentleman.


Mr. BROWN.: Does the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Marshall) mean to say


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) has the floor.


Frank Oliver: I will be glad to have this matter cleared up.


James Pollock Brown: Does the hon. member for Elgin state that tomatoes were higher in the United States during the month of | Mr. OLIVER.
July last than they were in the city of Montreal, that is, a three-pound tin?


David Marshall: I could answer that in this way. The canner's price was less than $1 per case. After the case leaves our hands we have nothing whatever to do with the price. There is no doubt the wholesaler has raised the price* I am speaking particularly of our own business. Every case of tomatoes which the Dominion Canners Company put up was sold at less than a dollar.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: 95 cents.


James Pollock Brown: Is the hon. member for Elgin aware that the combine went to the wholesale trade in the city of Montreal and other cities, and contracted with them for a certain quantity of cases, and after that they would shrink down the quantity they were to deliver so as to enhance the price?


Francis Ramsey Lalor: It is easy to answer that question. We did not deliver the quantity because we did not pack them. We only packed according to order.


David Marshall: I may just add that it cost our company $40,000 last year to buy up our shortage. We guarantee a percentage. The shortage on our pack was so great that it cost the company some $40,000 to buy up their orders.


Frank Oliver: I asked the hon. member for Elgin a question which he has not answered. I asked him how many cans of tomatoes a bushel would make? [DOT]


David Marshall: That is a fair question, and I am ready to answer it. That depends on the quality of the tomatoes. We get from 10 to 12 cans from the bushel.


Frank Oliver: What is the size of the cans?


David Marshall: Three pounds.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend gets from 10 to 12 cans from a bushel and he raised the price to the farmer a matter of 12 cents? Is that right? That is a cent a can. Now how much does the consumer pay to-day as compared with. what he did before the Canners' Combine was formed?


David Marshall: Now the hon. gentleman knows that is not a fair question.


Frank Oliver: I consider that is a fair question.


David Marshall: It does not stop at that. We are paying men to-day $2 where we used to pay them $1 a day. We are paying more for the cans.


Frank Oliver: Just stick to the point. I I want to know from the hon. gentleman

what his tomatoes cost the consumer before the combine was formed, and what they cost the consumer now.


David Marshall: It shows that the hon. gentleman is not posted in the line. Before the amalgamation we sold tomatoes at $1.40 a dozen, and peas at $1.60 a dozen. We sold the same goods last year at 85 cents.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: And we sold them three years ago at 70 cents.


Frank Oliver: That does not make any difference. I did not say that the canners have raised the prices; I said that the prices had been raised to the consumer. As a matter of fact, beyond any question, the consumer pays that price and1 all that the farmer gets more is 12 cents a bushel on the statement of my hon. friend. Every man who buys tomatoes knows that he pays more than a cent a can more for them to-day than he did five years ago.


Mr. BRADBURY.: Would the hon. gentleman tell me how he proposes to remedy the evil of the middleman?


Frank Oliver: What I propose to do is to reduce the duty on canned goods and allow the combine fin the south side of the line to compete with the combine on the
north side of the line. That was our proposal.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Why did you not do that during the last fifteen years?


Frank Oliver: We did it just as soon as the United States could give us fair terms for doing it.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I want to correct the hon. gentleman. You did not do anything of the kind; reciprocity did not affect canned1 goods- at all.


Frank Oliver: I have a statement here of the tariff relations between the United States and the Dominion of Canada, the correspondence and statements, a government paper, a blue-book purporting to set forth the reciprocal tariff agreement between the United States and Canada. Let us come down to the question of fact, in regard to a matter that my hon. friend, claims to have absolute information on. He has evoked1 a great deal of applause from his friends by his statement that the reciprocal agreement did not affect canned goods


Mr. SHARPE (North Ontario).: They were on the free list.
Mr. OLIVER-did not affect canned goods. My hon. friend is in error. Has he anything more to that effect to say?


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Tell us how much it affected them.


Frank Oliver: It did not affect them much.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Frank Oliver: I am dealing with a question asked1 by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Burnham). The hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Laior), interrupted and as a canner and a member of this. House be should have known whether the statement he made was correct or not. He was given the applause of his -friends on the other side of the House as having made a sucessful contradiction of a statement which I had made.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: You did not know it yourself until your friend' behind you told you.


Frank Oliver: It does not make any difference what I knew. The question is what my hon. friend knew. I did not make the statement; he made it. Let us have a thorough understanding, and let us have fair-play.


Mr. MACDONALD.: It is quite evident that the hon. member for Haldimand did not know.


Frank Oliver: I am afraid that the hon. member for Hald'imand must have known, and that he presumed upon this House when he said there was no


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Tell us what it is.


Frank Oliver: I will tell the hon. gentleman what it is. I am at some disadvantage in discussing questions of fact in regard to trade matters when hon. members of this house will make statements upon which they must have knowledge, on which the Hobse knows that they must have knowledge and when they make misstatements in regard to these matters. I hope that when I am contradicted again the House will be good enough to take account of the possibilities of the facts in regard to the matter. *
Tomatoes and other vegetables, including corn and baked beans in cans or other air tight packages, including the weight of the package per lb., i cent.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: If the hon. gentleman will look he will find that that is the treaty with France he is speaking about.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that the hon. member -who has the floor ought to be allowed courteously to continue his speech and that such unseemly interruptions are not becoming to the dignity of the House of Commons or in keeping with fair debate.
Mr. OLIVER, The United States tariff is 2 1-2 cents to 40 per cent, and the rate-

now proposed for both the United States and Canada is a cent and a quarter. The reduction by the United States is 1-1 to 2 cents per pound and the reduction by Canada a quarter of a cent. I' think i have established the point that the reciprocity arrangement, the proposal to reduce the duties on food products in Canada and thereby reduce the cost of living, did not necessarily affect to the extent of that reduction the price received by the farmer when there was a combine standing between the producer and the consumer and that in so far as the reciprocity arrangement brought competition into the distribution of such food products, to that extent, the consumer gained and the producer did not lose. I have been delayed somewhat in the course of my argument by the question-the very proper question - of the hon. member for Peterborough and I hope that I will be excused for now continuing.
I say that it was absolutely established-as the policy of the late government to reduce the cost of living by reducing the taxation on food products and that that policy was entered upon at the very first moment when it could reasonably be entered upon and expect the endorsation of the people, all things being considered. Just as soon as it became possible for Canada to secure entry to the United States market for food products on fair terms, just at that moment, the government of Canada was prepared to make corresponding reductions in the tariff on such products coming into Canada and thereby benefit the consumers and reduce the cost of living to the people of Canada. The late government undertook to answer the question as to what should be done in regard to the high cost of living and in regard to the exactions of combines. The country is interested in knowing what they may expect at the hands of the present government in regard to the same matters. It -is to be regretted that since the present government came into power the cost of living has not decreased. It has increased. The formation of combines has not ceased. There have been more rather than less.
The country is interested in knowing what attitude this government will take now that it is in power, in regard to these pressing and important matters. Whatever the late government may have been or dene is not the question to-day, although the late government is quite prepared to stand on its record. But the question is: What is this government going to do; and we can judge of what it is going to do by what it has done. I took the liberty of suggesting earlier in the discussion that the present government, when it comes tc frame a tariff, will frame that tariff in the inter-Mr. OLIVER.
ests of the combines, not in the interest of l educing the cost of living, not in the interest of reducing taxation. I say that if the government is true to the policy and the principles upon which it attained office, it will be a government of increased taxation and restricted trade. And, Mr. Speaker, in my humble judgment, such a policy cannot tend to the well-being, or the-progress, or the prosperity of this country. We have had some experience of the actions of this government, although they have not introduced changes in the tariff. They have been in power for five months, and in a country like this a great deal happens in five months. I submit that it is no answer for their failure to deal in the public interest with great questions as th^y arise, to say that they have not been long in office. It is not necessary to tell us that. They have been so busy removing officials appointed by the late government, so busy appointing commissions to find places for their friends, in parliament and out of parliament, that they have not had time to pay attention to those matters of first importance in which all the people of the whole country are interested. There have been matters brought to the attention of this government, not only by those -on this side of the House, but by their own friends as well. The member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett) has taken the country into his confidence-I do not know whether he has taken the government into his confidence or not-he has told the country that there is a condition of affairs west of Lake Superior that demands the instant and urgent attention of the government. I think my hon. friend the member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) is imbued with the same idea, so-that if our friends opposite are not aware of the existing conditions, and if they have-not taken any action in regard to these conditions, it is not for lack of knowledge. I submit it is not for lack of time, because, if they were spending their time in that which was of greater importance to the country and not in that which was of greater importance ro their party and their friends, they would have had plenty of time. It has been said in the House, it has been repeated in the press, and it is well known throughout all Canada to-day, that to that part of Canada which chiefly produces food products for export, access to the markets of the United States was an important feature of the then government's proposal last spring. Insome parts of the country access to the producing areas of the United States so as to reduce the cost of living was desirable; in -other parts of the country access to the -consuming markets of the United States was desirable in order to secure greater benefit to our people. Our friends in the government are proposing to extend Can-

ada's trade by a treaty with the West Indies, and I think I have read in some place that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is going to visit Australia with a view to our increasing our trade with that country. But, there are the trade possibilities which were open to Canada by the lowering of the duty on food products going into the United States, an opportunity which would add to the value of every bushel of the farmers' products in all the three prairie provinces. That proposal was as available to this government as it was to the late government, and if to-dav the farmers of the western prairies are selling their wheat at an average of ten cents a bushel less than they could -have obtained for it, the fault lies not with the late government but with this government, and to this government the loss must be charged. It is true that this is not in line with the policy of trade restriction upon which the government were elected, and I think it cannot be emphasized too strongly in the minds of the people, just exactly what loss is being suffered by reason of that restrictive policy.


John Hampden Burnham: If we had. say for purposes of illustration, a dozen transcontinental lines, so that there would be no congestion of traffic, would the hon. gentleman not then say that that was quite equal to wha.t be proposes in the way of a reciprocal market?


Frank Oliver: Not at all The suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Burnham) does not touch the point. I will deal with the point he has raised later on. But for the moment I am dealing simnly with the question of the advantage to the western producer of access to the markets of the United States for his products, and I say that the market reports show that the advantage in the United States markets on the 2nd of March averages about ten cents a bushel on wheat, fourteen cents a bushel on white oats, and from twenty-four to sixty-four cents a bushel on barley.


Mr. SHARPE (Lisgar).: Is it not a fact that the price of wheat was higher in Manitoba on the 20th of September last, the day before the election, than it was in North Dakota?


Frank Oliver: I do not know, and I do not know what difference that makes. The question is, what is the price of wheat now and what has it been ever since? If my hon. friend is going to put before this country the idea that because his friends have been returned to power the price of wheat in Canada has gone down, he is welcome to that contention; but I would think he would be the last man to make such a proposition, and I want him to be my witness that I have not made that suggestion.


