1911-02-21

[Stage Direction]
Mouse of Commons Mebates

[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 21, 1911.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to ask the government what is the reason for the delay in granting flats to a number of petitions of right, I believe over thirty in all, which were asked for in the month of September and October, 1907, in regard to claims for compensation for lands taken by the commissioners for the Transcontinental railway in the county of Madawaska in the province of New Brunswick. It would appear that although these petitions of right were filed, and fiats were asked for more than three years ago, no fiat has been granted up to the present time. The right of expropriation involves a certain sacrifice of private interest for the public good. When it is exercised, it seems to me that the subject, whether his claim be against a corporation or against the Crown, ought to have the right to make that claim good in the courts. These claims have been standing for three years, and I would like an explanation as to the cause of the delay in issuing fiats.


Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTH.: The cases of lands taken in the county of Madawaska along the line of the Transcontinental railway have been a matter of consideration, and of discussion with the hon. gentleman who represents that county in this House by the Department of Justice for a good many months, and there has been considerable difficulty and delay in regard to them caused by the view which has been taken of the applicability of the provisions of the Expropriation Act to lands taken for the line of the Transcontinental railway. I gave to the question the best consideration that I was able, upon the language of the Transcontinental Railway Act, and the provisions enacted by this parliament with reference to the manner in which the construction of that line was to be carried out, and I was of opinion, from such examina-125
tion of its provisions, that notwithstanding the constitution of the Board of Transcontinental Railway Commissioners, land taken for the construction of the line was land expropriated by the Crown, and therefore that the provisions of the Expropriation Act would have application, and that an information filed in the name of the Attorney General for the condemnation of any land which was requisite for that purpose would properly bring the question for consideration before the Exchequer Court. Such proceedings were taken, not with reference to lands in Madawaska, although I think that in some instances of lands taken in that section of the province of New Brunswick, fiats were given or expropriation proceedings initiated upon information. Some cases, however, from other parts of the province of New Brunswick came not long ago before the learned judge in the Exchequer Court for disposition, and he reached the conclusion after consideration that the lands so taken could not be considered as expropriated by the Crown, but that they were taken by the Board of Transcontinental Railway Commissioners for the purposes of their work, and, in that view, that the method of proceeding under the Expropriation Act would not have application. Not considering that that disposition of the matter was a satisfactory one, instructions were given to appeal from that decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. Such an appeal has been taken, but has not been heard by the Supreme Court. It will be heard, I have no doubt, at the sittings which begin to-day, and as soon as we have had an authoritative pronouncement on the subject from the Supreme Court, it will be either unnecessary to make any amendment of our present expropriation statute or it will be a matter for consideration whether that course should be taken. With regard to the granting of a petition of right in such circumstances to the land owner, let me say just one word. I have had no reason to change my view that it is more in the interest of the land owner himself that the proceedings for ascertaining the amount of compensation should be initiated by the government-upon information of the Attorney General than upon a petition of right. There is perhaps no great practical difference, but there



is this important difference in the matter of expense to the land owner that if instead of allowing him to proceed by petition of right, the Crown takes the initiative and lodges the information, exactly the same result is obtained, but the Crown is in the position of tire actor or plaintiff, and the burden of the preliminary expense is taken off the shoulders of the land owner and assumed by the Crown. For that reason I have encouraged that course of procedure rather than by giving the land owners fiats for petitions of right and in almost every instance-I know of no exception-that course has met with the approval of the land owners.


Robert Laird Borden: If I might be pardoned, I would like to say that I do not think these men should be subjected to the delay and inconvenience of having fine points of construction of statutes decided by the Supreme Court or any other court. Their lands have been taken, in this case they seem to have been taken three or four years ago, and a cheap and inexpensive method of ascertaining the amount of compensation to be given ought to have been provided in the first instance. If there is any doubt about their right to pursue such a course, that doubt should have been removed by statute long ago. I do not think that these men should be obliged to endure this long delay caused by the proposed appeal to the Supreme Court. They have been waiting three or four years now, and I do not think they should be saddled with one day's delay more than is absolutely necessary.



RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES.

Mr. BLAIN.: Are the government willing to lay on the table from day to day the very large number of protests sent in with respect to the proposed reciprocity agreement. These are documents which should be in the possession of the House, and we had the promise of the right hon. the Prime Minister that they would be laid on the table from day to day. I have a copy of one with, a very large number of signatures from operatives in the Hamilton cotton mills, and another from the pork packing industry, and I think there is also one from business men in Toronto.


Mr. FIELDING.: These protests are not brought down from day to day, but at several times we have brought down papers called for. Every day something comes in, and not all on the one side. We have not only protests against the agreement but also the other side, but my hon. friend evidently does not desire to have these.


Richard Blain: I did not draw any particular distinction. I was assuming that Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTH.
the bulk of the protests were against the proposition, but I would be very glad if the Finance Minister would lay all the documents on the table, as they would be all equally valuable. We ought to have a definite answer in this matter, and I would like to know whether or not the government propose to have these on the table from day to day.


William Stevens Fielding: I have not heard the proposition before, and, therefore, am not at liberty to answer it definitely.


Richard Blain: A few days ago a similar request was made, and the right hon. the Prime Minister promised that he would bring these down from day to day.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I beg my hon. friend's pardon.


Richard Blain: On February 14, following a request from the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) with respect to a delegation from the Vegetable and Fruit Growers' Association I asked would there be any objection to have the views of the pork packing industry delegation which interviewed the government submitted to the House so that we might have full knowledge of their statements, and the Prime Minister replied ' no objection, whatever.' Everything will be brought down.


Wilfrid Laurier: That does not mean from day to day. I have brought in the proceedings of the pork packers delegation, and am laying it on the table, and intend following this by a report of the delegation of the fruit and vegetable growers. I shall do more, I shall have these printed.


Richard Blain: Any on the other side


Wilfrid Laurier: That the report of proceedings between the delegation of Fruit and Vegetable Growers and the Prime Minister and members of the government held in the House of Commons on the 10th February inst., be printed for the use of members, and that rule 74 be suspended in relation thereto. Also that memoranda presented by the Meat Pakers of Ontario and Quebec be printed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER delivered a message from the Governor General, which was read by Mr. Speaker, as follows :
The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons the Fourth Joint Report of the Commissioners for the demarcation of the meridian of the 141st degree of west longi-

fade (Alaska boundary) appointed in virtue of the first article of the convention between Great Britain and the United States, signed! at Washington on the 21st of April, 1906. Government House,
20th February, 1911.
QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.-Mr. LORTIE.
Mr. J. A LORTIE (Soulanges) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called, I rise to a question of privilege, in connection with an article which appeared in ' Le Canada,' on February 17th. It reads as follows :



LATEST NEWS.

[Stage Direction]
Nationalists are divided on the question of reciprocity.
(From Le Canada's special correspondent).
Ottawa, 16.-I learn on reliable ' castor ' authority that Mr. Monk will vote against the reciprocity proposal and that Mr. Nantel will follow suit.
Th\ Paquet, on the other hand, and Mr. Gilbert, who have been brought into line by numerous protests forwarded by their constituents, will give their support to the reciprocity proposals.
However, the former has come to that conclusion on the ground that he considers the proposal of benefit to Canada. As to the idea whether the proposals are of any advantage to his constituents, he does not concern himself with it in even the slightest measure. He v ent so far as to acknowledge that even should his electors frown on reciprocity, he would support the proposals. The member for L'ls-let is certainly entitled to the country's gratitude under the circumstances; however, it remains to be seen whether his constituents will approve of the principle he propounded or on the contrary will show their distrust at the coming elections by throwing him overboard.
As for Messrs Lortie and Blondin, they have not as yet taken a stand, it is said, and for this good reason that they have not been in the House for over two weeks.
The counties of Champlain and Soulanges are in the same plight as the county of St. Hyaeinthe in reference to its representation in the local house they have as their representatives in the Dominion parliament men who take no interest whatever in the concerns of their electors. Mr. Heroux, while in a mood of tendering good advice, should call tlie attention of these gentlemen to the primary importance of their duties as representatives of the people in parliament.
Mr. Speaker, every statement in reference to me in the above extract is shamefully false. Ever since the opening of this session, I have been discharging faithfully my duty as a member of parliament. I followed assiduously the various debates which have been going on, and I appeal to all my fellow members that I am telling the truth while I flatly contradict the state.	1251
ment which appeared in that paper ' Le Canada,' in the very presence of the man who wrote those lines.
If ' Le Canada,' or the writer of that piece of news, is in a position to show that I have been two weeks away from the House, I shall at once resign as a member of parliament.
Of all the newspapers in the country, I do not think there is another as rotten as ' Le Canada ' when it comes to misrepresenting and knowingly showing things in a false light.

Mr. MONK.: I desire to ask the government if they will table any correspondence had with the American government since the last batch of correspondence was laid upon the table. I understand there has been an exchange of letters, and that notably since what is known as the Champ Clark utterance, there has been some correspondence, letters addressed, I believe, to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), or, it may be, to the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson). I think that all this correspondence up to the present moment should be tabled.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend (Mr Monk) refers to some correspondence which the Minister of Finance has had in relation to the Champ Clark utterance?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I said that amongst other things it was said that there had been an exchange of letters in regard to that question between the Secretary of State of the United States and my hon. friend (Mr.. Fielding).


William Stevens Fielding: There is not a shadow of foundation for that statement.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has there been any correspondence?


William Stevens Fielding: If there is any correspondence in relation to this matter with the United States authorities, properly the subject of consideration by this House, it will always be brought down.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS.

Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds).: I desire to make inquiry concerning two returns moved for on the 14th of December last, relating to the travelling expenses of ministers and civil servants and the cab hire of ministers and civil servants.


Mr. MURPHY.: I will make inquiry and see that the returns are brought down witli all dispatch.