William Henry Sharpe: The hon. gentleman knows as well as any man in this House that a premium is paid for hard wheat in North Dakota at the present time. He knows that the millers at Minneapolis thought that reciprocity was going to carry in Canada, and for that reason the price of hard wheat went down in North Dakota, and the price in Manitoba on the 20th of September last was higher than in North Dakota, showing conclusively that reciprocity would have been no good for western Canada.	-


Frank Oliver: The only flaw in my hon. friend's argument is that the difference in price is greater on damaged wheat than it is on sound wheat, greater on soft wheat than on hard wheat, greater on barley than on wheat, greater on flax than on wheat and greater on oats than on wheat. So that my hon. friend has no ground whatever for his suggestion unless he contends that because of the return of this government to power the price of wheat in Canada has gone down.


William Henry Sharpe: I never said that. I said that the price In North Dakota went down. I did not say the price in Canada went down.


Frank Oliver: The price in North Dakota to-day is an average of ten cents a bushel higher than in Manitoba. Therefore the price in North Dakota must have gone up, or the price in Manitoba must have gone down.	.


William Henry Sharpe: [DOT] Does the hon. gentleman as a western representative think that we would get the prices quoted in the United States to-day if we had reciprocity with the United States?


Frank Oliver: There comes to my mind the case of a rich man who was dying and whose pastor suggested that he might leave his money to the church. The dying man wanted to know what effect that would be likely to have upon his future condition. The minister said that he could not tell, but suggested that there would be no harm in trying. There would be no harm in our trying the effect of access to a market where the price has been persistently for four months ten cents a bushel higher than it has been on our market, and has been persistently year after year in that condition. Not every day, I will admit; but as a rule the Dakota price has been better than the Manitoba price, and my hon. friend is my authority for this statement, in a speech which he delivered in this House in 1909.


William Henry Sharpe: Would that condition continue under reciprocity?


Frank Oliver: My opinion is: yes, undoubtedly. But it is not a question of opinion; it is a question of fact. I say that, with a population of ninety millions of people consuming wheat, and wanting the best, there is a sufficient demand in the United States for our special quality of wheat to keep the price at a premium for home consumption in the United States. That is my belief, and I think nobody will contradict it.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: They wanted it for export.


Frank Oliver: They are not exporting a bushel of that kind of wheat, and if my hon. friend does not know it, my hon. friend behind him (Mr. Sharpe, Lisgar) will tell him. I think I have established thoroughly that the policy of this government has cost the prairie country, on a fair estimate, not less than $12,000,000 during the current year. Is that a loss only to the prairie country? Is not that a loss that will affect every interest in Canada, and particularly the manufacturing interests of eastern Canada?


John Hampden Burnham: Do I understand you to say that they offered reciprocal trade without a quid pro quo?


Frank Oliver: They offered it for a
consideration.


John Hampden Burnham: How do you claim, then, that it would be a benefit to the whole of Canada?


Frank Oliver: I am saying that the loss of $12,000,000 of newly-created wealth to the western farmer is a loss to the whole Dominion of Canada. I hope my hon. friend understands that.


John Hampden Burnham: I do not.


Frank Oliver: Then I am sorry. There has been a great deal of talk about a division between the east and the west. Let me say that the eastern manufacturer is directly interested in the loss of that amount of money to the western farmer -that the eastern commercial house, the eastern financial interest, every interest, even the canners' combine, is interested.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: What about the eastern farmer, who turned your party ou|t of office?


Frank Oliver: That is his privilege. I am not arguing with my hon. friend on that point at all. May I be allowed to continue my address, unless my hon. friend has some light to throw on the subject? I want to emphasize the point that every interest in eastern Canada is interested in the western farmer and in his getting every cent of value that can be got for his crop; and when the eastern manufacturer lined up his men before


William Henry Sharpe: .
the 21st of September and told them that if reciprocity carried1, the factory would have to be shut up and they would be out of employment, he told them what was not the fact. He urged them to vote against what was in their best interest and in his best interest, as well as in the best interest of this country as a whole.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: How about the member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie)?


Frank Oliver: The member for South Wellington can answer for himself, and I think he is quite competent to answer any of my friends on the other side of the House who may wish to ask him any questions. I have estimated the loss to the western farmer and to all Canada by reason of failure to secure access to the United States markets for the western products at $12,000,000 in this current year. But our hon. friends will say that it is contrary to their policy to allow the western farmer to sell his products on the other side of the line. I think mv hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. White) suggested that we ought to build up a milling industry in Canada and bund up our railway system by defeating reciprocity. That is to say while we have a tariff that compels the producer to buy in a protected market we are also going to reject an arrangement that would enable him to sell otherwise than in a restricted market.
But there is another condition in the country in regard to which relief might be given in a manner less directly contrary to the policy of our government, I speak of the condition of traffic congestion or grain blockade. That matter has been brought to the attention of the House and the government have given their answer in regard to it, they have told us we must not complain of the dispensations of Providence, that they have not been in office very long and have been very busy, they have had something else to do than to take care of the conditions as they exist. Let me emphasize those conditions. It has been stated here and elsewhere that by reason of the lower prices resulting from the grain blockade the western farmer loses on this year's operations not less than $10,000,000, and he stands to lose $6,000,000 more by reason of the total destruction of damaged grain. That is to say he stands to lose $16,000,000 as a result of the inadequacy of the transportation facilities in that country in regard to this year's crop. But our friends say that this is a condition that cannot be avoided. They say that in one breath and in the next breath they say: We have taken measures to avoid it. They have succeeded in making arrangements with the railway companies so that this grain can be delivered bv a short haul to St. Paul and Duluth instead of being taken

to St. John-and if they had made those arrangements so that they would have ccme into effect on November 10 instead of on March 7, there would not have been any grain blockage, there would not have been any loss to the farmer either in depressed prices or in loss of damaged grain. This government has been convicted by its own action of having stood silent and quiet and careless wline this country has lost $10,000,000 and stands to lose $6,000,000 more when it need not have lost one cent had an aggressive and energetic government, one that was paying attention to the needs of the country, been in office. If they take refuge in the statement that their policy is averse to sending Canada's trade across the line, then I ask, why did they make arrangements to have it go south of the line? If they say it is not contrary to their policy then they stand convicted of having lost to the western farmer and to this country the stupendous sum of from $10,000,000 to $16,000,000 without the slightest justification on earth. There are times when a policy may very well be abandoned.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Frank Oliver: There are times when a policy may very well be abandoned, and this was certainly one of those times. Yet when I had the honour to place before the House a resolution approving of the action of the government, desiring to confirm them in the policy which they ultimately adapted, they rejected the resolution, and their followers voted against it to a man, declared absolutely against a policy that would have relieved' the situation of this year; and in all human probability such action will be just or almost as necessary next year. We have on record the votes of the members of the government and their followers in the House declaring absolutely against the very policy that they themselves were compelled to undertake, only at too late a date in this year. I do not know just how far the excuse of lack of time should prevail. When a government is charged with the responsibility of office, when they have assumed with all readiness that responsibility, I am not sure just how far lack of time is an excuse for lack of action.
Another matter that has been discussed in the west for some time and brought to the attention of this House by formal resolution, is the question of the equalization of local railway rates. Surely there could be nothing more fair, more reasonable, more right than that the railway! companies should not be allowed to charge more on the western prairies for like services under like conditions, than they are allowed to charge in eastern Canada. That principle has been applied to the carrying
of passengers, but it has not been applied to the carrying of freight. The proposal that it should apply to the carrying of freight was rejected by the government; it was declared that the Railway Commission must deal with this matter, that the responsibility was with the Railway Commission and not with the government or with parliament. Now, on behalf of the western country, I want to say that what is important to them is that they shall have a square and even deal; they ask for no advantage, but they do ask that in a question of railway transportation, which is more important to them even than the question of tariff, they shall not be discriminated against by the railway companies. And they look to parliament, which charters the railways and grants them bonuses and assistance of various kinds, and they look to the government, to see that justice is done in that particular. But the government does not want to take the responsibility. It has a Railway Commission that takes that responsibility off its shoulders. This is a form of government by commission, of which, it seems to me, it is quite possible to have a little too' much. When a great injustice exists-or I will not say injustice, but when a great and manifest inequality exists-as between the east and the west, and the government refuses to take cognizance of that condition, it is no wonder that my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. Bennett), my hon. friend from St. Antoine, Montreal (Mr. Ames), my hon friend from Brandon (Mr. Aikins), and. some other members of the House supporting the government go out through the country and make what I must characterize as very wild statements in regard to the condition of public feeling in that country. But the government surely will recognize that when their supporters are so fully impressed with the conditions as to cause them to make these statements, it is surely time for the government to take a day off from slaughtering Grit officials and pay a little atention to the necessities of the country, even though it be the western country.
While the government did not have time to deal with the grain blockade, and did not have the inclination to exercise its responsibility in dealing with the freight rates, there was one matter that they did not lose any time in dealing with. I refer to the duties on lumber. I have not the calendar at hand, but I do not think the government had been in office, more than a few days when their friends of the lumber combine in British Columbia came down and, at their demand, the lumber duties were practically readjusted so as to lay a heavier burden upon the western settler than he had borne up to that time. It was not enough that he had a bad season; it was not enough that he was

compelled to accept panic prices for his grain owing t-o the grain blockade; it was not enough that he should have to pay excessive local rates in securing a local market for his damaged grain, but our friends opposite had plenty of time to make a little adjustment of the lumber duties so as to take I should fancy not less than a quarter of a million dollars out of his pocket in this particular season, at the command of the British Columbia lumber combine.
Did I say the government did not have time? Well, in some things they had time. The _ government brought in, early in the session, a Bill to deal with the grain trade. This Bill represented the mind of the people of the west, of the producers of the west, in regard to the handling of their product. It was the result of years and years of consideration, possibly of agitation and demonstration. They came to parliament last year-came, may I say, to a friendly government-and asked that the conditions surrounding the grain trade be further improved in their interest. The Bill was prepared and was brought before parliament, but it failed to become law owing to the dissolution. It was brought forward again at this session, practically identically the same Bill. But our friends opposite had time to amend it in such shape that even my hon. friends from Lisgar (Mr. Sharpe) and Souris (Mr. Schaffner) could not, or dared not vote for its provisions. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is probably the most serious matter that has touched the west at the hands of this government since they took office. In one particular, in the matter of car distribution-and I do not intend to trouble the House with details-the Bill as it had been presented meant an average of from 2 cents to 6 cents a bushel to the western farmer selling his grain at country points. By reason of that ear distribution clause, he was able to sell his grain at the terminal, and so he could benefit by the buying competition in Winnipeg while otherwise he would have had to take the competition at the local point. And any man who knows anything of the grain trade will realize that the difference between the competition in price at country points and at the central or terminal point would mean anywhere from 2 cents to 6 cents per bushel. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) has Seen fit to amend that Act. That Act, affecting a right established by the efforts of so many years and which was of such benefit to the producer, has been framed in such a way, that, as I have said, two of the hon. gentleman's own supporters would not or could not voce for it. And there is another amendment dealing with the mixing of grain. If there is one thing more than another that the Mr. OLIVER.
farmer has insisted upon it is that the grain shall go forward to its ultimate destination under the government certificate that is given at the inspection. Again it is not necessary to deal in detail with this matter; but it is a fact that the prevention of the mixing of grain offers a premium to the good farmer and that to permit the mixing of grain destroys the good farmer's premium on the market.
My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) did not hesitate at short notice to push his amendment through which legalizes the mixing of western grades on their way to market, provides means and machinery and legalizes the degrading of the quality of western wheat as .it goes to the ultimate market.
Sir, is it any wonder that our friends behind the ministry have taken alarm? Is it any wonder that they have become 'afraid of the . consequences, first of ignoring, and then of attacking the interests of the producers of the west? I am at a loss to know on what principle this government proposes to govern this country, if it is to ignore the welfare and progress of that vast western country, if it is to ignore the importance to the whole Dominion of providing that the western farmer shall get the last cent of value of his bushel of wheat. Unless the government acts on the principle that it is necessary to recognize that right of the farmer, I am doubtful of the progress of this country in the future. It is not a question as between the east and the west, it is a question as to the whole country. If this country has progressed, if manufactures have increased in Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton and Brantford, if the price of real estate in Montreal and Toronto is high, and soaring, everybody knows that it is not because of the increase of production on the farms of Ontario and Quebec, but it is because of the increase of production in the prairie west, and that increase of production depends upon the price the farmer can get for his product. But instead of recognizing that fact, instead of bending their energies to some policy or principle that would improve the conditions of the farmer there, they come here and preach us sermons on the necessity and desirability of the farmer being on good terms with the elevator men, and not finding fault with the railroad company. They tell us that the farmer must go into mixed farming, that they are going to build the Hudson Bay railway, and that the farmer ought to be optimistic. They tell him anything and everything except what will be to the point and) will do him some good. Now let me say that it is no business of