Mr. LENNOX.: I desire to call the attention of the government-I presume, of the Minister of Public Works-to the fact that an order made on December 5 last and re-

corded in revised ' Hansard ' page 786, for a return showing all public buildings occupied by post offices in whole or in part, and the revenues derived from them, has not yet been complied with.	,


Charles Murphy: I will make inquiry about that also.


Mr. SHARPE (Lisgar).: I desire to ask the Minister of the Interior when I may look for the return asked for on December 7?	<.


Mr. OLIVER.: What is the nature of the return?


William Henry Sharpe: It relates to lands, timber and mineral rights.


Frank Oliver: If my memory is right, the return involves a great deal of labour for its preparation. I can assure my hon. friend that it is in course of preparation, but I cannot promise it at an early day.


William Henry Sharpe: It was ordered a long while .ago.


Frank Oliver: The return is very comprehensive, perhaps more so than my hon. friend realized when he moved for it.


Mr. BRADBURY.: When may we expect the return ordered on January 23 last referring to licenses, leases or concessions given to individuals or corporations of water powers and privileges on the Winnipeg river?


Frank Oliver: I am sorry that my hon. friend is delayed in that, it should have been down long ago, I assure him that it will be down without any delay.



WAYS AND MEANS-RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Ways and Means.
['Of course, if there is precedent for it, one must have due respect to that fact. But let me read the section:\n34. Whenever the directors shall entertain reasonable doubts as to the legality of any claim to or upon such shares, bonds, debentures, obligations, dividends or coupons, or the proceeds thereof, then and in such case the directors may file in any court of competent jurisdiction in the province in which the head office of the company is situated, a petition stating such doubts, and praying for an order or judgment adjudicating and\n1\tawarding the said shares, bonds, debentures, . obligations, dividends, coupons, or proceeds \' tc the parties legally entitled thereto, and\nsuch court shall have authority to restrain any action, suit or proceedings against the company, and the directors and officers thereof for the same subject matter, pending the determination of the petition; and the oom-\n2 pan.v and the directors and officers thereof . shall be fully protected and indemnified by . obedience to such order or judgment against\nall actions, suits, claims, and demands in res\' pect of the matters which have been in question in such petition, and the proceedings " thereupon, provided that if the court adjudges fi that such doubts were reasonable, the costs.', u'charges and expenses of the company, in and about such petition and proceedings, shall form a li\xabn upon such shares, bonds, debentures, obligations, dividends, coupons or proceeds, and shall be paid to the company before the directors shall be obliged to transfer, or assent to the transfer of, or to pay such shares, bonds, debentures, obligations, dividends, coupons or proceeds to the parties found entitled thereto.\nIt strikes me that that is a most unusual enactment. It means that if the directors have any doubts as to whether a shareholder is entitled to shares or a depositor to certain moneys, those directors may file a petition, and, if the court holds that their doubts were reasonable, even though the party wins the suit and is awarded the property in question, he may still be made liable for the costs. As I say, it is a very unusual proceeding, but there is precedent for it, and when this Bill passes there will be still another precedent.\nBill reported, read the third time and passed.']
Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster).: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair I wish to call the attention of the House for a few moments to a matter of great importance. Let me first read a telegram recently received:
Mission Junction, Feb. 18.
J. D. Taylor,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Resolution passed here to-day as follows: ' That whereas the Dominion government has seen fit, in the reciprocity agreement, to abolish the duty on fruit, farm products: and whereas, this will be a detriment to the farmers of British Columbia, we wish to go on record as being strongly opposed to the agreement as it now stands.'
Mission City Agricultural Association, per A. M. VERCHERS, Secretary.


Haughton Lennox: Also I have this communication:
The Hammond Fruit Association, Limited, Hammond. B.C., Feb. 4. 1911. Dear Sir,-At the annual meeting of the Hammond Fruit Association, Limited, the following resolution was passed, and I was requested to send same to you: ' That the Hammond Fruit Association, Limited, views with alarm the movement recently advanced by the grain growers of the Northwest for reciprocity in natural products with the United States. Such an adjustment of the tariff would be of material disadvantage to the fruit industry of this province, and this association is strongly of opinion that not only should no reduction of duty on fruit be permitted by the Dominion government, but that immediate steps should be taken to place our duty on a parity with that oi the United States.	,
Yours truly.
D. W. BAKER, Secretary.
J. D. Taylor, Esq., M.P.
I have another communication, which I will not read in full, from the Western Canada Bag, Envelope and Box Board Company, Limited, which states that this corporation has addressed to the Prime Minister a communication setting forth their position with respect to the proposals now under consideration, the effect of which is given in this:
-regarding the proposed reciprocity agreement between Canada and the United States so far as it pertains to the removal of duty on building, roofing and sheathing paper, deadening felt, box board, &c. Such a policy would absolutely destroy all hopes of success for the plant which we are now erecting at New Westminster, B.C.. for the manufacture of these products and which we hope to have in operation within six months.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Ways and Means.
["Also I have this communication:\nThe Hammond Fruit Association, Limited, Hammond. B.C., Feb. 4. 1911. Dear Sir,-At the annual meeting of the Hammond Fruit Association, Limited, the following resolution was passed, and I was requested to send same to you: ' That the Hammond Fruit Association, Limited, views with alarm the movement recently advanced by the grain growers of the Northwest for reciprocity in natural products with the United States. Such an adjustment of the tariff would be of material disadvantage to the fruit industry of this province, and this association is strongly of opinion that not only should no reduction of duty on fruit be permitted by the Dominion government, but that immediate steps should be taken to place our duty on a parity with that oi the United States.\t,\nYours truly.\nD. W. BAKER, Secretary.\nJ. D. Taylor, Esq., M.P.\nI have another communication, which I will not read in full, from the Western Canada Bag, Envelope and Box Board Company, Limited, which states that this corporation has addressed to the Prime Minister a communication setting forth their position with respect to the proposals now under consideration, the effect of which is given in this:\n-regarding the proposed reciprocity agreement between Canada and the United States so far as it pertains to the removal of duty on building, roofing and sheathing paper, deadening felt, box board, &c. Such a policy would absolutely destroy all hopes of success for the plant which we are now erecting at New Westminster, B.C.. for the manufacture of these products and which we hope to have in operation within six months."]
Mr. GEORGE  W.@: KYTE (Richmond. N.8.) The importance of the question now before the chair has been so frequently reiterated by hon. gentlemen who have already taken part in the discussion that I will make no apology for the time I shall occupy this afternoon. Since the debate was commenced, a couple of weeks ago by the leader of the opposition, (Mr. Borden, Halifax) whose views were further emphasized by the speech of the hon. member for North Toronto, I think I may fairly say that, so far as hon. gentlemen opposite are concerned who have taken part in the debate, no new ground has been broken. The imperialist drum has been pounded and the stalking horse of annexation has been paraded before us; the dire calamities that will come to the industries of Canada in respect of all her present industrial activities have been emphasized in language which for pessimism and lachrymose sentiment cannot be paralleled, I verily believe, anywhere outside the tomes of the ancient

prophets. For my part, I have always endeavoured to view questions of trade as purely business questions. I think it is very rarely that any question can come before this House, or this committee, in which sentiment is to be irrevocably intermingled. The question before the chair at the present moment is neither more nor less than to give effect to a tentative agreement arrived at between certain commissioners representing the government of Canada and certain commissioners representing the government of the United States by which it is proposed to have certain reciprocity of trade between the two countries. Since this question was first mooted in the House and before this committee, the fact that it was an old question has been frequently stated by hon. gentlemen who have taken part in the discussion. My recollection carries me back as far as 1879, when the Conservative party was returned to power upon the question of the National Policy. The very first session of parliament after the new government was called to power they proposed what was known as a standing offer to the United States whereby the government led by Sir John Macdonald offered to the United States reciprocity in animals, fruit, hay, vegetables, wheat, barley, rye, oats and other grains, fish, meats and lumber. Now, I am sure there is no hon. gentleman sitting opposite to me who will say that Sir John Macdonald was actuated by any sentiments of disloyalty towards this country or towards the imperial connection when he placed in the platform of his party that standing offer of reciprocal relations between Canada and the United States in respect of natural products. Again, in 1891, the issue before the people was the trade issue which we have at the present time. The Conservative party of the day went to the country on the issue of reciprocity. And the subject was dealt with in certain state papers which are on record and available to hon. members of this House. I have here a letter written by Lord Stanley of Preston, Governor General of Canada, to Lord Knuts-ford,
Government House,
Ottawa, December 13, 1890.
My Lord,-I have the honour to send to Your Lordship to-day a telegraphic message in cipher, of which the following is the substance :
With reference to my telegram of the 10th instant this government is desirous to propose a joint commission such as that of 1871. with authority to deal without limitation and to prepare a treaty respecting the following subjects:
1.	Renewal of the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854. with the modifications required by altered circumstances of both countries, and with the extensions deemed by the commission to be in the interests of Canada and the United States.
2.	Reconsideration treaty of 1888, with respect to the Atlantic fisheries with the aim of
securing the free admission into United States markets of Canadian fishery products in return for facilities to be granted to United States fishermen, to buy bait and supplies and to tranship cargoes in Canada. All such privileges to be mutual.
3.	Protection of mackerel and other fish-enies on the Atlantic ocean and in inland waters also.
Taking the agreement now before the chair in connection with the agreement which was arrived at by Sir Allen Ayles-worth, Minister of Justice, and the Hon. the (Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) at Washington some weeks ago, we have a settlement of those very questions which it was proposed by the late Conservative government should be dealt with by this joint high commission. It is a circumstance to be noted that the Conservative government of that day was so anxious to disclose to the people of Canada the fact that they were about to bring about such a boon to the people that they violated certain confidences which existed between them and the commissioners at Washington, for which I venture to say they were severely reprimanded later. I have here a letter written by J.
G.	Blaine, to Senator Baker. It reads:
Dear Mr. Baker,-I authorize you to contradict the rumours you refer to. There are no negotiations whatever on foot for a reciprocity treaty with Canada, and you may be assured no such scheme for reciprocity with the Dominion confined to natural products will be entertained by this government.
Yours verv truly,



[Stage Direction]
It would appear from this that the effort of Sir John Macdonald and his colleagues to negotiate a treaty with the United States .confined to natural products was not likely to be acceptable to the government of the United States. It was insisted upon by the government of the United States and their representatives of that day that any treaty of trade to be entered into between the two countries must not be confined to natural products, but must also include manufactured articles. That was an addition to the treaty which was not acceptable to the manufacturing interests of Canada in 1891 any more than it is acceptable to the manufacturing interests of Canada at the present time. But, Sir, I have further evidence of the fact that the late government was not dealing frankly with either the people of Canada or the people of the United States with respect to these negotiations. I have here a letter addressed by Mr. Blaine to Sir Julian Pauncefote, then British ambassador at Washington:
Department of State,
Washington, April 1, 1891.
While no notes were exchanged between us I carefully minuted my modification of the
[Stage Direction]
paper you left with, me containing Lord Salisbury's proposition, and did so immediately after you left the department. You will observe the private character which I wished to impart to the conference is recognized by you a month later in your note of January 27, when you called the correspondence ' confidential.'
In view of the fact that you had come to the state department with the proposals, and that the subject was then for the first time mentioned between us, and in view of the further fact that I agreed to a private conference as explained in my minute. I confess that it was a surprise to me when several weeks later during the Canadian canvass, Sir John Macdonald and Sir Charles Tupper, both stated before public assemblages that an informal discussion of a reciprocity treaty would take place at Washington after the 4th of March, by the initiation of the Secretary of State.
I detail these facts because I deem it important, since the matter has been for some weeks open to public remark, to have it settled that the conference was not ' initiated' by me, but on the contrary that the private arrangement of which I spoke was but a modification of your proposal and in no sense an original suggestion from the government of the United States.
I	read that, in order to point out to the House the value which the late Conservative government seemed 'to have set upon the successful termination of a reciprocity treaty between the two countries. So anxious were the late government to get that fact before the country during the election campaign of 1891, that they did not hesitate to violate the confidences that were established between them and the commissioners at Washington for which they were subsequently reprimanded in the letter which I have just read to the committee.
For my part, I have been endeavouring since this debate opened to discover what are the changed circumstances which appear to justify hon. gentlemen opposite in coming to the conclusion that a trade arrangement which was admittedly so advantageous to Canada in 1891 could be so disastrous to Canada in 1911. I am reminded that a year ago the time of this House was occupied in discussing questions in relation to another one of the great nations of the world, Germany. A year ago, it will he remembered, a considerable time of this parliament was taken up in the discussion of what was then supposed to be a war scare existing between Germany and England. Our hon. friends opposite had no kind words to express with respect to the conduct of -Germany and her apparent determination to strengthen her armaments for the avowed purpose, as was alleged by them, of making an attack on Great Britain. In fact, Sir, during several weeks, whenever hon. gentlemen „ moved about the chamber one might always hear the clanking of military accoutrements. The other evening the Mr. KYTE
hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) made a complaint that this government had not devoted more attention to improving the trade relations of Canada with Germany. I was rather surprised to hear the loyal member that he is, expressing so much consideration for trade with the Germans, when a year ago he and his colleagues on the other side of the House were prepared to condemn them with every anathema they could command. A complaint was made against the Minister of Finance that he had not abolished the German surtax to enable the products of that unfriendly nation, because it was unfriendly a year ago if we are to take the opinion of hon. gentlemen opposite, to enter Canada and make Canada a market for the manufactures of Germany. On the other hand, we have a proposal here to establish trade relations with the United States, a country whose peaceful and happy association with Canada for 100 years is about to be celebrated. The hon. member for East Lambton went into somewhat specific details with respect to the industries that would be inevitably injured if not absolutely ruined if this reciprocity arrangement was carried out. He undertook to speak for the dairymen of Canada and more particularly of Ontario. He did assert, and his observations I am sure are still impressed on the minds of hon. gentlemen who were present and heard him, that if this reciprocal arrangement were to be carried out the dairying industry of Canada and more particularly the dairying industry of the province of Ontario, would be ruined. I have before me copies of two resolutions passed, one by the Dairymen's Association of Western Ontario and one by the Dairymen's Association of Eastern Ontario. The first reads:
Moved by J. W. Hyatt, West Lake, Ont., seconded by James E. Anderson of Mountain View, that the Dominion government he respectfully but most strongly urged in the negotiations now pending between Canada and the States to provide for complete reciprocal trade in dairy products.
I	have also the resolution passed by the Western Dairyman's Association, which is as follows:
Moved by J. A. Biehn, of Bright, seconded by Geo. Eice, of Tillsonbnrg, that the Dominion government be respectfully but most strongly urged in the negotiations now pending between Canada and the States to provide for complete reciprocal trade in dairy products.
I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that having read these resolutions, which were passed by the men who are most interested in that industry, it is scarcely necessary for me to remind this committee that the hon. member for East Lambton, when he made those observations with respect to the effect

of the reciprocal arrangement upon the dairying industry, was not speaking by the book.
With regard to the fruit and canning industry, he also devoted some considerable time to that subject, and he came to the same conclusion, that the confirmation of this reciprocity agreement with the United States would inevitably destroy the canning industry of this country.
Mr. ARMSTRONG.: I am sure the hon. gentleman does not wish to place words in my mouth that I never uttered, or to misrepresent me in any way. I do not think you can turn up ' Hansard ' and show that I have made the statement that the canning industry would be ruined.


Mr. KYTE.: Then that it would be seriously injured and hampered.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Oh, well, be fair.


George William Kyte: I accept the hon. gentleman's explanation with respect to that, but I wish to point out to my hon. friend that there is not much evidence of the canning industry being injured, or in any way hampered by this agreement in face of the fact that the common stock of the Dominion Canners, within The last ten days, went up from 48 to 58. There are many sources in this country from which we can obtain evidence with respect to the effect a question of public policy may have upon certain industries without taking all our authority from hon. gentlemen opposite. I think the records of the stock exchanges afford a pretty good index as to what the people generally are thinking with respect to the operation of this reciprocity arrangement upon the industries of the Dominion. With regard to the railways of Canada, it has also been asserted that this agreement will result inevitably in diverting traffic from our transcontinental railways, and that the American roads will get the benefit of the carrying trade, or a great portion of the carrying trade, of out country. I observe that the Canadian Pacific railway stock, within the last ten days, went up from 209J to 2131. If we accept that as an index of the view which the Canadian Pacific railway take of this matter, I can scarcely imagine that the argument advanced bv hon. gentlemen opposite in that respect can be harmonized with the stock operations in the city of Montreal, and in the other stock exchanges throughout this country. I have here, also, from the Montreal ' Daily Witness,' selected from the column called ' Stock Exchange Talks,' a paragraph which says:
Our big railways are preparing for a great year's activity from one end of the Dominion to the other, and in this connection, among the many interests to be served by this expansion will be the different Canadian steel
corporations which are to receive liberal orders for rails and other construction requirements from the railway concerns.
I might also point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that in the last week the determination has been arrived at by the directors of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to build an additional line from Victoria harbour, on the Georgian hay, to the city of Montreal, in order to carry the additional freight which will be offered as a result of this trade agreement.


Mr. SPROULE.: They have been working at that for nearly two years back.


George William Kyte: At all events, they are not discouraged by the prospect, or, perhaps, they would hesitate before they would carry on the scheme. I also saw, a few days ago, that it was the intention of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to build an additional competing line between Toronto and Montreal. Taking all the leading stocks of Canada, I think you, Mr. Chairman, will be very much impressed with the fact that, taking one with the other, nearly every industrial stock in Canada has gone up during the last two weeks. I might say further, that this morning's paper contained a despatch from Montreal, which reads as follows:
Montreal, Feb. 20.-G. F. Johnston and H. J. Allison, of the firm of Johnston, McConnell and Allison, left Montreal this evening for New York en route for England in connection with the completion of a $20,000,000 British Columbia lumber deal, the capital for which is already largely subscribed. The name of this concern will be the British Canadian Lumber Corporation, the head office of which will be in this city.
I read this for the purpose of pointing out that the lumber interests is not calculated to receive very much injury from this reciprocal trade arrangement should it pass through parliament.
But there is one other feature of this question that I desire to present to the committee, because this is an agreement which involves a larger question than that of any local industry or enterprise. I refer to the large amount of British capital which has heretofore been invested in Canada for the purpose of developing the great industrial and commercial enterprises of the country. The statement was made without reserve by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), and repeated by the hon. member for East Lamb-ton (Mr. Armstrong) that the result of this arrangement would be to withdraw British capital from Canada and make it extremely difficult to get any further advances of British capital for the industrial and agricultural development of the country. I have before me an interview given by a
39G3


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Kyte), is wide of the mark again. I Mr. KYTE.
made no such statement as he now attributes to me.


George William Kyte: The hon. gentleman stated that one of the results of reciprocity would be that the Hudson Bay railway would be useless to Canada, and though I may have paraphrased his statement and not given his exact words, I believe ' Hansard ' will bear me out that such is in effect what he said.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I aek you, Mr. Chairman to have the hon. gentleman read the ' Hansard ' and there he will find that what I said was, that if the statement of the men of the west be true, that they axe going to trade with Chicago and New York, then there was no need for the Hudson B ay railway, and that statement was made by me interrogatively.


George William Kyte: I accept the correction, and it still leaves the point just where I put it.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: No.


George William Kyte: Now, the hon. the leader of the opposition, speaking on this very Hudson Bay railway some short time ago. said:
The west is very much concerned at the present time about the building of the Hudson Bay railway. There is not absolute un n-imity of opinion in this country as to thei relief that will be brought to the people of the west by the construction of that road. I hope it may bring to them all the relief they expect, and then beyond question, in justice to this road it ought to be proceeded with without any delay.
That is tfye statement of the leader of the opposition in respect to the building of the Hudson Bay railway, and we may conclude from it, that he does not regard that this tTade arrangement * will militate against that great enterprise as my hon. friend (Mr. Armstrong) would have us imagine.