the government whether the farmer raises ducks or raises wheat. It is his business what he raises, and they can depend upon it that he is going to raise that which is within his means and to the best advantage. It is the business of the. government to see that the best possible opportunity is given to the farmer to get the best price for what he raises. It is not a question of the railroad companies, nobody is attacking the railroad companies because they did not haul more grain than they did. The railroad companies no doubt hauled all the grain they were able to haul, along the routes that this government have allowed them to haul it. The railroad companies apparently were deprived of the advantage of taking the shorter haul, and to-day are doing the best they can to catch up with the conditions which, I am sorry to say, have been allowed to remain so long that there is no possibility now of relieving them to the full extent.
Now Sir, we are dealing with the presentation by the government of its financial propositions for the year. We are glad that they have decided to continue the tariff that has been in force for some years past. We are glad that they have declared they are going to continue the policy of [DOT]constructive development that has been the policy of the late government during past years. But if they are going to take the position that because the country is prosperous that all they have to do is to shake the plum tree vigorously, then I want to assure them that they are under a wrong impression. This condition of .prosperity that we enjoy today did not come about only as an act of Providence. It was necessary to give direction and inspiration to the energy and industry of our people, and because that direction was given in due course and at proper times by the late government, under its well defined policy of lower taxes and freer trade, it has been possible for this country to achieve in the current year its greatest revenue, its greatest surplus, and the greatest measure of prosperity that it has ever enjoyed. If our hon. friends are able to keep that record, if they are able to increase still further the prosperity of the country and its development, it matters not, I am free to admit, whether it is their policy or ours, whether it is high taxation or low taxation, whether i.t is restrictive trade or expanded trade. If they can secure that continued increase of prosperity with a policy of high taxation ana restricted trade, we will be glad to enjoy the prosperity and to share it with them, and we will give them the credit of their policy being better than we expected. But our belief is that this country needs a policy of lower taxes and expansion of trade,
in order to secure its continued development and prosperity.


Mr. W. F. COCKSHUTT (Brantford).: Coming as I do from an industrial city in the province of Ontario, I think it is proper that I should say a few words on the issues raised by the budget speech presented yesterday by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. White). At the outset I desire to compliment that hon. gentleman on the exceedingly straightforward manner in which he presented the condition of the finances of this country, indicating a grasp of the financial arrangements, a grasp of expenditures and receipts, and the management of sinking funds, loan accounts, and all other subjects dealt with in the budget, which showed him to possess a master hand.
I desire, therefore, to compliment him in that way. Having said that much I must add that I have one or two regrets in regard to ithe budget speech; not for any thing that it did contain, but for one or two items of considerable importance that it did not contain. I may probably be standing in a somewhat isolated position with regard to what I have in my mind, but, being a man of business and always having been accustomed to say exactly what I mean on any given question, I propose to name the subject on which I regret that the Minister of Finance, and those who are associated with him, did1 not see fit to speak. The omission I desire to mention is the non-introduction of the iron and steel bounties. I think that the * Citizen ' this morning indicates very largely what the country thinks, that is, that the chief point that was expected was missed, because the first head line contained these words:	'No iron or steel
bounties.'


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Foster Cockshutt: Hon. gentlemen seem to say ' all right,' but we. .are in this anomalous position, Mr. Speaker, that the iron and steel trade for the past 15 years have received more from a so-called free trade government than they are going to receive this year, and next from a so-called protectionist government. That is an anomaly that is worthy of being pointed out, and I regret that in this respect I do not agree with the budget speech that has been delivered. When a man is drowning is not the time to investigate; it is the time to save, and after that, if you wish, to find out how he got there, make inquiry. Do not wait 'while he drowns, but lend him a helping hand. If the iron and steel trade require reasonable bounties, as I believe they do, in my judgment they should be granted now', and after the Tariff Commis-

sion have made their inquiry, if it is found that they do not need this assistance, they can be taken away. How much would it have taken? According to the ' Monetary Times,' it would have taken about $2,000,000 a year. That is a very small matter,, and it may be said1 that it means very little to the industries of the country. But I would point out that it is an indication, to a certain extent, of the forces that are in control at the present time of the trade of Canada, and I quite agree that the present government were elected very largely because they were supposed to be a protectionist government.
That is my view, that is the doctrine that I preached on the hustings, and that is what I say here. I am not ashamed to own that I am a protectionist, and that I have been consistently a protectionist for thirty years past. I was brought up as a business man, I have made a special study of tariffs and business matters, and when I speak to you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of this House, I speak as a business man not desiring particularly to make any political capital at the expense of any one else, but with a true desire to look at what I believe to be the best interests of Canada in all respects, and to all classes. Remember, I am not a protectionist for the manufacturer any more than I am for the agriculturist. I know that an hon gentletnan across the way will say that you cannot) protect the agriculturist, but if he comes down to our town, or to our part of the province of Ontario, I can show him that the farmer is protected there. I can show him that the farmer of Ontario is protected to-day. He knows it and, further, he appreciates it. The farmers of Ontario at the last general election voted in very large measure for the return of this government to power, because they realised that the home market was their best market, and that it was for their welfare that it should be retained.
I also desire to call the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance to the very large excess of imports over exports at the present time. I look upon that as a danger point. No less a financial authority than Sir B. E. Walker of Toronto, drew attention to it in his recent report to the shareholders of the Bank of Commerce. He says that is a danger point, and I think that in a country such as Canada, with natural resources such as she has, it requires no explanation to show that when you import, as you did last year, $472,000,000, and only export $297,000,000, there is something wrong. That is a difference of $175,000,000 between imports and exports, and that balance, for the most part, has to be settled by cash. Last year, in the trade between Mr. COCKSHUTT.
Canada and the United States, it took $165,000,000 in cash to settle the balance of trade. The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), who has just spoken, told us that it is broader markets that we are perishing for, that it is wider markets that we are suffering for, and he goes on to figure out that the western country has lost $10,000,000 by reason of reciprocity not being put into force as it would have been, according to the hon. gentleman, by the late government. I want him to make all fair deductions from that, and if he does he will find that he has a large balance on the other side, and I can show it. That reciprocity agreement did not cover grain only; it covered animals and their products, vegetables and fruits and almost every conceivable product of the farm. The hon. member for Edmonton figures out that we lost about $10,000,000 this year because we did not adopt reciprocity in so far as western grain is concerned. Let me tell him what would have happened in Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces. You have in these provinces one and a half million cattle, and the figures produced during the discussion of the subject proved that on cattle alone you would have had a loss of $10 a head, as compared with the value in the United States. It was figured that there would be a loss of $10 per head on milch cows, $5 to $10 per head on young cattle, and $2 to $3 per head on sheep. On cattle and sheep, Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces would have lost double the $10,000,000 if reciprocity had been adopted, that the hon. gentleman estimates was lost by the people of the western country on account of the refusal to adopt reciprocity. Has he no sympathy with the farmers of the east? Ontario is doing a little farming still, Ontario contains as many farmers yet as the whole of the three new provinces of the west, and Ontario for the past three years has grown more products upon its farms than have been grown in the three great western provinces. I am saying that with no disrespect to the west, but I want the hon. member for Edmonton to have a little more desire to equalize things than he appears to have, and not be ready to sacrifice the farmers of the east for the sake of the farmers of the west.
There must be give and take in this matter, and I say to the hon. member that we saved the farmers of Canada when we turned down reciprocity. If there ever was a gold brick that came down the pike, it was that reciprocity gold brick that my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) has advocated. Reciprocity was discussed in this House of Commons for six months, and I read the speeches, and high prices for the farmer was the cry that rang from one end of the Liberal benches to the other. But, when

these gentlemen got out on the hustings of Ontario, their crop was: Cheap food for the workingman. Oh, what a fall was there, from high prices for the farmer to cheap food for the working man, and so to-day wTe have in this House the hon. member from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), and the labour member from Montreal (Mr. Verville) both on the same side of the House and each advocating, an entirely different policy. But, from this side of the House, comes a policy which benefits all classes in this country; protection for both these great interests, protection for the agricultural industry and protection for manufacturing enterprises. That is the policy that has built up Canada in the past, and that is the policy that will make Canada great in the future. Reciprocity with the United States was turned down because it was a gold brick and everybody in our district knew it, and we discussed it fairly and squarely. We showed the people exactly where they would be at if they voted for reciprocity, and the farmers from one end of Ontario to the other said: We don't want any of your reciprocity; we appreciate our home markets. We were told to-night by one hon. gentleman of the opposition that it is the middleman that is causing all the trouble and that he steps in between the farmer and the consumer of the farm produce, and keeps the farmer from getting the high prices he otherwise would. Well, let me tell that hon. member what happens in my own town. I live in the city of Brantford, which has a population of about twenty-five thousand, and which, I think, is about equal to the population of the city of Edmonton. We don't make quite as much blow, and you don't hear as much about us, but we are there all the same, and I think we are producing more than does the city whence the hon. member (Mr. Oliver) comes. I may claim at all events that the city of Brantford is at least the equal of the city of Edmonton, although it is true we are content with a hundred dollars a foot for our real estate, while the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) would ask a thousand dollars a foot for real estate in his city. At all events, we have built up in the city of Brantford with great trouble and care a body of skilled labour, represented by six thousand five hundred workingmen who have been trained in their business. And with great capital and with skilled labour a great manufacturing industry has been established in the heart of an agricultural district such as Brant county is. Let me tell the hon. member how we do business in Brantford, and then he will see that the farmer gets full price for his products and that no middleman intervenes. We have a market square occupying about two acres in the centre of the city, and on
Saturday morning there are from three hundred to five hundred farmers with their wagons around that square, and these wagons are filled with the products of the farm. The workingman from the factory marches up to the farmer's wagon, laden with eggs, butter, meats of all kinds, poultry, vegetables and fruit, and he buys direct from the farmer who produces, and the money that is paid goes directly into the farmer's pocket. Is not that the right system; is not that cooperation between the country and the city? And let me tell the hon. member further, some of the prices that have obtained right in the city of Brantford under these conditions this winter: eggs have brought for the last two months from forty cents to fifty cents a dozen direct from the farmer; butter has brought from thirty cents to forty cents a pound; potatoes have brought from one dollar and fifty to two dollars a bag and so on with the other products of the farm sold direct from the farmer to the workingman, and no middleman about it. And, Mr. Speaker, what is the result:	The farmer is
prosperous and the workingman is happy and living well and enjoying himself and getting good wages in an occupation that suits him well. The workingman is saving money and the farmer is saving money, and these conditions prevailed last summer during the election campaign and, therefore, the farmers of Brant county and the workingmen in Brantford decided to let well enough alone, and they did let it alone with a vengeance; and a city that has been usually Liberal gave me almost one thousand majority, a thing I never dreamed of and never expected to see. These were the conditions that prevailed not only in Brant county but throughout the province of Ontario, and instead of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) wondering how it was all done, if he had kept up another month or two with the style of argument he has put up to-night and which was put up during the campaign, there would not have been even thirteen members from the province of Ontario. What a tumble it was from high prices for the farmer to cheap food for the workingman. The first man to make the leap from the high prices for the farmer to cheap food for the workingman was the late member the hon. Mackenzie King, who prepared the figures for the government to prove that the American market was going to be a bonanza, but as soon as he saw the figures he flopped over and he took every one with him who could be stampeded, and the ' Expositor,' the Liberal newspaper, and the ' Expositor ' man who was the candidate against me went with him in the jump. Then, instead of talking high


An hon. MEMBER.: What about barley?