Haughton Lennox: Does the hon. gentleman not find that the leader of the opposition also said in effect: Why proceed with the building of the Transcontinental railway, the Hudson Bay railway, and the canals, if we are going to divert our trade to the south and alter our policy which has been established for so many years.


George William Kyte: I did not feel I was called upon to read all the speeches made by the leader of the opposition, in which he has made reference to this railway; my point was to show that when he was discussing this particular resolution, he was still urging the government to proceed without delay with the construction of the Hudson Bay railway.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Yes, instead of making this bargain with the United States.


George William Kyte: There is no such reference as that in the speech I have read.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is what it was; it was an alternative.


George William Kyte: My hon. friend (Mr. Armstrong), also spoke of the annexation sentiment that existed in the United States, and he referred to Senator Cummings as an annexationist. True, Senator Cummings is an annexationist, but like his friend, Speaker Cannon, he is opposed to tire reciprocity arrangement, and therefore, it may be assumed that if there was any trend towards annexation in this reciprocity arrangement, Senator Cummings, annexationist as he is, instead of opposing it, would have been anxious to have facilitated its passage through the Senate. Let me remind hon. gentlemen opposite that Mr. Bennett, who moved the annexation resolution in Congress, is also opposed to the reciprocal arrangement, and Senator Fordray, of Michigan, speaking on the question a few days ago, in the American Senate said:
We have been buncoed by the Canadian representatives into a free trade treaty from which we receive no benefit. I do criticise our representatives for having surrendered body, soul and breeches to Canada.
Evidently, the people of the United States, like the people of Canada, are not unanimous as to the real meaning or consequences of this trade arrangement. We have in this House hon. gentlemen opposite censuring this government and its representatives, for yielding everything to the United States, and we have a member of the United States Senate censuring the representatives of that country, because they negotiated an arrangement, which gave everything to Canada. Amidst these conflicting opinions, it is difficult for one to come to a conclusion, as to how much sincerity or earnestness there exists in one party or the other, but, taking the extremists in the United States, who say Canada gets everything, and taking the extremists in Canada, who say the United States gets everything, iand drawing an average between them, we may possibly come to the correct conclusion that this treaty is a fair treaty, and one that ought to receive the approval of the people of both countries. I do not know whether our hon. friends opposite are serious, when they say that the interchange of business promoted by reason of this agreement, will lead to annexation. I can scarcely believe that these hon. gentlemen one after another would. reiterate so solemn a statement, unless they had some real conviction upon the matter. But, I would call attention to the fact that a reciprocity treaty existed between Canada .and the United States from
1855 to 1866, 'and before that 'treaty actually terminated, the people of Canada, for the first time in 100 years, were called upon to show their loyalty to the mother land and their disposition towards the people of the United States. In 1866 there was a raid by United States subjects across the Canadian border. True, it did not amount to much, but whether the invasion was great or small the people of Canada did not hesitate to take up arms to repel the invaders from Canadian soil. Had that reciprocal arrangement between the two countries, had the effect which hon. gentlemen opposite say a reciprocal trade arrangement will now have, then the people of Canada might have betrayed their annexation sentiment and rested on their arms, while their country was overrun by invaders. Happily but few opportunities have been given to the people of Canada to defend their country, and I trust it may be many a long year before another opportunity will arise, but I venture to say, tracing the whole history of this country from its earliest beginning to the present there is to be found no time when the people of Canada expressed annexation sentiments, except it be on a historic occasion when certain men of the political stripe of gentlemen opposite, desired for the time being, to make political capital out of a great question in this country.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. gentleman does not include the Hon. Edward Blake, does he ?


George William Kyte: I do not include the Hon. Edward Blake, but I do include the Hon. J. J. C. Abbott and other distinguished Tories.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why does the hon. gentleman exclude the Hon. Edward Blake, when he did the same thing as the Hon. Mr. Abbott?


Some hon. MEMBERS: He never did.


George William Kyte: Another statement made by hon. gentlemen opposite is, that this reciprocal trade arrangement will have the effect of diverting all the grain carrying trade from Canadian ports to United States ports. I have before me a statement of the amount of foreign exports from Canada ia 1910, and I find that from the port of Montreal there were shipped in that year, $15,037,958 worth of United States goods. I find also, that at the present time, when no reciprocal trade arrangement is in effect, 27 per cent of the foreign exports of Canada, (other than to the United States), was shipped from United States ports durum the same year, 1910.
When I point out that millions of dollars worth of American goods for export are shipped from the ports of Montreal and St. John and that millions of dollars worth

of Canadian goods for export are shipped from New York, and other ports of the United States, that is all I need say to show that trade will find its own channels where they are of the greatest advantage. It is inconceivable that there is any hon. gentlemen in this House who would look forward to a consummation when no exports from Canada would go by way of the United States, and no exports from the United States would go by way of Canada. We are living too closely together and our interests are too much interwoven for us ever to expect to see the day when all Canadian goods will be exported from Canadian ports, and all American goods will be exported from American ports.
I have one or two observations to make with respect to the effect of this agreement, as I view it, upon those sections of Canada with which I am most familiar ; and I am going to quote some figures, even at the risk of falling under the solemn and weighty abjurgations of the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox), who found fault with the figures given by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) a few days ago.	.


Haughton Lennox: Can the hon. gentleman say that they were correct?


George William Kyte: I am not saying anything about them ; but the figures I give are as likely to be challenged as were the figures of the hon. member for South Wellington. Looking over the trade returns, I find that the value of agricultural products shipped to the United States from Canada in 1910, including horses, cattle, swine, lambs, sheep, poultry, wheat, rye, oats, barley, buckwheat, beans, peas, Indian corn, hay, straw, potatoes, green apples, berries, butter, cheese, and eggs amounted to $6,277,295, upon which duties were paid of '$1,274,337. The value ol fish products sent from Canada to the United States wass $3,223,398, upon which there were duties paid of $512,514. Gypsum to the value of $396,493 was shipped, upon which duties were paid of $101,493.
When discussing this question, the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) pointed out that we had at present two markets in Canada, and that it was needless for us to seek a third market by entering into negotiations with the United States. Speaking more particularly for the maritime provinces, and with reference to the chief item of export from those provinces, namely, fish, I would like to remind hon. gentlemen that at present we have scarcely any free market for our exports of fish. The hon. member for North Toronto said that reciprocity between the various provinces of Canada was the ideal for the people of Canada to strive for. I quite admit that in the last 40 years there has Mr. KYTE.
been considerable reciprocity between the provinces of Quebec and Ontario on the one hand, and the maritime provinces on the other, but that reciprocity consisted in the people of .the maritime provinces buying manufactured goods from the people of Quebec and Ontario, and the people of Quebec and Ontario taking current cash of the realm from the people of the maritime provinces in payment for those goods.


Mr. CURRIE (Simcoe).: I think the hon. gentleman should be fair enough to say that the people of Quebec and Ontario have bought large quantities of coal and steel from the maritime provinces.


George William Kyte: My hon. friend did not permit me to refer to that fact, as I intended. It is quite true that Nova Scotia coal is sold in large quantities as far west, I understand, as Montreal, but not very much farther, and that considerable steel and iron have been shipped during the last two years from the steel works of Sydney and Sydney Mines into Quebec and Ontario ; but apart from these two items there is no reciprocity of trade in natural products between the maritime provinces and the province of Ontario.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: Are there not a great many potatoes shipped from New Brunswick to the western provinces?


George William Kyte: There are some, but not many. The great market for the potatoes of the maritime provinces is in the United States. More potatoes from the maritime provinces are bought in the United States, notwithstanding the duty of 25 cents a bushel against them, than are bought in Ontario and Quebec.


Richard Blain: May I be permitted to say that three years ago there were 600 carloads of potatoes sent to the city of Toronto alone from the province of New Brunswick.


George William Kyte: That is quite true. There are seasons when potatoes are sent from the maritime provinces to the city of Toronto ; but these are exceptional seasons. I am speaking of a market which the people of the maritime provinces may at all times and seasons depend upon.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The hon. gentleman has given the exports from Canada into the United States of different kinds of farm products. Would he give the exports of the same from the United States into Canada? He would find that several times the quantity of potatoes come from the United States to Canada as go from Canada to the United States.


George William Kyte: I would say to mV hon. friend that I prefer to make my own speech; and having listened to one from him of two hours the other evening, I do not think I

am under any special obligation to listen to another one now. During the last 40 years I have never seen or heard of a man from Ontario or Quebec coming to Nova Scotia to buy fish.


John Dowsley Reid: Is it not a fact that in the maritime provinces potatoes are manufactured very extensively into starch, which is shipped to the western provinces?


George William Kyte: I will relieve my hon. friend by saying that there is no great percentage of the potatoes of the maritime provinces made into starch.


Morley Currie: Is it not a fact that this government has established a special cold storage rate for carrying fish from the maritime provinces to Ontario, and Quebec? Has no fish been carried?