William Foster Cockshutt: They export barley. They may not export No. 1 malting barley, but they export barley. They export potatoes, they export wheat, they export oats, they export cattle, sheep, horses, butter, cheese and all the products of the dairy. Probably, I might include flax as an export from the United States, but that may be questionable as it depends on their requirements at home, and some years they export it and some years they do not. But, take almost every product of the farm and you will find that the American is an exporter.


An hon. MEMBER.: Including hay.


William Foster Cockshutt: Yes, including hay. The Americans export every -class of vegetables, and in the city of Brantford, which is in the heart of an agricultural district, we are eating products of the American farms that have paid 30 per cent duty. Irish potatoes, I understand, have reached Ottawa, paying 30 per cent. Butter has reached here from the Antipodes; mutton Mr. COCKSHUTT.
has come from the Antipodes; eggs have come from Russia, China and Japan. And yet these gentlemen are teding us that we are pining and dying for broader markets, when they cannot look after the markets right here at our own doors.


Frank Oliver: Will the hon. gentleman tell the House, if the agreement had been passed and the duties on the articles he has mentioned had been taken off, would that have increased or decreased the cost of living in Canada?


Mr. THOBURN.: Would it have increased the price to the farmer?


William Foster Cockshutt: I think that in some lines it would have decreased the cost of living at certain times of the year; but I want to say further that we in the city, realizing the climatic conditions in this country, knowing the difficulties that our farmers have in producing their stuff in the cold weather, are ready to pay a fair price so as to give them a profit in order to remain on the land. My hon. friend will see eggs coming from the United States, where the chickens run free all winter, and compete with eggs laid by hens in a pen artificially heated and where every bit of food has to be provided. Is that a fair proposition? My hon. friend would admit the vegetables grown by negro labour in the southern states at this time of the year when our vegetables have to be grown under glass. He would have our vegetable producer, who has to heat his hothouse with' coal at $7 or $8 a ton, compete with southern labour, which can grow vegetables in the open air. I would be prepared to meet my hon. friend before any audience of farmers, and I would make him take back many of the arguments he has put forward to-night.


Frank Oliver: If my hon. friend will permit me, I want to say most distinctly that my policy is free food, so long as we can get free markets for the food we export.


William Foster Cockshutt: My policy in opposition to that is to give every man a chance to live, and live well. I know that in Canada industry cannot thrive without protection, that the Ontario farmer cannot thrive as he is thriving without protection; and if my hon. friend does not know that, he ought to know it before he undertakes to speak for the farmers of Canada. What does the proposition of my hon. friend mean? It means that not only the products of the United States, of which there are hundreds of millions in excess every year, but the products of Russia, of China, of Japan, of Norway, of Sweden, of Denmark, of Australia, of New Zealand, Argentina, and other parts of the world, would be dumped in Canada to compete against those of our farmers, and without a single conces-

ision from those countries. If there ever was a jug-handled proposition if there ever was a policy propounded by men whom Providence led on . to destruction, it was the policy propounded by the Laurier government. We are sorry for the two old gentlemen who went to Washington and came back with that gold brick, and we are sorry for the men who sent them; but if they were foolish enough to take so foolish a course, we say now gentlemen take your medicine, and the longer you hammer away at reciprocity, the longer you will stay on that side of the House. We are glad to have you talk reciprocity, and we will meet you all along the line on every argument you can make. There is not a single argument in the whole list with regard to which we cannot justify a protective policy for Canada. The hon. gentleman's party were in the government for 15 years, during which they came very near to practising die National Policy, and wherever they deflected from that policy they made a mistake. Now, I am not speaking at random. Let me give two instances. When the hon. gentleman's party came into power there were flourishing in Canada twelve barbed-wire factories. They had not been in office two years before they removed the duty on barbed-wire, and since then for years there has not been one pound of barbed-wire manufactured in Canada. Take hinder twine, of which there are two industries struggling in Brantford at present. The hon. gentleman's party took the duty off binder twine. I am not discussing whether or not that was an act of wisdom; but I am showing how reciprocity of that kind works. The price of binder twine went up, and all the twelve factories but three are now gone. Of these three factories, one that had $3,000,000 capital has cut it down to $1,000,000, and the other two are struggling for life, and may not last until the Tariff Commission comes to their relief.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Foster Cockshutt: Hon. gentlemen laugh. They have laughed before it was time to laugh. They are a good deal in the position of the Irishman who was handed a shillelah. He asked, 'What shall I do with this? This man who gave it to him said, ' Wherever you see a head, hit it.' That is what hon. gentlemen opposite would like to do: wherever they see a struggling industry, they want to hit it on the head-why should it flourish? If it loses money, they do not say anything, but let it go; but if it is making money, it is a mark for the shillelah of our hon. friends. The hon. member for Edmonton since last September has repeated at least a thousand times some of the expressions he has given utterance to to-163
night. I am within the mark when I say that he has repeated the words * mergers, combines and trusts,' at least a thousand times. Has he destroyed one of them? No, but he is doing his best to destroy his party. He is doing his utmost to raise the west against the east. He is telling us in the east that we have no problems that should have attention. The hon. gentleman forgets that Canada is more than a mere province or a city like Edmonton. We wish Edmonton every success; we are proud of it. I visit it with great satisfaction. I do not know whether or not my hon. friend has spent in the west more than I have if he has, I would be surprised to hear it. My interests are bound up in the west as much as those of my hon. friend, and I would not lift my finger to injure any western interest. I trust that I am too broad a man to endeavour to have a policy which' would be good only for my town or my riding, and would let the rest of the country go to the dogs. I hope, as the years go by, that my hon. friend will take a broader view of this country, that he will consider what it is from the Atlantic to the Pacific, that he will not forget our brethren down by the sea, who are men of the right stock, and who, if they have done nothing else, have given to the west some of the very best blood that it has to-day. A country that can raise such men is worth keeping. We have not been inimical to the interests of the maritime provinces. We have scarcely had an opportunity to get a man to settle in the eastern provinces.


Frank Oliver: To what industry was the hon. gentleman referring in the maritime provinces?


William Foster Cockshutt: Agriculture particularly. I think my hon. friend is rejoicing in the disappearance of the iron and steel bounties. He certainly approved of that course, and this emphasizes my fear with regard to it, because I always shun anything that my hon. friend endorses. I am sure I am on the right track if I am opposed to the hon. gentleman. That is the reason I feel so sure. The iron and steel bounties are of great importance to Nova Scotia, I think even some of his1 own political friends will endtorse that. For 15 years the hon. gentlemen himself endorsed these bounties when his government gave them. Now he congratulates the country because these bounties have disappeared as soon as the late government are out of power, and he is willing to sacrifice Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Quebec, because he thinks this little $2,000,000 that is going to be saved to the pockets of Canada is far more important than that these industries should go on and flourish. He is not so slow to commit us to large ex-



penditures when he thinks they will be of any advantage to himself or his part of the country. I understand1 he has both hands up for the Hudson Bay railway. We certainly have an overflowing treasury, and I think that this is a time for expansion, but there are many of us in the east who have our misgivings as to the propriety of rushing ahead with that road.


Frank Oliver: The west is going to pay for that road, and is not asking the east for any money for it.


William Foster Cockshutt: I had not heard of that. How is the west proposing to pay for it?


Frank Oliver: By the sate of land.


William Foster Cockshutt: The non. gentleman says the people of the west are proposing to take all the risk with regard to it. Of course if they are building the road with their own money all well and good'. I thought it was to be for the general advantage of Canada, and that the expense would come out of the general funds of the country. The hon. gentleman admits that he asks the government to assume the control and operation of terminal elevators, which would involve an enormous expenditure. I hold up both hands for all matters of that kind that will help the west, but if $2,000,000 is going to save industries in the east, and my hon. friend1 wants $20,000,000 or $30,000,000 or $50,000,000 for the west, does be not think it would be rather kind of him to allow us to spend a million or two in the east if we spend $10,000,000 or $20,000,000 at his behest for the benefit of the west? I do not know if the hon. gentleman would go that far with me or not, but I trust he will, and I trust he will admit that these things which affect the east should be encouraged as well as those things which affect the west. But I shall not pursue the hon. gentleman in that course any further.
I have talked on reciprocity. I have shown you the reasons we turned it down, and1 turned it down hard, and we showed the people of the province of Ontario a more excellent way. My hon. friend may say what do you mean, you denied us access to the markets of the United States which were already overflowing with all the products of all kinds that Canada could possibly send to them. We have had something else in mind besides that when we turned down reciprocity. We said to our friends in Ontario that we believed reciprocity was dangerous from a material, a National and an Imperial standpoint. In a material sense we proved our case up to the hilt to the satisfaction of the farmer and the working man. Then we took the Mr. COCKSHUTT.
national view, and we said that reciprocity would strike a staggering blow at confederation, because when the Dominion was formed one of the conditions of the union was the construction of railways to run east and west in order to bring the provinces into' touch, and to secure the flowing of trade east and west between them. My hon. friend wants to stop all that, to take the wheels off those railways running east and west, and to rim his into the United States which is already flooded with these products. What would that have meant? The diversion of the carrying trade of the great west into New York, Boston and {Portland. These ports would handle the traffic that should have gone from our own Atlantic and Pacific ports,


Michael Clark: Would my hon. friend tell me how he can possibly make out that the railways running north and south would have taken our products to a place which is already flooded with them?