George William Kyte: It is quite true, the people of the maritime provinces have been endeavouring to coax the people of Ontario to buy their fish, but they have not succeeded to any great extent. It is absolutely impossible for reciprocity to any large extent to arise between the maritime provinces and the western provinces of Canada in regard to our fish products. The great market for the fresh fish of the maritime provinces is the United States owing to the easy access which we have to that market and owing to the facilities of transportation. The fresh fish of the maritime provinces is, however, but a very small item. Their salt fish needs a market, and we can get no market for it in Ontario or Quebec. I. know a gentleman down in Halifax who has a son living in Alberta Last year he sent his son half a barrel of herring, knowing that his son was fond of the real product such as we get in Nova Scotia. He paid $3 for the half barrel but the freight to Alberta cost him $8. Is it not preposterous then to talk of the maritime provinces shipping salt fish to the prairies of the west? I Mave here the figures showing the exports of fish from Canada in 1910 :


EXPORTS FROM CANADA, 1910.
[Stage Direction]
United	United . States.	OtherCodfish, haddock, ling and pol-	Kingdon	Coun- tries.lock	$116,468	$432,211	Herring, pickled..	1,560	112,334	Herring, smoked.	2,241	20,134	Mackerel, fresh..	119,919	Mackerel, pickled	500	176,383	$128,830Salmon, fresh .. All other fresh	45,318	144,113	1,327fish	
Oils, cod, seal,	298	1,936,161	whale, &c	331,360	53,064	Fresh lobsters ..	528.341	Canned lobsters..	748,775	1.137.929	Gypsum	396.493	2Sheep and lambs.	1,1,441	569,679	
It is not, then, a correct statement to say that we have two markets for the products of the maritime provinces, particularly with reference to our fish. There is only one solid, substantial market which can always be depended on, and that is the United States, and in respect of this market the fishermen of the maritime provinces have been labouring for the last forty years under the handicap of an adverse duty. Let me remind the House that the people of the maritime provinces did not complain of this handicap so long as it was the policy of this government to maintain exclusiveness in our dealings with the United States and prevent, by a high tariff, as much as possible, intercourse between the two countries. But when the opportunity has come to throw down the barriers and enable our people to sell their fish in the best markets free of duty, it is not surprising that they should be strongly in favour of this reciprocal arrangement.
My hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) endeavoured to convince us that there is a large market for fish in Canada. Well, I should like to quote an article from the Montreal ' Herald,' dated 15th February, and entitled ' Fish Eating.' It is as follows :

[Stage Direction]
Few countries are more generously endowed in tlie matter of its marine riches than Canada, and it is surprising and surely regrettable to learn from the annual report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries that Canadians are not fish eaters. This is attributed to the lack of proper transport and delivery or of careful attention in the treatment of fish while in transit. Then it is said the condition in which the fish is offered the public, for a sale is not what it ought to be. Professor Co>wie, of the Depart-uent of Marine and Fisheries, cites Ottawa is a frightful example of the manner in which fresh fish is generally exhibited. ' A dealer,' he says, ' usually a butcher, on a Friday morning, places a large tin tray in his shop window on which are laid out generally in an inch or more of their own blood a few sickly looking fresh haddock, trout, &c., by means of which he expects to entice the custom of those, and there are many, who would eat real sea fish.
I am one of those, who, when they come to Ottawa, would like to eat real fish, hut I must confess that up to the present my taste has not been gratified. I was really astonished to find that it was almost impossible to get good fish in this city, and that the only opportunity any man from the maritime provinces can have to taste the real article is when he enjoys the hospitality of some of the private citizens of this city, who have lived in the maritime provinces, and have had an opportunity to appreciate the simon pure article.
There is another important feature in this arrangement, and that is that it opens
[Stage Direction]
to us the market of Porto Rico. The United States markets take our fresh mackerel, canned lobster, salt mackerel and certain kinds of salted fish, but the market cf Porto Rico is the great market to which we have been exporting dried fish from time immemorial. But ever since Porto Rico came under the control cf the United States our Canadian fish have been subject to the American tariff. Under this arrangement, however, not only are the markets of the United States thrown open to our fish, but the market of Porto Rico as well, so that we shall have at all times and in all seasons a steady demand for our products in this line. That is one of the things we are seeking. It is very little avail to tell us that during lent, in Montreal and Ottawa, there is some demand for our fish, because once Lent is over that demand ceases. What we want is a place to which we can always send our fish and have a ready, steady market..
There is another feature which commends itself to my judgment, and that is that in the United States there is a growing demand for salted cod fish other than the dry. Heretofore our fishermen have been obliged to dry their fish, which is a long, tedious and laborious process, and the additional price obtained does not pay for the additional labour and trouble. But a market has sprung up in the United States for salted cod fish not dried, and that is bound to become one of our njost profitable industries.
In this connection I should like to quote the opinion of Mr. Howard Smith, of the firm of M. and N. Smith, of Halifax, the largest exporters of fish in the world. That statement may, perhaps, surprise some hon. gentlemen, but it is none the less correct, and I might add that Mr. Howard Smith is a strong supporter of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden), and his colleague from Halifax (Mr. Crosby). He is prominent and active in the public life of the city of Halifax, and his word is accepted throughout the whole of the maritime provinces. This is what he says:
I cannot see why nine-tenths of the people of this country should not he overwhelmingly in favour of reciprocity.- Under reciprocity and with up-to-date methods there is no reason why the fish catch of Nova Scotia should not run up to one million quintals yearly, says Mr. Howard.
Will revolutionize industry.
Now with free fish into the United States, what will happen? We can build and fit out Vessels here at about forty per cent less than the Gloucester owner can do. With the fishermen demanding their rights, they will man their home vessels, and the owners can pay them cash as soon as the trip is over, owing to the fact that middlemen will come into the business who will handle fish in a green or half-made state and supply the family trade in the United States. There is no ex-Mr. KYTE.
cuse now for standing off the fisherman, for the hulk of the present catch will he sold in a green state to people who will cater to the package fish trade in the states.
Fleet of 500 Bankers.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Nova Scotia hanking fleet of from two hundred to two hundred and twenty-five sail will increase to five hundred within five years. There is also no reason why Nova Scotia should not catch and market as many fish as Norw.iv. At present cur catch equals only about one-third of theirs, and this with the fishing grounds at our doors, and the consuming market for salt fish thousands of miles nearer to us than to them.
Salt Fish Export.
For a year or. two the fresh and package fish people will he the only ones who will benefit under the new regime, so far as the export trade is concerned, hut as soon as the catch is large enough, to supply the excess demand of the United States, and the price of hard dried will he on a parity with what can he got for half made fish, then salt fish exporters will take a hand in the business. They will then he able to get what they have been trying to get for years, that is, a slack salted fish, hard cured suitable for any of the world's markets. At present the old-fashioned way of curing still obtains and our fish are suitable only for Cuba, Porto Rico. Hayti and other West Indian islands. A more immediate result will he looked for by exporters, and that is the possibility of getting business in Porto Rico on an up-to-date basis. The preference in favour of Gloucester on that market of 86 cents a quintal will he done away with, and Gloucester will not be able to supply any fish, to speak of for that market.
The chances are that the old fish consigning business, from Lunenburg will he a thing of the past in a year or two, and the large distributors in Porto Rico, will look to this country to purchase supplies to he delivered to them regularly by steamer each month. It is well known that the consignment business has not been profitable ever since return cargoes of molasses ceased to he available.
I read that to show what Mr. Howard Smith thinks of this reciprocal arrangement with respect to its effect on the fishing industry of the maritime provinces. And I think hon. gentlemen opposite may well pardon me if I have shown a little enthusiasm in favour of this trade arrangement. There is another item which
Mr. AMES.: Is the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kyte) preparing to leave the subject of fish?


George William Kyte: I was, unless it is desirable to continue it.


Herbert Brown Ames: We have all been listening with interest, I am sure, to what the hon. gentleman has been saying.' There is one portion of the subject we have been expecting to hear the hon. gentleman deal with hut which he has not touched. What will be the effect of Newfoundland's fish coming

into the Canadian market, and what will be the effect of throwing the preferential West Indian market open to the fish of Newfoundland and the United States?


George William Kyte: That is a question that was propounded twenty years ago: What effect will Newfoundland have upon our markets? For years and years fish came into Halifax and were distributed to the ports of the West Indies and the United States, and it did not appreciably affect the price so far as the maritime provinces are concerned. Newfoundland fish largely go to Spain and Portugal. Halifax and the American markets have not been considered a very considerable object for the fish producers of Newfoundland. They have their trade connections with Liverpool and the Mediterranean, and they ship direct to Spain and Portugal, and some times to Brazil. Therefore, the people of the maritime provinces will suffer little from the competition of Newfoundland.
Now, I desire to refer to another item in which Nova Scotia is interested, the item of gypsum. I have heard hon. gentlemen opposite proclaiming that the natural resources of this country ought to be kept for the people of this country. That is a proposition with which I entirely agree, provided that those natural resources are to be made a source of revenue to the people of this country who are now in life and their immediate successors. If they say that the natural resources of this country should be locked up for the benefit of some enterprising speculator in the next century, I decline to accept that proposition. I say that the natural resources of Canada are for the people of Canada to-day as well as for the people of generations to come. We have large deposits of gypsum ini Nova Scotia, and have been endeavouring to find a market for our gypsum. But, the encouraging encomiums made by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) with respect to the home market and the market of Great Britain, have not brought any consolation to the o.vners of gypsum deposits in Nova Scotia. A few years ago a trade of modest dimensions grew up in the shipping of gypsum, inaugurated by an American company that had vessels engaged in carrying gypsum from Windsor to different parts of the United States. But that business has been limited owing to the duty on gypsum. As this is an article which is not of very great value in its raw state, shippers could not compete successfully under that duty, no matter how small it mivht be. But let me Tead a telegram from Washington which appeared last week in the New York ' Post,' which will show the effect that this arrangement will have on the gypsum trade of Nova Scotia:
The ship-building industry of the country is vitally interested in the agreement, as is
shown by a telegram received by the President to-day from the Staten Island Ship-building Company of New York. The telegram states that free gypsum provided by the reciprocal arrangement means an order for that firm to build a large fleet of American steel ocean-going vessels of 7,500 tons capacity each, to transport the gypsum from Nova Scotia to the manufacturers of the Atlantic sea-board.
That indicates that there will be great activity in the shipping of gypsum from Nova Scotia within the next few years. In the Island of Gape Breton, the whole coast line of the Bras d'Or lakes is filled with gypsum deposits of enormous-value to those who make use of it for the usual purposes of trade. But, with the exception of the Keystone Plaster Company, which has been doing business in ia rather small way in the constituency of my hon. friend from North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) during the last five or six years, not a pound of gypsum has been sent from Cape Breton to other parts of Canada, to the United States or elsewhere. I am aware that a strong financial concern in the United States has had their representatives in the Island of Cape Breton daring the last few years going over gypsum properties, having them bonded, and making arrangements to have gypsum shipped into the United States notwithstanding that the duty was adverse and that the profits would not be what they desired. Under the present arrangement, a tremendous boom will take place with respect to the shipping of gypsum to the United States, and the natural resources of Nova Scotia in that commodity will be made to pay tribute to the people of this generation as well as to the people of generations to come.
There is another large item, the shipping of sheep and lambs from Nova Scotia and the maritime provinces. I do not desire to occupy time by referring particularly to all the subjects which are vitally affected in this arrangement. OtheT hon. gentlemen who are to follow me, will, no doubt, take up the discussion of these items1. But I desire to say that the opposition which this measure is receiving from hon. gentlemen on the Conservative side is quite in keeping with their attitude on every other question of public policy propounded by this government, no matter how beneficially it ultimately resulted to the people of Canada. I have particular reference at the present moment to the Fielding tariff and the British preference which was submitted to this House in the session of 1897. I have here the speech of Sir Charles Tupper, who was then the leader of the opposition in this House, a distinguished imperialist so far as his utterances at all events during a long life aTe concerned, and a gentleman who, would not be considered by hon. members opposite as for a moment assuming a position of disloyalty to the empire.