William Foster Cockshutt: I think the proposition is dead easy and I am sorry my hon. friend has not been able to see it. He comes from a country where they do not see things quite as quickly as we do in Canada. The products of the northwest would flow in at say North Portal into Illinois, Dakota and Minnesota, and the same products would flow out over the American roads through Boston, Portland, and New York. The hon. gentleman may ask how I know that. The American statistics show that they are exporting from all these ports every item that we could send into the United States. They might eat a little Canadian grain but then they would have all the more American grain to export. Every bushel of wheat thar entered the United States from the Northwest territories, would displace a bushel of American wheat to go to the markets of Europe to compete with us in the great British market which we at present enjoy. These hon. gentlemen have built up a beautiful theory. They say: Broader markets, what we want is beautiful broad markets.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend says that because the United States exports wheat there is therefore no market in the United States for Canadian wheat. Does the hon. gentleman say the same thing in regard to ploughs?


William Foster Cockshutt: In regard to a certain kind of plough yes, if you make the best plough in the world you will get a few into the United States. Let me tell my hon. friend that this is a free country and if he thinks there is money in making ploughs I invite him to go into the business. I think he will soon conclude that

No. 1 Hard wheat is a better proposition than plough making. He will be quiie welcome. We have no monopoly, it is an open free market for everyone who wants to come in, and if my hon. friend says he wants to enter the competition, all right. I say that if the United States has a surplus of produce, then for every bushel of Canadian wheat that is sent in there and consumed by the American people there is a bushel more of American grain to export. A blind man can see that proposition. A market which is full cannot be more than full, and the United States is replete with every class of foodstuffs produced at first hand, in many cases cheaper than we can produce them. Why? Climatic conditions are at the root of the situation and I say that the farmer who with great difficulty raises early lambs in this country in artificially heated barns is entitled to receive for those lambs a higher price than the man who raises lambs in Alabama or Texas where they can run out in grass all the year round and require no hand feeding.
And you ask the farmers of Canada to compete with such a country as that. We are willing that the farmer shall get high prices. How high? As high as will pay him to stay upon the farm. And the workingmen of Canada are willing to pay it. Why? Because the manufacturers have been prosperous and have paid their workingmen accordingly. When the National Policy was introduced in 1878 men were getting from 85 cents to $1 a day. They are now getting $1.75 to $2 for even the cheapest labour in Canada, while artisans are making from $3 to $4 and' even $5 a day throughout this country. And the workingman knows, if my hon. friend does not, that protection has a lot to do with it.
. Now the hon. gentleman disturbed me in my argument and I wish to go on as rapidly as possible, because I have a big subject to deal with and do not wish to weary the House. I say that we turned down reciprocity, and in doing so we showed to Canada a yet more excellent way. And what is that way? Trade with the mother country on preferential rates and advantageous terms. That is what we said, and that is the secret that more than anything else destroyed the late government. We got the people of Canada to see it; even though my hon. friend does not see it yet. The former Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) came down to Simcoe, the county town adjoining my native county of Norfolk-and that was the only win he made in Ontario and he did it this way. He said to the people: They say that this reciprocity arrangement will injure the preference; don't you believe it; we are the men who gave the 163i
preference and we stand by it, and the preference cannot be hurt by this arrangement. Never was a more fallacious statement set before any audience than that if made to men who know what trade preference means. The policy of a British preference was not inaugurated by hon. gentlemen opposite as they have always claimed. I make that statement advisedly. The first preference proposed ever laid before the empire in a public way was made by the great statesman who has been lying almost at death's door this winter, Sir Charles Tupper, whose name has been a household word for so long in Canada. He was the first man to introduce ithe doctrine of preference and not the jughandled variety of preference adopted by hon. gentlemen opposite. The preference that Sir Charles Tupper and those who followed him advocated was a give and take policy, and to this I invite especially the attention of my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark). I say that the preference we advocate and we ask the people of Canada to turn to was not the jug-handled preference now in force, but a preference ir. which we would receive something for something given. What would this reciprocity have done had it been endorsed? It would have destroyed the possibility forever of having a preference arranged with the mother country such as is proposed. Everybody can see that; it is plain on the face of it-there could have been no mutual preferential arrangement with the old country if reciprocity had come into force. Why, reciprocity was aimed at that. J. J. Hill made no secret of it. He said:	Gentlemen, there is a
move on foot in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, along with Great Britain, to make a great trade compact whereby the mother country will receive from the colonies a preferential rate on the foodstuffs they have to send. Reciprocity, on the other hand, would have permitted the American wheat to come into the Canadian market free of duty. Now, can my hon. friends opposite tell me how Canadian wheat could get preferential treatment in the British market where the American wheat was coming in free, without giving the same treatment to the United States? And to give it to the United States would be to destroy the inter-imperial preference. They are looking to the idea that Canadian wheat will receive preference in the British market. And I take issue with the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) in	what he said on the
subject in this debate. I tell that hon. gentleman, and I tell any other hon. member on that side that the tariff reform movement, the empire preferential movement, i3 yet going to be the winning card-and under a Canadian Pre-

mier, too, Mr. Bonar Law. I believe that will be the fixed policy. I believe it to be a ' comer ' and that it will afford to Britain and the empire a bond such as we have never seen in the history of the world. That is the more excellent way pointed out to our northwest friends-not to trade less with the United St ites, but to trade more with the mother country. The mother country requires over 180,000,000 bushels of imported wheat-more than the northwest is yet able to supply. And the United States is getting more of that market to-day than we are. These gentlemen in England tell us that they are prepared, as soon as they get into power, to arrange a preferential agreement with Canada, New Zealand and South Africa by which the products of the farms of this country will be received into Great Britain at preferential rates. That is not an impossibility; that was practised sixty years ago. And it was a success then and will be a success in the future. I see that my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) does not appreciate that statement. But I think he will realise, if he consults the history of that period that it is quite true that there was prosperity of the empire before the Cobden days-which were intended to smash the empire; Richard Cobden made no bones about it, he said, free trade will ultimately cause a disunion of the empire; that is the doctrine he preached when he introduced free trade and broke the preference to do it. Canada had a preference in Great Britain in timber, raw products and foodstuffs. That is a well known fact of history; and before Richard Cobden appeared on the scene the empire was thriving better than it has ever done since. Let us look at the picture there to-day, and I say this with the deepest sympathy. Every man in this House regrets from the bottom of his heart the affliction that has fallen upon the mother country during the last two weeks, where upwards of a million miners are on strike and most of the industrial concerns of the country are closing down. I say our hearts go out in sympathy to them in their affliction; we realize that Great Britain is in the throes of great trouble. But we are ready to stand by the same policy that we have proposed for twenty-five years past if I understand aright. I understand that this government is recognized as a government that has an Imperial policy, and I say that now is the time to bring that policy to the front. And that is the reason, more particularly, why I speak to-night. I say, I pin my faith to the union of the British Empire- union in trade and union in defence. And we cannot bring that about too soon. That is the reason why the United States was so anxious to detach Canada from the Imperial orbit. For, detach Canada and Mr. COOKSHUTT.
you break the chain. That was the idea, and J. J. Hill knew it and preached it. He said:	Now is the accepted time, now
is the time to break the chain-now, or never. But we got the people of Canada to see it; and the people of Canada did see it and said: Whether the bargain with the United States is good or not, our duty is to the mother country first and to the dominions overseas. They said that and they voted that, and the lesult is that hon. gentlemen then in power aTe on the opposition side of the House to-night. The policy announced by the Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain about ten years ago is the endorsed policy of the business men of the empire. My hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) says there is nothing to it. I am sorry he is not in the House to hear me read a resolution I have here, but he can see it in ' Hansard.' This is the businessmen's views as expressed on three different occasions in the greatest trade gatherings that have ever taken place in the British Empire. This gathering took place in Montreal, the convention of the Chambers of the Empire in 1903. And I now read the resolution that was passed, at that time:
It i9 resolved that in the opinion of this Congress the bonds of the British Empire would be materially strengthened, and the union of the various parts of His Majesty's Dominions greatly consolidated by the adoption of a commercial policy based upon the principles of mutual benefits, whereby each component part of the empire, would receive a substantial advantage in trade as a result of its national relationship, due consideration being given to the fiscal needs of the component parts of the Empire.
That this Congress urges upon His Majesty's government the appointment by them of a special commission composed of representatives of Great Britain and her colonies and India to consider the possibilities of thus increasing and strengthening the trade relations between the different parts of the Empire and the trading facilities within the Empire, and with foreign countries.
Now, that resolution was passed by a very large vote of picked business men of the whole empire that went to London in 1906, where, convened with the majority of the British Chamber of Commerce, (they passed a similar resolution in the heart of the empire. Three years ago they went to Australia, my hon. friend from Montreal (Mr. Ames) and myself being Canadian delegates, and in Sydney they again passed a Jsimilar resolution. So three times over a congress of the Chambers of Commerce of the empire has decided that an empire combination in behalf of trade is what is wanted. That is my policy. I have advocated that policy for 25 years, and I am advocating it here to-night. I say that is what will give a better price

to our farmers and our workingmen. The United States wishes also to become a parftaker in the benefits of that polidy which will give the Northwest a great deal more money for its wheat. The British market is the market that pays the beat, because Great Britain requires an immense amount of that kind of stuff from this side of the world. She is naturally inclined to trade with Canada to the best advantage, and it is natural that she would be more generous toward her own children than to strangers. That is a policy of empire preference. 1 believe that ere long we will see Great Britain and her colonies united in one confederation for the benefit of the whole empire, co-operating entirely in trade and defence. When that happy day comes I believe we will have accomplished the greatest work the world has ever known in empire building. We will never be united as we should be until that combination is complete. We wish to see the British workingman for his own sake receive the same benefit that the workingman in Canada receives. We are sorry to-day for these coal miners. I think if there is one class in the community with whom we should sympathize more than another, it is the coal miner who has to leave the world of light and go down in the bowels of the earth, and at the risk of his life delve and dig there in order that we might be kept warm through the winter. I say our hearts go out in sympathy to him, we think it is a pity he is not better paid in the mother country; we realize that they want something in the shape of protection, so that the employing classes may be able to pay better wages. In the words of a miner's song:
Mammon i9 the master and man is the slave.
Toiling for wealth on the brink of the grave
Leaving the world of sunlight and sound
For the darkmes of night and a silence profound.
For the man that delves in the coal mines our hearts go out in sympathy. And if we could1 send a sympathetic message to Great Britain that we are prepared to stand by her, to make a bargain with her to lock our trade with her own, and our business interests with hers, we would be doing something great and grand that would redound to the credit of Canada, and I trust the time is not far distant when we shall take that step. I sympathised1 thoroughly last night with the member for South York (Mr. Maclean), who spoke on the naval question, I sympathise with him in that respect as well as on the trade question. I know that this is not the occasion to dwell on that subject, but I may say that if we are true Britishers we shall see to it that in
trade and defence we will give the best we have, the best help, and the best consideration to the mother country, and to the sister colonies of Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa in every respect that we can.
Now, Sir, I have spoken longer than I intended. So far as I am concerned, I stand for a policy that will build up every interest and' every part of Canada. I do not want to see the east built up at the expense of the west, nor the west built up at the expense of the east. 1 want to see the west and the east stand by one another like brothers, that is the way 1 feel, and if at any time anybody has ever drawn any other construction from my remarks he has done me an injustice. I stand as firmly in my desire for the welfare of the west as for the welfare of the east. I have a son of my own in the west, I have interests in the west, and I am just as heartily desirous of the success of the west as I am of the east. But I say we must have a give and take policy in this matter, we must stand together to develop the country. One part cannot grow without assisting the other. We must be united in a policy of development, in a policy that will be not a hindrance to any parr, but a policy of co-operation, giving earnest heed for the welfare of every part of this vast country.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: First of all I wish to congratulate the Minister of Finance on the very systematic and capable way in which he presented his budget speech. I would like to say first of all that I quite agree with him that railway subsidies should not be charged to capital account, but to consolidated fund account; I think the former Minister of Finance also expressed the same view. I remember that I had the privilege of saying so once before. I certainly congratulate the country that in 1910-11 we had a surplus of $30,000,000 in round figures, and an increase in the debt, after paying a large amount towards the Transcontinental, of only $3,773,000. I congratulate the country at-large, and more especially I think the late government, on the surplus that is shown for the financial year of 1911-12, being sufficient not only to pay all the expenses under consolidated fund account, but also the large amount that had to be paid towards the Transcontinental railway, and in implementing the bonds of that railway in the west, leaving an amount to apply on public debt of $1,150,000. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance said that he thought, and I agree with him, that to the energy and perseverance of the Canadian people is due the splendid showing he was able to make. I quite agree with


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Pardon me, the hon. member for Dundas (Mr. Broder) told the member for Edmonton to-night that our late Minister of Agriculture had not done his duty towards agriculture in the older provinces, in that he neglected to see that, the

farmers raise4 large families and kept them on the land. He told us also that houses should be built for the hired men on the farms, and he promised that the present Minister of Agriculture was going to see to it that the farmers of Ontario especially would raise large families, keep them on the land, and build houses for their working men.


Andrew Broder: The hon. member (Mr. Nesbitt), has misstated1 my remarks.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I regret if that is so, but that is the way I understood my hon. friend (Mr. Broder).


Andrew Broder: You are quite wrong.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Anyway, the suggestion is an excellent one.


Andrew Broder: I simply referred to the fact that it would be wise to build houses for the hired men and let them raise their families, so as to solve the domestic help question.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I do not know that it would be wdse for the government to undertake to build houses for the -farm labourers of Ontario.


Andrew Broder: You are misquoting me again; I said the farmers themselves should do that.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Well, I think that is a very good idea. For the last ten years 1 have been urging on our farmers at home that the best way to solve the hired man problem was to build houses for them, hire them by the whole year, and keep good men when they got them.
In my experience the farm hand that we get from the old country is not at all equal to our own native product. The native-born is the man for me every time, while I find no fault with the immigrants from the old land some of whom make excellent hands. The farmers themselves can remedy the trouble very materially by building houses on their farms and hiring their hands for the year instead of for eight months, and letting them for the rest of the time go idle or go to the towns to swell the ranks of the unemployed there. Agriculture, we are told, is flourishing. I am glad to say that it flourished throughout Ontario last year, though as a matter of fact the crop was not much more than half the usual crop.
I note from the minister's speech that there are to be no changes in the tariff. As my hon. friend from Edmonton points out, while our hon. friends have been finding fault with the late government for the last fifteen years, they have not seen fit this year to change the tariff in any way. They are going to wait for the report of that wonderful Tariff Commission that is Mr. NESBITT.
going to do so much for the people of this country. I was surprised, however, that there were not some changes made. For instance, take the cement tariff. Cement is used by nearly every farmer and workingman in this country. An enormous quantity of cement is used by the farmers of Ontario. I understand that there is a Cement Combine. I am not complaining of that. I am complaining, however, that the duty on cement should be retained to the detriment of the farmer and the workingman. The workingman, if he has a home of his own, wants cement to build sidewalks to it. To the farmer cement is almost as much a necessity as food and clothing. I was surprised, therefore, that there was no intimation of an intention on the part of this government to reduce the duty on cement. Some people say that cement is no dearer in Canada than it is (in the United States. As a matter of fact, it is selling at $1.20 in Buffalo and at $1.75 in Woodstock, Hamilton and Brantford. The cement business in this country is thoroughly established, it does not need protection as an infant industry, and therefore, there is no reason why the farmers of Canada should not have been given a reduction of the duty on cement. Then, take the item of potatoes. With the price at which potatoes have been for the last four months there is no reason why hon. gentlemen opposite should not have passed an order in council remitting the duty on potatoes for a period, as they did on coal going into the west last year. I think it has been a crime to charge the poor man, or even the rich or reasonably well-off man, the duty on potatoes during the last four months. There has been no object in doing so, because we have not had potatoes for sale; we have been importing them from Ireland, from the United States and from other countries.
Now, my hon. friend from Brantford was very enthusiastic over the bounties on steel and iron. He said the late government had continued those bounties for the last 15 years. As a matter of fact, I think they were originated by the friends of the present government before the late government came into power; but we continued them and perhaps increased them. As far as I am personally concerned, I do not think the late government should have given those bounties; but in their wisdom they gave them to the iron and steel industry while it was in its infancy, and as soon as they thought that industry had grown up and was able to support itsed, they did away with the bounties. It was i ot the present government that did so. Everybody thought they were going to put on the bounties again, but apparently they dare not do so, and personally I am very pleased that this is the ease. We heard a great deal from the hon. member for

Brantford about the balance of trade, about our importing more than we export. I am not worrying about that; it shows the prosperous condition of the country. It is like a man starting in business. Before he can start he must necessarily put in a plant and equipment. The balance of trade is all against him at the start. We are oqly organizing (this country. We have grown enormously in the last 15 years. The consequence is that we have been bringing from the United States and also from England, hundreds of millions of dollars1 worth of machinery to equip our factories; and we are bringing enormous quantities of supplies from the old country. This only shows that the country is prospering, and is preparing for still greater growth in the future, as we have to provide our equipment before we can be what we shall eventually become. The balance of trade is nearly all represented by the vast quantities of machinery that we are bringing in that we cannot make ourselves, to equip our factories. My hon. friend from Brantford told us in a very enthusiastic manner that his people went to the market to buy their vegetables, fruits, meats, &c. We all know that that is done ah over Ontario; every town has its market. He asks, would you allow the cheap eggs and vegetables from the Southern States to come in and compete with our eggs and vegetables? I say yes, by all means. Would you deprive the ordinary man living in the city or the town from buying vegetables simply because he cannot pay the price for those grown under glass?
That is so far as vegetables are concerned, and as for eggs, what benefit do oar farmers get from eggs being 40 cents a dozen. When eggs are at that price there is not one in a hundred who has any eggs for sale; but when eggs come down to 20 cents and 25 cents a dozen, as they are now and have been for the last two weeks, the farmers get some benefit because they have some for sale. If vegetables go up to a high price because they are grown under glass and the ordinary residents of our towns cannot afford to buy them, does that benefit the farmers? Is that not. a, great disadvantage to the workingman? Because a darkey grows them down in Georgia, should we deprive the workingman of the benefit of being able to get potatoes and fresh vegetables in our towns and cities? What harm would that do to the potatoes or the vegetables? Yet you deprive the workingman of them. My hon. friend says that we told1 the people that under reciprocity the farmer was going to be benefited' and the workingman would get his goods cheaper. We heard that illustrated to* nteht. Mv hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) showed you by figures that
were undeniable that while the raw production was dearer, the food for the family was cheaper in the United States, the farmer there got more for it. Take the figures for any part of the United States, and! you will find that the farmer does getj *more for his raw material 'and that the workingman gets his meat 'and his vegetables cheaper because the price to somebody is less. I have no fault to find with the middleman. We have got to have middlemen, but there is reason in all things, and there is no reason why eggs should be purchased for 30 cents from the farmer and1 sold at 50 cents to the consumer. At the same time, while there may have been a few eggs sold at Brantford for 40 and 50 cents a dozen, Brantford is too near Woodstock to have such a difference, as the farmers from near Woodstock would go to Brantford to get such prices, and there were no eggs sold in Woodstock this winter at over 35 cents a dozen. Even then, who got the benefit, how many were sold? One woman could carry them all on her arm, because how many people are there in Woodstock who could afford to pay 35 cents or 40 cents a dozen for eggs? My hon. friend may say that there were more people in' his ' town than in some other town able to afford such prices, but I doubt it.
As my hon. friend from Edmonton says, we would have benefited the great west in allowing them to ship their grain. What nonsense to say that because the United States is an exporting country it could not absorb this western grain. He has told you that we built railways connecting the provinces; and that if we allowed that grain to go to the south it would have stopped shipments over these railways. As a matter of fact, when we have the three Transcontinental railways in operation we will be just as badly off or nearly iso, iso far las the west is concerned, as we are to-day with reference to shipping facilities. What assistance has the Intercolonial railway been to the people in the west? Is it any benefit to the people in the west to see their grain rotting in. the fields or in the railway yards because we want to secure the shipment of that grain over the Intercolonial railway to the east? What harm would it have done us to have a tree market? The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), is absolutely right when he tells you that the farmers of the west during the last 15 years have been of the greatest possible benefit to the manufacturers of the east, and I heard last week of one court in one city in the west that during one week recently had issued 600 writs on farmers because they could not pay for implements, etc., shipped out there. That is a serious

state of affairs and that could have been helped1 last year as the hon. member for Edmonton claims it should have been helped. Would it not have been a grand thing for the people of the eastern country to have assisted them in 'this? It is quite true that the farmers of Ontario were not grumbling about the prices. It is not exactly correct to say that it was loyalty to Great Britain that defeated reciprocity among the farmers of Ontario. What tended to defeat reciprocity more than anything else in the world' was the fear that as we were getting good prices a change might not be beneficial, the eternal call of the British-born in our towns and cities and the appeal against the American who was too smart for us. I told the electors on the platform and I repeat tonight, that any Canadian who has so little pride as to think that the American is more clever than the Canadian in a business transaction I do not want to have as a fellow-Canadian. I have never yet seen any reason why we as a people, individually or collectively, should be afraid to put our brains up against our friends on the other side of the line. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Cockshutt) says that so far as the farmers in his section of the country are concerned, they were united against reciprocity. So far as the farmers in my section are concerned, and I think they are as good as there are in the world, they were very strongly in favour of reciprocity and they did not care a snap of the fingers about protection. They do not ask for protection; they can farm, and sell goods against the world and they are not afriad to produce goods and sell them against the world. I, as a farmer standing here to-night, just as much interested in farming as- any man in this country, according to my means, tell you that' I do not want your protection. I can farm and raise produce, whether it is sheep, pigs, cattle or grain, and, sell it against the world. Do not deceive yourselves into believing that the farmers of Ontario voted against reciprocity because they wanted protection. They voted against reciprocity becaues they were deceived by factional cries.


An hon. MEMBER.: Not so.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I tell you it is so. I know what I am talking about when
I talk of the farmers of Ontario. For there is nobody here who mixes with them more than I do, and nobody here who consults with them more than I do. And that is the way to find out. My hon. friend *j'om Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) told us that when we came into power we ruined I do not know how many factories that were in the business of making barbed Mr. NESBITT.
wire. These factories got their wire from the United States-that country that we are told is so corrupt and bad-and they twisted the barbs into it in this country. No wire was made in this country; the barbed-wire was finished here, that is all. But who got the benefit of the change? The farmers got the benefit. Hon. gentlemen opposite know that. And I dare them to-night to put a duty on barbed wire. Let them do that, and they will see how long the farmers of Ontario favour such a policy. I do not wish to see any factory ruined. Everybody knows that I am in favour of reasonable protection. But there is reason in everything; and there are times when protected industries, even in their own interest, should consider the interest of the public at large. As I have said, I dare these hon. gentlemen to put a duty on barbed-wire, whether their Tariff Commission reports in favour of it or not. And the same with binder twine. We are told that the price went up after the duty was taken off. Everybody knows that the reason for that was not the taking off of the duty, but the higher price of the raw material. The binder twine factory in Brantford to which the hon. member (Mr. Cockshutt) referred, was started by the suscriptions of the farmers. It paid the farmers 80 per cent dividend the first year; the second year 40 per cent, nothing the next year, and nothing ever since. And why? Because they made money out of the rise of price of raw material and 'sold the raw material rather than make it into binder twine.