When the British preference and the Fielding tariff were under discussion, he delivered himself in this way:
The result is that this tariff goes into operation, and the hon. gentleman knows that the industries of this country are already paralyzed in consequence.
_ There is a familiar ring to that utterance in view of the speeches of hon. members who have been prophesying that this arrangement will affect disastrously the industries of this country.
While hon. members gloat, vindictively gloat, over the destruction of Canadian industries, I was reading the wail, the sorrowful wail, ^of those industries in the Montreal
Gazette ' where one manufacturer after another declared that their industries word ruined, that their mills must close, and that they saw staring them in the face a return to the deplorable state of things that existed when the hon. gentleman who last addressed! the House was in charge of the fiscal policy of this country.
And again:
I feel that far from rejoicing at it from a party standpoint, I deplore from the bottom of my heart the ruin that is going to be inflicted upon the best interests of Canada, and upon its great industries.
My hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster), might have .saved himself a good deal of energy and this House a good deal oi time if, instead of the speech he delivered a few days ago on this question, he had taken the speech of Sir Charles Tupper, put it in your hands, and asked that it be taken as read.
That is^ the reception which this proposal of the Finance Minister is receiving from the opposition to-dav, but that is to "be expected, -as that is the treatment accorded by hon. gentlemen opposite to every proposal made by this government, no matter how beneficial it is calculated to be to the people of Canada. Last yeaT, when the budget speech was being discussed, the hon. member from North Toronto (Mr. Foster), said:
The point is what are you taking out of the individual taxpayer of this country? What are you taking out to-day? $11 to $12 per head, whereas in 1896 we took out a little less than $5.50 per head. This money you took out is money that comes from the man's earnings, it is so much abstracted from his capital. There ought to be no reason in the world for taking it except that it is absolutely necessary that the aggregate of the people of this conn try should be governed and that they should pay for it.
The whole criticism of the speech of my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster)^ on the Budget last year, was that the Minister of Finance was taking too much money out of the taxpayers of Canada, and that cry was taken up and reverberated Mr. KYTE.
along the back benches until its last echoes died on the lips of the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Thornton). Here is a proposal of the Minister of Finance to lessen the amount of money taken out of the taxpayers to the extent of $2,500,000. Does it receive the approval of the hon. member from No-rtli Toronto (Mr. Foster) or any hon. gentleman opposite ? If the Finance Minister was taking too much money from the taxpayers last year, when he took $100,000,000 out of their pockets., if the hon. gentlemen really meant their criticism to be taken seriously, they ought to hail this agreement with pleasure, because it will relieve the taxpayers of Canada to the extent of $2,500,000.
I desire to quote ain article from the ' Shareholder ' a newspaper of recent date. The article is as follows:
If we are to believe the hysterical outbursts which are appearing in many of our papers at the present time, Canada is on the verge of a great calamity. We have no interest in. the political aspect of the present tariff negotiations and are indifferent whether Liberals or Conservatives are in power at Ottawa. We do feel, however, that a great deal of nonsense has been written in regard to the reciprocity negotiations, and that those writings will do more harm to Canada than any reciprocity treaty we might negotiate. It is little less than absurd for writers to say that the pending treaty between Canada and the United States means the breaking np of the empire and the absorption of Canada into the United States. This is so puerile that it is unworthy of refutation. The absurdity of such a contention is self confident. Almost on a par with these contentions are the statements that the completion of the treaty will mean the break-up of our transportation systems. In other words, these ' calamity howlers ' state that the Canadian Pacific railway, Grand Trunk railway, and the Canadian Northern railway will become mere branch lines and act as feeders to the United States railroad. The history of Canadian railway enterprise disapproves of any such theory. It is acknowledged to-day that the Canadian Pacific railway is one of the greatest-if not the greatest-railway in the world. At the present time its stock is selling higher than that of any railroad on the continent. It pays a dividend of 10 per cent, and its earnings and general development have been little short of phenominal. It is unbelievable to think that our Canadian railroads will quietly submit to the traffic being taken south instead of east. Even those who oppose tlio treaty acknowledge that one result of it will he the opening up of large areas of our western lands and a greater influx of emigrants. This will undoubtedly mean that more grain, is to he shipped out and more manufactured articles carried in to supply the needs of tlio new settlers. This will mean more traffic instead of less for the Canadian railroads.
At the same instant that our Canadian ' calamity howlers ' are predicting the breakup of the emnire and the absorption of Canada into the United States, the business men.

of New York are proclaiming to their government and to the world that Montreal has captured the export grain business from New York. They point out that 74 per cent of the shipments of the west are now going through Montreal. In 1903 New York exported 14,000,000 bushels of wheat, while Montreal exported 8,000,000. In 1908 New York exported 16,000,000 while Montreal exported 30,000,000. In 1910 New York figures showed 6,000,000 and those from Montreal 20,000,000. They claim that Montreal is bound in time to capture practically all of the export grain trade, not only from the Canadian west, but a large amount of grain from the northwestern states.
All students of economics, or even the man. who knows absolutely nothing of economics, knows that business will naturally follow along the cheapest lines. If grain can be carried cheaper to Montreal than to New York it will naturally go by the former port. As a matter of fact, such is the case, and with the developments going on in connection with our canals, our terminal facilities, and the deepened St. Lawrence route, Montreal will continue to receive more and more of the export grain trade. The bogie which the protectionists' interest have raised is not even1 a real one. Canada is developing at such a rate that no treaty or combination of treaties could retard her development.
I, for one, should be very sorry to see any policy adopted by this parliament that would result injuriously to the manufacturing industries of this country. I recognize the part that the manufacturers and the capitalists of this country have taken in building up this great Canadian nationality. I recognize that by their enterprise and capital, they have made it possible for men to receive remunerative employment, and they have added enormously to the population in our industrial centres; but having regard to the record of the government and to the patriotism of the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding), it is idle folly to assume for a moment that anything will be done by this government or this Finance Minister that will jeopardize the manufacturing interests of Canada.
This question of loyalty is so beside the question under discussion, that one almost loses patience in discussing it, but it comes up so frequently and with such insistence, that it seems necessary for every one taking part in this debate, to put himself on record as respects his loyalty, ambitions and inspirations, as regards our connection with the mother country. The question of loyalty was not permitted by hon. gentlemen opposite, when in power, to in any way interfere with the carrying out of any question of public policy. It is well known that on one occasion, when Sir John Macdonald proposed a policy which was criticised as being likely to be injurious to British connection, he answered: ' So much the worse for British connection.' That sentiment has never been stated or
repeated by any hon. gentleman on this side of the House, or so far as I know, by any member of the Liberal party in Canada since 1896, when this government was called on to take office. But their loyalty is of such an ephemeral character that it is difficult to say what hon. gentlemen opposite, regard as loyalty to-day, and what they will call loyalty to-morrow. It was loyalty last year to proclaim that Germany was a nightmare disturbing tire dreams of the people of Canada; that the people of Canada should put up money to help to build a navy in England, to assist in repel-ing a threatened German invasion. We hear nothing now about a German invasion or a German peril, that has passed away into the oblivion of forgotten things. A year ago an election was progressing in Great Britain, in which gentlemen, who were trying hard to get into office, were endeavouring to secure some support by conjuring up to the minds of the people of England, that the responsible ministers did not show a sufficiently anxious disposition to keep up the armaments of Great Britain. But that election passed away. The Liberal party were returned to power. Since then, but a few weeks ago, another election took place, and the same party has been returned again to power. We have had strident and hysterical demands for imperial preferential trade between Canada and the empire. It would be a very good thing, and I can assure you, that if Great Britain declared for imperial preferential trade within the empire, I should hold up both hands for it. But, is it not idle for the hon. member for North Toronto, to tell the people of the maritime provinces, ' you had better keep your fish, keep your lambs, keep your apples and keep everything else you have to sell until we obtain preferential trade with Great Britain, and then we will send our goods over there.' There is not much prospect of our getting imperial preferential trade within the empire while the dominant partner, the people of Great Britain, repudiate it, as they have on three several occasions within the last five years. It is loyalty to-day as far as ho,n. gentlemen opposite are concerned, to proclaim imperial preferential trade within the empire, but who knows what will be their policy next year ? I am reminded of lines written by a poet whose name we all venerate and revere, referring to a distinctly similar situation which existed in England at a time when a party out of power was endeavouring to get back to power. He wrote:
Loyalty, sooth, we're on dangerous ground;
Who knows how the fashions may alter,
The doctrine to-day that is loyally, sound,
To-morrow may bring us the halter.
I have one more observation to make, and I am through. During the course of