Mr. CLEMENTS.: I believe the hon. gentleman (Mr. Nesbitt) has the Bain wagon factory in his constituency. Is he in favour of protection to that industry?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Certainly.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: Then, why not to others?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I have just said I am in favour of that. I am in favour of reasonable protection on the Bain wagon product the same as on others. And if they cannot exist with a reasonable protection, I don't want them 'to exist at all. And I do not believe the Bain wagon people do either.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: Is the hon. gentleman in favour of the present protection on wagons?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I voted for it. And the Bains voted for me and did everything in their power to elect me. And there was a reduction of the duty on wagons by the reciprocity agreement.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: Is the hon. gentleman still in favour of reciprocity?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Certainly I am. There is no man in this House more willing than I am to let every class of people in this country have a living; nobody more willing that there should be reasonable protection to manufacturers so long as they require it, while industries are in their infancy. But let me tell hon. gentlemen opposite that the day is coming when this, proposition will carry in this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: You may laugh; but it is coming. There has got to be a reduction of duties as was proposed under reciprocity. There are industries in this country that need protection, but there are other industries, and hon. gentlemen opposite know it, and none better than the Minister of Einance (Mr. White), that do not need the protection they now have. And the people pay for that protection. As I said a few minutes ago, why keep the duty on potatoes when the farmers of this country have none to sell? Why have a duty on any foodstuff? We the farmers of Ontario don't want it. We can compete; and you do not make the farmers more able to compete by a duty of 3 cents on eggs. How much barley do we in Ontario ship out except for malting purposes? We grow it only to ship out for malting purposes, because barley is not as good feed for our cattle and hogs as our other cereals that we can grow. And how much wheat do we want to sell? It has got to be in the neighbourhood of a dollar a bushel or the farmers of Ontario don't sell it; they feed it. Farming factories-that is what they are coming to be in this country. And I believe we shall see the day, when, as my hon. friend from Dundas (Mr. Broder) said, more intensive farming will be carried on in Ontario. But vve do not want your protection; that is the excuse you have for the whole system of protection; though it is not the one I make. I am perfectly frank in declaring my belief, that the infant industries of this country require a certain protection. But it should be reasonable; it should be only sufficient to allow them the difference between the cost of manufacturing in other countries and the cost of manufacturing here. And the rest should go to the consumer.
Now, I am sorry to have taken up so much time; but at least I can say that I do not often claim the attention of the House. Now, let me tell hon. gentlemen opposite once more that so far as the question that was defeated on the 21st of September is concerned, they need not hug themselves over that defeat-not a bit. That question will come again, perhaps in a new form, but it will come. There have got to be reductions of the duties on a great many things in this country, and that
within a short time, or there will be trouble.


Mr. A. BELLEMARE (Maskinonge).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, knowing the excellent disposition of the government towards the agricultural community of this country, and as a representative of a rural district, I might be allowed to make a few suggestions concerning the expansion of the agricultural industry with the hope that the representatives in this House of agricultural districts will avail themselves of the few remarks I intend to make.
I think it is high time that more effective means than those resorted to in the past should be adopted in order to improve the yield of the land under cultivation.
We are living at a time when it is on the shoulders of the farmer that fall ultimately the most onerous burdens. The task of the farmer is an arduous and difficult one. He discharges it manfully, but does he get from it the reward he is entitled to? Does he reap from his work as much as he could reasonably expect?
In almost every case, Mr. Speaker, the crop of the farmer is out of proportion with the work it has entailed. That^ is, Sir^ the true reason, why so many Canadian families have deserted the native land and settled in a foreign clime. In >a country boundless and rich as ours is, a country inhabited by a population which is sober, vigorous and hardworking, really it is a national crime to let the farmer desert the native land because he lacks the knowledge which he should have to make his farm more productive.
I shall add, Sir, that if the ignorance of certain farmers with respect to agriculture is guilty, the indifference of the rulers who, being aware of the fact, would let such an evil hold good, should be criminal. Would it be possible without incurring extraordinary expenses, to improve our agriculture and to make the position of our farmers more supportable? Why yes, by means of school farmers, and though somewhat costly, those schools would mean invaluable advantage to the farmer.
I have received, a few days ago, a booklet on agriculture; this work was written by one of our compatriots who has studied different systems of school farmers abroad, and especially in France and in Belgium. Here is what I find in it, among other things;	i
There is in operation, in the country districts of France and Belgium,, an admirable ' instrument ' of agricultural education and instruction. It is not too complicate and it is rather easy to copy. The representatives of the Department of Agriculture are directed to buy or to merely rent, in a commune, a farm intended to vulgarize such methods of farming as are most profitable to the district. That farm is known as the school farm or


Mr. EOOH LANCTOT (Laprairie-Napier-ville).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take part in the debate at this late hour of the night, but the hon. member for Maskinongd (Mr. Bellemare) has just -given me the opportunity of making a few remarks. He stated, first, that the present government is well disposed towards the farming community. I am glad of it, and I would like the government to show what they can do.
The hon. members who have preceded me addressing the House in English, have dealt practically but with our financial situation. I would like to say a few words about reciprocity. It has been said that reciprocity was now a dead issue. I assert the contrary. I maintain that reciprocity is a live question at least in the countv of Laprairie-Napiervi-lle which I represent here.
In the last electoral contest the electors did not vote on reciprocity, but on the navy question which our opponents took advan-Mr. BELLEMARE.
tage of everywhere. The electors would say: Well, we are in favour of reciprocity, but we must first decide this famous navy question.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, our opponents said that should the Laurier government be defeated the navy would be nomore a question. But' I see that it is a question to-day just as it was before, and I am very much afraid that it shall grow too big and that the electors of the province of Quebec shall find it more dreadful in the future than they did previous to the 21st of September,
- It was evident that reciprocity would have been profitable to the farming community, and I say so without -fear of being *contradicted. I-n all the public meetings ivdhich were held during the last general elections our opponents said-in order to scare the people-that the farming community would have to compete on the local market against the natural products of twelve nations which were favoured by the treaties. And they added: you have the English -market, then you have no need of the United States market, send the surplus of your products to England. We are perfectly awa-re of the fact that the natural products of all the countries in the world are admitted in England duty free. For my part, I fail to see why we should have dreaded the competition of those twelve favoured countries on our own market, since we would have had to compete with them on the English market.
As the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), has said, we are not afraid to compete with any other country or on any market in the world, with respect to our agricultural products. To my mind, all the difficulty arises from the fact that the foreign markets are difficult for us to reach owing to customs duties which, in many a case, are practically prohibitive. It is admitted that the farmer nearest to a market is the one who derives the most benefit from it, provided there is no such obstacle as -customs duty. For instance, the United States government, by imposing $4 duty per ton on Canadian hay, keeps it away -from the market of that country; and those $4 -duty _ must be added to what it costs for carrying that hay to destination. All this contributes to keeping us away from that market.
During the last electoral campaign T [DOT]happened to make a comparison which seemed very clear to ine. I took, as an illustration, a Manitoba, a Saskatchewan or an Alberta farmer who shipped a car load of oats to the '.Montreal market, and I compared his case with the case of a farmer in any country who also shipped a -carload of oats to Montreal. In the first instance the cost of transportation should be $150, whereas in the second instance it would amount to $12 only. Then I asked

my auditors; is it mot true that western farmers could not compete witlh the farmer in Laprarie ? Therefore, the quality of the product being the same, the only question is the cost of transportation; the producer who is nearest to 'the market is the one who derives the most benefit from it.
The United States government, by imposing $4 duty on hay, keeps us away from the Boston and the New York markets and from the New England markets so as to *favour the farmers of the 'Western States. That duty then, keeps us away from those markets,. although we have the advantage of distance. I say, therefore, that this or any other government must, one day or other, make that reciprocity treaty which the farmers of any county, and I might say, of the whole country, are loudly asking for.
When the hon. member for North Toronto, now the Minister of Commerce (Mr. Foster), criticised the budget speech last year I listened to him with close attention. He said that it was almost a crime for the government of Canada to levy $72,000,000 as customs duties, which represented he said, $10 to $11 per head of the population. In fact, that was a good deal of money. And great was my surprise when I heard that same member declare later on, when he spoke against the reciprocity treaty in this House, that everything was satisfactory and that we should let well enough alone. If it was a crime to collect $72,000,000 as duties last year I say that the late government intended to remedy that evil by reducing the duties on our imports from other countries. In fact, is it not true that by a reciprocity treaty with the United States, the farmers of our country would have made a gain of about $5,000,000 which they pay over to the United States to-day as duties? The duties paid on goods imported into Canada or on those of our products which exported to the United States mean no profit for anybody except for the public chest of each of the two countries
It is stated that the duties are paid by the -consumer. Su-ch is -not always the case. In many instances-, the vendor has to suffer because the price of the products that he ships is affected not only by the cost of transportation, but also in proportion of the duties imposed. Having done business with people in New York for the last twenty years as a dealer in hay, I have some notions on this subject. When I ship a carload of hay to New York I must calculate, first, the cost of transportation, then the customs duties and, finally, my agent's commission. I would be in a position to pay a higher price to the farmer had I no duty to pay, and that duty would exist no more if we had had reciprocity with the United States. Such is the case with all the ordinary business of this life. To reach Montreal the inhabitants of my
-county -pass on the Victoria bridge. Formerly, they used to pay 80 cents for every carriage, to-day they only pay 25 cents for a two-horse carriage and 15 cents for a one-horse carriage. Shall a farmer who goes from -my county to	Montreal
with a load of -potatoes, of tomatoes *or other vegetables, i dispose of his products at a higher price because he paid to cross the riv-er on the bridge or on a boat, while the farmer who lives on the Montreal Island-in Laval or in Jacques-Cartier, for instance-has paid nothing and will come and take a place right at his side at the market, with the same kind of products for sale? Certainly not. When he is back at home in the evening he calculates the result of his journey, deducting, of course, from the amount received, -all he had to pay on the bridge or on the boat, and for his dinner, whereas the farmer from Laval will have to deduct nothing but what his dinner may have cost him.	. j; -| |
In the last campaign, especially in La-prairie, the reciprocity question was not decided on its own merits. My opponent who called himself a Liberal, talked of the navy, but very little.did he say about reciprocity. Since the elections people ask me every day: shall we have reciprocity? No, I reply, the party that was in power and that wanted reciprocity has been defeated.
Who Mr. Speaker, has fought reciprocity most vigorously? The great financiers, millionaries and important manufacturer,s, some of which opponents, I regret to say, *are to be found in the ranks of the Liberal party. Why were manufacturers opposed to reciprocity, when we asked for a reduction of duties on natural products without-touching manufactured articles? It was feared that- the agricultural population, having tasted the siweets of reciprocity, would want unlimited reciprocity as devised by the Liberal party twenty-five years ago. The manufacturers decided that the idea must be nipped in the bud and in such a manner that it might never come up again. In my opinion the manufacturers were mistaken. The 'agricultural class representative of the population who have paid duty since 1878 on 'all they buy, is it not time that the burden of taxation should be reduced for them, especially as .they are the majority. Is if necessary that the government should favour the manufacturers to the detriment of the masses and mak-e them millionaires of whom it may be said after their death: so aind so was worth so many millions? When men lived eight or nine hundred years as in the time of Methusatem, -such fortunes might be useful, but to-day life is too short, and if a man accumulates millions in the short span alloted to him the people must suffer for it.