the speech of the hon. member for North Toronto, he male some references to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in connection with his administration of public affairs in the province of Nova Scotia, and in connection with the issue which was raised there in the election of 1886. That charge was reiterated, in a somewhat subdued and Tariffed form, I will admit, by the hon. member for East Lambton. The hon. member for North Toronto referred to the fact that in 1886 the Minister of Finance, then premier of Nova Scotia, went to the country upon an issue which was calculated to disrupt the confederation of Canada. I wish to remind you, Mr. Chairman, that the people of Nova Scotia have, as long as I can remember, taken an active and intelligent interest in public matters. I need scarcely do more than remind you, Sir, that the province of Nova Scotia, within twenty years, has given two prime ministers to the Dominion of Canada, and if the hopes and aspirations of hon. gentlemen opposite had been realized in the last election and they had been returned to power the province of Nova Scotia would have contributed a third prime minister to the Dominion of Canada, to show the deep and intelligent interest Nova Scotians must necessarily take in political matters. Having said so much, I desire to add that the issue that was framed by my hon. friend tfie Minister of Finance, and that received the approval of the people of Nova Scotia, was an issue that he was absolutely justified in submitting to the people. From the years 1878 to 1896 the province of Nova Scotia was in opposition to the Conservative government at Ottawa, of which the hon. member for North Toronto was a prominent member. Certain questions of right and justice which had arisen between the two governments, and which should have been settled and decided by the Conservative government at Ottawa in favour of the Liberal government in Nova Scotia, were not so settled. The rights of the province were ignored, and the people of Nova Scotia, driven to desperation, as they were on one other occasion, when a great question came up for their judgment, said: If we cannot get justice from the government at Ottawa we ought to get justice from some other source. In 1886 there was an election run in the province of Nova Scotia on the question of whether Nova Scotia ought to accept conditions as they existed and bear the hardships which were being imposed upon her by the government at Ottawa, or endeavour to secede from the union. I need not remind the committee that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance was amply sustained, handsomely vindicated, by the people of Nova Scotia upon that issue, and that he came back to the gov-Mr. KYTE.
ernment of the province with a larger majority than he had before. In two subsequent elections my hon. friend the Minister of Finance led the Liberal party in Nova Scotia and led them successfully, as he has been successful upon every issue on which he appealed to the people during the twenty-nine years of his public life in Canada. We down in the province of Nova Scotia learned years ago to appreciate the eminent ability, unselfish character, loyalty and devotion with which the hon. Minister of Finance has always administered public affairs in Nova Scotia, and since he left the province of Nova Scotia to become Minister of Finance the people of that province have turned their -eyes lovingly towards Ottawa to learn from day to day of the new things and the good things that my hon. friend was bringing to the people of Canada. He has brought many good things to the people of Canada, and that he may long live to bring many other good things to them is the devout wish of every man in Nova Scotia irrespective of politics, whether he be Conservative or Liberal. I referred a moment ago to the eminent talents of the Minister of Finance. I shall not discant upon his personal qualities, that must be manifest to every hon. member who knows him, but I will say that as respects his character, his ability, the gieat good which he has conferred upon the province of Nova Scotia and the Dominion of Canada, and as respects his loyalty to his colleagues and his country future generations of Nova Scotians will say of him:
Ho was a man, take him for all in all.
We ne'er shall look upon his like again.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Kyte) happens to come from a section of the country where the people have been for many years inclined to indulge in their own peculiar amusement of aerial navigation, ea'ch one vieing with all his predecessors to make for himself a world's record as a kite flyer. But, unfortunately for their own reputation, they usually move around in the air promiscuously for a time and then finally land down in some deserted swamp or obscure lake. I do not think that the hon. member who .has just taken his seat has established a record for himself any more important to hand down to posterity in that respect than many of his predecessors. He started out by saying that what was suitable for Canada in 1891 ought to be suitable for it in 1911. That may be true, or it may be false, because a great many changes have taken place in Canada in the last twenty years. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) said something about the same. He said that Canada, from 1854 to 1866, during the time we had the recipro-

city treaty, enjoyed such advantages that she has desired to get such a treaty ever since, and that if Canada required'a reciprocity treaty then she requires one equally as much in 1911. Does it necessarily follow that that is correct? Is it likely to be correct? Are the conditions of Canada the same to-day as they were twenty years ago, or the same as they were in 1866? Not at all. Most of the hon. gentlemen who spoke on this question have given expression to the same principle, and have employed practically the same argument. The hon. member for South Wellington says that what was suitable for Canada in 1866 is just as suitable to-day. I would like to ask him to apply that to himself.
The ' Parliamentary Companion ' tells us that he was then a mere babbling infant, and that about all he needed was a bath tub, a little human milk moderately hot and a good deal of spanking to make a boy of him. But he grew up and he developed, and he came to manhood. Does he require nothing more to-day than he did in his infancy? What has happened in the meantime? He has increased in stature, in vigour, in mentality and to-day he is a full grown man. To ask him to be content now with what suited him in his swaddling days is as absurd as to ask Canada in the year 1911 to be content with what she required in the year 1866. Twenty years have brought great changes to Canada : We have grown to nationhood; we have developed strength; our people require different conditions and pursuits now from what they did then. What was suited to Canadians 20 years ago does not suit them today. True, as the hon. gentleman told us, the eastern and western dairymen have passed resolutions in favour of this arrangement and no doubt they spoke hon-and with the best intentions, but after all they may not be the best judges, and we will have to leave it to the future to determine. The hon. gentleman told us that the foreign trade of the port of Montreal was $15,000,000 and I can tell him that our fear is that if this arrangement goes into effect, that trade instead of developing as it ought to develop in proportion to the increased wealth and population of the country, will be retarded if not destroyed. Then, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kyte) toldus what was going to happen to Nova Scotia fish if they did not get reciprocity with the United States. Might I ask him what has happened to the maritime fish trade up to the present hour? He told us that none of their fish was sold in Ontario and the west, but I would refer him to his political friend from Northumberland (Mr. Loggie) to know if it is not true that that gentleman for years has been doing a very large and remunerative trade in fish with Montreal and Toronto and other cities in these provinces. The hon. gen-126 .
tleman (Mr. Kyte) told us that the English market was of little value to the maritime provinces for fish products; he told us that the interprovincial trade in Canada was of no consequence and that if they got a free market in the United States for their fish they would have all they could desire. But, the value of the product of our fisheries last year was $15,000,000, and I find from the statistics that of that the United States took $4,627,000 worth while the English market which the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) has such a contempt for took $5,899,000 worth. Then, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kyte) announced an economic fallacy when he said that the natural resources of our country are for the people of to-day, and not for the people of the future. Is there any wisdom in such a policy. Are we living only for ourselves and for the present; are we to pay no heed to posterity; are we to recklessly waste what nature has given us and leave to future generations a depleted country. Sir, such a policy would be the height of folly. I say that a wise and intelligent people in this or any generation will say: It is ours to use economically the gifts of nature, not to waste or destroy, but to save what we do not really need for those who come after us. That, Sir, is our real duty to ourselves and to our country. Then, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kyte) told us that this reciprocal arrangement would give to the maritime provinces a market for their potatoes. He was asked what quantity of potatoes had been sent from the maritime provinces to the United States last year, and he could not tell, although he ventured the opinion that the interproVincial trade in potatoes was of little or no value. Well, the facts are that large quantities of maritime province potatoes are used in On-tairo and Quebec, and three years ago when in Winnipeg I was told that most of the potatoes they were then using were brought from the province of Prince Edward Island. Let me remind the hon. gentleman thaf| last year the United States sent into Canada $52,597 worth of poultry, while Canada only sent to this great market of 95,000,000 people $3,576 worth. In view of these figures the poultry raisers in Canada will not have much to hope for from this trade arrangement, and with regard to potatoes, as to which the hon. gentleman thought the American market would be so valuable, this 95,000,000 people took last year from all Canada $36,710 worth. What a wonderful benefit it will be to the Nova Scotians to get that market for their potatoes.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: It is a wonder they took that much, with the duty of 25 cents a bushel.
Mr. iSPROULE. I wonder that they took any at all. They never take any more than