The_ day -will come when the mistake committed on the 21st September last will be recognized, people's eyes will be opened and we will obtain the reciprocity we desire.
It is objected that reciprocity with the United States is a step towards annexation. For my part, I traded in hay with the United States since twenty years and that has not made an American of me. However a dollar is just as useful to me if if comes from New York as if it came from London or Liverpool. I may add that if we had access to the American market, we would have three markets instead of two and reap greater commercial benefit in consequence.
It is all very well to .speak of the local market, but a large population is needed to consume all we produce and much time is required to increase that population. There is no race suicide amongst us, it is true, but the best each family can produce is one child a year and it required twenty years to make a man of him. 1 am of opinion that we should consider ourselves to some extent and not think exclusively of our children yet unborn.
I say that reciprocity must come, that the day of its coming is not far off and that when if does come it will benefit the agricultural population' and the consumer.
Mr. PAQUET (iL'Islet), Mr. 'Speaker, the hon. Finance Minister laid down very clearly yesterday the true principles of good financial administration.
The budget of 1913 comes to us as one of reform and progress, marking a new stage .on the road to financial restoration.
Laisne once gave to Mr. Villele some advice under a rough form:
A financial minister, he said should be a watch dog, lying on the national strong box.
The finance minister is following this advice and he will show us results worthy of the admirable vitality of the Canadian people.
On the evening of the 21st September some of our opponents felt anxious on account of Mr. Fielding's absence, but we know now that not only has the present finance minister (Mr. White), succeeded iMr. Fielding; he has replaced him.
Montesquieu once said: 'Certain things are accepted by the people only when unseen; as soon as they appear the people re ject them.'
During the last two sessions, on the questions of the navy and of reciprocity, the Liberal majority demonstrated the truth of the French philosopher's words. That majority, forgetful of the rights of the people, acted as if they had a general mandate and relied upon the acceptance by the public of the accomplished fact. Under Liberal rule, national representation had given way _ to uncontrolled dictatorship. The sovereignty of the people had become Mr. LANCTOT.
a farce. Our opponents thought that they had obscured the national conscience. But on the 21st September, militarism, imperialism and reciprocity went down before the rights of the people and the national policy. It was the awakening of the spirit of the nation to the necessity of protecting our national resources, our industries and our agriculture.
The lightening of the naval tax is deeply significant; the government was thus enabled to adopt manly, resolutions, and to turn earnestly towards the improvement of' agriculture and of our national highways.
The hon. member for Napierville (Mr. Lanctot) was bemoaning a moment ago the fate of the farmer. In reply to his observations I will remind him that the first words of the present right hon. Prime (Minister were:	' Now it is the farmer's
turn ' whereas the former premier required fifteen years to say such great words.
The people require commercial and financial reforms adequate to the wants and aspirations of the different classes of society. Among the nations we perceive a progressive wealth of brilliant commercial institutions. In all those countries to which extend our industrial and commercial activities we require commercial agents properly trained and informed as to our resources and our economic situation. We have such agents in several countries, but progressive Canada should insist upon more complete commercial representation in this respect. Our universities and our great commercial schools, so interested in our material and intellectual development, might furnish proper agents for this commercial and consular service. They are in a position to accomplish this national work. The Department of Trade and Commerce, now administered by a distinguished man, should be in a position to collect all useful information for the development of our trade and manufactures.
This missi dominici would transmit to the central administration a mine of accurate information. In trade with the east, with France and South America, we have not obtained our full share. I cannot sufficiently impress upon our new government the importance of opening new markets to Canadian products, while preserving to the full our administrative autonomy.
Speaking of the .commercial progress of Canada, I can never sufficiently insist upon the importance of the report of the United States immigration commission. During the fiscal year 1908-1909, 17,121 French Canadians emigrated to the United States. Odp cannot see without concern thousands of Canadian workers in the shops and factories of the United States. Their labour and their talents add to the wealth of our neighbours instead of enriching Canada.
In order to accomplish our mission in

this Canadian land, to foster the strength, prestige and power of the ancient races who civilized Canada, we need to preserve all the members of our great family.
In the interest of Canada we should keep our people here- and encourage the return of the French Canadian population so important on account of their traditions and its attachment to the faith of their ancestors.
Our new government will meet our wishes by the development of our industries fostered by a tariff policy framed to meet our needs, while favouring at the same time our agricultural progress. As a Canadian author has said: ' It is impossible to imagine a more favourable situation for the organization of a great industrial movement according to enlightened and scientific methods.'
I am gratified to find that the 'government has given its first thoughts to the farmers and the tillers of the soil, to those patriots who increase the national domain. Proper protection of the agricultural interest will diminish the exodus of farmers towards the United States and the cities.
AiS I said a moment ago, it was only after fifteen years of power that the liberal government adopted the slogan: It is now the farmers' turn.
The Conservative government seeing the depopulation of the rural districts and the deserted condition of many 'constituencies, desires to remedy the evil and render farming .attractive. The joint action of federal, provincial and municipal authorities will secure, I hope, efficient agricultural reforms. By co-operating with the provinces in the promotion of agricultural progress, the government will accomplish a work of national importance.
The administration resulting from the vote of the 21st September 1911 will be doing national work by contributing to the building of roads-, to the development of agriculture and also by extending to the older provinces the benefits of immigration.
Allow me to make a few observations con-coming the requirements -of the southeastern region of the province of Quebec. During the two last years, work on the Transcontinental in our region has not been carried on with sufficient celerity. I call upon the government in t'he interests -of colonization, of agriculture and of forest industries to hasten the termination of the construction work between Levis and Moncton.	,
Quebec is an agricultural market. On the prosperity o-f the city of Quebec -depends in a great measure the prosperity of the Eastern portion of our provinces. '
Under the active, skillful and prudent direction of the hon. Postmaster General, the interests of Quebec and of our District will be safe.	I
The government, I am sure, will hasten to provide some efficient mode of communication between Quebec and Levis in order not to p-arlayze the efficiency of the Transcontinental.
I thank the government for wishing to make of Quebec a really national port. In doing this the iGonse-rvative government responds to the wishes and requirements of ,the population of our district.
I have no intention to claim for Quebec anything detrimental to the other large -cities of this country, but I want to see the city of Champlain compete with other Canadian cities in the commercial and industrial fields.
. Mr. N. MARTIN (St. Mary's, Montreal). (Translation). Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take part in the debate, especially at this late hour, but I think I would be failing in my duty a>s one of 'the representatives of Montreal-the commercial metropolis of 'Canada-if I did not say a few words on the subject.
This evening when I was in the cars coming from Montreal, I learned by the papers that the hon. Minister of Finance had stated to the House that he has a surplus of 39 millions. He has had better luck than his predecessor, who, when taking office in 1896, found only -an -empty coffer and -even a deficit of $330,000.
In my division, I carried the last campaign almost exclusively on the question of reciprocity with occasionally some remarks on the naval policy.
In what condition was this country in 1896 and in what condition is it to-day? The country, and Montreal in particular, was in a lamentable state. The manufactories were closed, and the men were leaving for the United States. What was the jcause of all those disasters? For my part, I say that the real cause was the policy of protection inaugurated 'by the Conservative party in 1878 and that policy was that the farmers of this country should not produce any more than was required for home consumption. A time .came when the farmer having no market to which he could export his products, found himself with an over production that he was obliged to sell at any price. I remember the time when the!, 'farmer in ,'the province of Quebec was obliged to exchange his products against the country merchant's goods and at the end of the year when the time came to settle accounts there was almost nothing coming to him, that is why the sons of our farmers were leaving for the United States, their fathers being unable to give them a start at home, as they are doing to-day. A great number of our farmers were compelled to leave their farm to find work in the American manufactories during the

winter ,season to pay the mortgages on their property.
To prevent such a deplorable state of affairs the only remedy in my judgment was a policy of protection for the manufacturers and a policy of exportation for our natural products. Before 1896, the manufacturers had to curtail their output six months in the year, and to leave without employment a large number of men who had to leave the country.
That is why we had in the city of Montreal 27,000 untenanted dwellings. The building industry was paralyzed and all classes of the population suffered by it, from the lumberman in the woods to the banker in his office. Since the return of prosperity, that is to say since about fifteen years, the population of Montreal has increased by about three hundred thousand inhabitants.
What do we see to-day? The number of the manufactories are continually on the increase, the building industry is in full swing and we can see properous banks at the corner of nearly every street. Everybody seems to be in comfortable circumstances, the day labourer who earned from 80 to 00 cents a day receives to-day two dollars and $2.25 a day. The man with a good trade easy earns four and five dollars a day. I maintain that if the government persists in a policy of protection on natural products, before ten years we will return to the conditions we were in in 1896, and that will endure so long as the country produces enough to maintain a population of two or three hundred millions that we have not.
As I have said, we must have a policy tending to promote exportation of our over production in natural products, because we have not enough population to consume all that the farmers have to sell.
I do not intend to make a speech, but I can say with mv hon. friend from La-prairie, that reciprocity is not buried, it is not even dead.
If the question had been judged on its merits by the electors, if men like Messrs. Bourassa and Lavergne and their Nationalist friends had not misled the people on the naval poilicy, the Liberal party would again be in power to-day, and reciprocity would have carried the day.
As to the naval question, I didn't speak much about it to the electors of St, Mary's division. I merely went to the trouble of explaining that all those clauses that Mr. Bourassa was giving as binding clauses, were only optional. I told the electors that if the Conservative party had been in earnest on the naval policy, they would have resorted to the same tactics as they resorted to on the reciprocity treaty, that is to say, they w'ould have blocked the estimates and Mr. MARTIN (Montreal).
forced the government to go before the people on the naval policy.
To-day the electors of the province of Quebec must perceive that they have been duped. We had the proof of it when the Minister of Public Works himself told us that they had ' played the game.' I expect that before long, at the next election no doubt, the Liberal party will be returned to power. The stand taken by the government on the question of reciprocity, on the Manitoba school question, on the ' Ne Temere ' decree, has been nothing but a sham, and the electors will soon discover that the Conservatives carried many counties by false representations.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee on Ways and Means.
Progress reported.
Mr. BORDEN moved the adjournment of the House.
Mr. GRAHAM.: What business will be taken up tomorrow?


Mr. BORDEN.: Bills and resolutions on the order paper, afterwards- Supply for the Department of Marine and Fisheries. Possibly before that, we may take the Northwest Mounted Police estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.05 a.m., Friday.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 15, 1912.