they can do without, and they are not likely to take any more in the future out of generosity than they have done in the past. They only take what suits them. From the United States returns I find that they sent into Canada last year $213,554 worth of potatoes, whereas they took from us only $36,000 worth. Where would the poor Nova Scotians be if the duty were taken off potatoes and the Americans had the freedom of our market? I am inclined to think they would be worse off rather than better. Then, the Canadian farmer has eggs to sell, and where is he going to sell them? The ninety-five million of people of the United States took from us last year only $12,500 worth of eggs, whereas we took from them $117,517 worth. What a wonderful benefit it will be to the Canadian farmers and farmers' wives who have eggs to sell, whan they find that they will have to compete in their home market with the importation of double or treble the quantity of American eggs when the duty is taken off. The same is true with regard to horses and the same with regard fo cheese.
The Minister of Finance stated, as a justification for making this treaty, that both political parties in Canada were committed to such a proposal ever since 1866, when the old reciprocity treaty was abolished. Well, in my judgment he was a little out in his history and was not quite accurate in his facts. Canada, he said, enjoyed good times during the continuance of that treaty from 1854 to 1866, and presumably those good times were due to that treaty. I want to ask those who know anything about the history of that time, is that a fact? I say emphatically that it is not. What gave us the good times that we enjoyed from 1854 to 1856 or 1857? It was the Russian war, which ran up the price of everything we had to sell. We sold wheat in the barn for $2 a bushel, and everything else at correspondingly high prices. After that, for some years, not-t withstanding the reciprocity treaty, we had rather bad times. Prices went down lower and lower until 1861, when the American war started, and we had good times again. Why had we those good times? The Minister of Finance says because of the treaty of 1866. Not at all. It was because 5,000,000 people in the United States were withdrawn from peaceful pursuits of agriculture, to fight for their rights, and that country had to depend on other countries for its supplies, and everything went up enormously in price. I happened to be living in the United States in 1866, and I remember the high prices we had to pay for everything-25 cents per pound for pork, from 20 to 24 cents per pound for beef, and correspondingly high prices for butter, cheese and all other articles of Mr. SPROULF.
food. An ordinary suit of clothes cost $125. Our horses and cattle went to the United States in thousands and were sold at very high figures. We had good times, not because of the reciprocity treaty, but because so many of their people were taken from the peaceful pursuits of agriculture and the country had to get its requirements from other countries, and Canada, being so close to the United States, enjoyed the advantage of that condition of things. In
1865	the war closed. I was in the United States in 1866 and 1867, when they abolished the reciprocity treaty, and what was one of the reasons they gave for doing it? I remember one of the generals speaking in Detroit at the time, and saying : Over five millions of our people were taken from the peaceful pursuits of life for many years, and we stopped production, and were obliged to get our supplies from other countries ; but the war is now over, these people have gone back to their regular pursuits, and they will be able to supply us with all the foodstuffs we require, and we are bound as a nation, in the interests of our own people, to abolish this treaty and to put up the duties on these articles, so that we can keep the market of our own country for our own people. And the Americans abolished the treaty for that purpose, and put very high duties on everything that went into that country. I remember that the duty on a box of matches was 10 cents, and everything else was in proportion ; and from that time on we were shut out of the United States market. Then the Finance Minister said, and the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) as well, that both parties in Canada have been committed to such a proposal since 1866 up to the present. That history, I submit, is not correct, and I propose to show that it is not. Since 1897 the Conservative party have never submitted to the people a policy of reciprocity. It is also incorrect as regards the Reform party. In 1891 that party went before the electorate with the policy of unrestricted reciprocity or commercial union and not limited reciprocity, and they ran their election on that platform and were sadly defeated.
What has been the history of both political parties in this country with regard to their efforts to secure reciprocity from
1866	to the present? In 1866, after the abolition of the treaty, Sir Alexander Galt and Sir William Howland went to Washington to secure reciprocity, but failed. In 1868, after confederation, there was a clause inserted in our first tariff Act declaring our Teadiness to enter into a similar limited treaty with the United States if they were prepared to reciprocate. That clause, however, remained ineffective. In 1869 Sir John Rose was despatched to Washington by the government of Sir John

Macdonald to secure reciprocity in natural products on the lines of the treaty of 1866, but he also returned without being able to accomplish anything. In 1871 another effort was made by Sir John Macdonald, when the treaty of Washington was negotiated. An effort was then made to have that treaty extended to natural products, but the Americans again refused. In 1874 Sir Alexander Mackenzie sent a deputation to Washington, headed by the Hon. George Brown, to get reciprocity, but they also failed. In 1879, when the National Policy tariff resolutions and the Customs Act were passed, there was a statutory offer made for reciprocal tariff legislation, or reciprocity, in natural products, and that remained a standing offer to the United States for several years, but was never accepted. In 1891, for the last time, Sir John Macdonald appealed to the country and asked the people whether they were desirous of having reciprocity with the United States. If so, he said, we are prepared to make another efiort as opposed to the policy of the Reform party in favour of unrestricted reciprocity, or commercial union. On that issue both parties went to the country, and the Reform party was ignominiously defeated. Sir John was returned, and, true to his promise, he sent another deputation to Washington, but that met with a similar fate as its predecessors, and from that time to the present day the Conservatives have never made any effort to get a reciprocity treaty with the United States. From that day to the present they have never put any such plank in their platform, and I appeal to the Minister of Finance whether he was not absolutely incorrect when he said that from 1866 down to 1911 both parties were committed to such a policy. In 1891 the Reform party ran their election on unrestricted reciprocity, or commercial union, and were defeated. In 1893 they put a plank in their platform in favour of reciprocity with the United States and appealed to the people. They carried the country, and in 1899 the right hon. the Prime Minister and Mr. John Charlton went to Washington to try and get reciprocity, but utterly failed, and the right hon. gentlemen then declared that they had made their last pilgrimage to Washington to secure a treaty, and would in future endeavour to develop this country on national lines. In view of these facts, is it right, therefore, to say that both parties *were committed to that policy during all those years? I submit that from that time to the present neither party was committed to it.
My hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) has said, however, that if there was good reason for the demand in 1866 there is equally good reason for it in 1911. Well, I say there is not. Times and 126J
conditions have both changed. To-day we have good markets, whereas then we had unprofitable markets. Since then the country has been developing in every line. Its people are amply employed at remunerative wages, its interprovincial trade has been growing and has grown immensely, and owing to this development and the increase in immigration we have a home market adequate for all our necessities. There could, therefore, be no comparison between 1866 and the present in that respect. We are to-day a full grown nation. We have reached that development which comes with maturity. We are now full grown, and can face the world in arms; we have the brain, brawn and muscle necessary to hold our own. We have good markets in Canada and ample employment for our own people. Can it, therefore, be said that we are in the same position as in 1866? I say no. Do we then require a reciprocity treaty to-day, as we did in 1866? Not at all. All we require to do is to continue working out our own national development, as we have been during the last 15 years. It seems to me that the epitaph on a certain tombstone would apply well to Canada if we should get this proposed treaty. The epitaph reads as follows :-*
I was well, wished to be better;
Took medicine and here I am.


William Stevens Fielding: Rather hard on the doctors.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, on political doctors just as well as on medical men. The Canadian people will say; We were well, oux political doctors thought we should do better; they administered medicine, and now here we lie. What has been the ruin brought to Canada by the, I was going to say quack political physician and his empirical prescribing for the country's needs at this time!
I was much amused at the wonderful cheer that went up from the supporters of the Minister of Finance on the other side of the House, and from the colony on the hack benches of this side when the Minister of Finance sat down. It was as though some oracle from Heaven had spoken-as though the clouds had opened and the shower came down from Heaven to revive the drooping spirits of the world. The hon. gentlemen acted as though they felt very much better. They reminded me of the sick Irishman, who was called upon by the doctor. Doctors have a habit, when they call upon a patient, of not only looking at the tongue and feeling the pulse, hut of using a little instrument, such as I have here, a thermometer. First the thermometer must be shaken down to make sure that it is below 981, the normal human temperature, and then it is placed under the

39S8
patients tongue. The physician placed the thermometer under the Irishman's tongue and walked up and own, while he waited for the expiry of the three minutes, during which the instrument was to remain in the patient's mouth. The poor Irishman held his mouth shut, and when at last, the doctor removed the thermometer, the patient said:	'Thank you, sorr; I
feel a great deal better for that thratement.' The Finance Minister had taken the temperature of his following, and they felt they would soon be well. But I am afraid the improvement was like that of the Irishman, more in imagination, than in reality. Now, what did we do when we found _ we could not get any treaty with the United States ? The matter was taken up seriously by the Conservative party in 1876, 1877 and 1878, when Sir John Macdonald, finding every effort to negotiate a treaty unavailing, laid down a policy designed to protect the home market of Canada and prevent the United States exploiters from dumping their surplus goods in our country. Being shut out of the American markets by high tariffs and the refusal to negotiate a reciprocity treaty from 1866 to 1890, we had periods of hard times in Canada, there is no doubt, and felt the urgent need of better markets for our own people. But, as the United States did not admit us to their markets, the wise statesmen of that day said: We will prepare for ourselves a National Policy, and will develop Canada on lines that will assure to our own people the employment that is denied to them by the Americans making a slaughter market of Canada. This National Policy was introduced in 1879, and had the effect of directing the pursuits of the people of Canada, and educating them so that they might better employ their time and labour by turning out the finished products suitable, for Canada, instead of selling our raw products, as we had been doing up to that time. That policy continued to be carried out by the statesmen controlling the destinies of Canada. We sent experts to Great Biitain to study the markets and ascertain what was suitable for the consumption of the people there, and how we could produce it and lay it down in their markets in prime condition, and in the most attractive and saleable form. We established experimental farms for the same purpose; we appointed a dairy commissioner, and dairy instructors; we prepared cold storage by land and by ocean, and improved the transportation of the country by land and by ocean as well. We did this for the purpose of transporting to the markets in which we must sell the goods we had to dispose of the only one of value we had left to the Canadian people, so that they might receive the benefit they Mr. SPEOULE.
were entitled to expect from the markets of the mother country. We sent Prof. James W. Robertson to England to study the markets of that country and of other European countries as well; and on his return to Canada, he outlined the policy which, in his judgment, we should follow, to make our products sell in those markets. He said that the education of our farmers was one of the desirable things, so that we might produce an article of superior quality in dairy products, cured meats and other foodstuffs, suitable for the British market. For that purpose we established experimental farms, we commenced experimental work by means of the experimental farms, and by the officers appointed to deal with the dairy associations to carry on the other portions of this business. And so we went on up to 1890. But we found that the Americans were still taking advantage of our markets. The meat products which our Canadian farmers were supplying in unlimited quantities, were driven out of the Canadian markets by the inroads of the United States meats. We had got the government in 1879 to put a duty on meats, but it was not sufficient. Deputation after deputation came to the government, until, in 1890, we laid this problem before them. We said that the Canadian farmers were raising meat enough to supply the demand of Canada, but the big Chicago houses brought into Canada 22,000,000 pounds of fresh meat to feed the Canadian people, depriving the Canadian farmer of his home market. And we urged that, in the interest of the farmer, the duty must be increased. We succeeded in convincing the government that this was the right thing to do. We showed them that every day the refrigerator cars could be seen coming from Armour & Co., from Swift, and other meat packers, of Chicago, dumping out the fresh meat in London, Hamilton, Toronto, Kingston, Montreal and even down to the maritime provinces. And there were stalls retailing this meat alongside the Canadian butcher stalls. These Chicago houses, in fact were feeding the Canadian artisans and labourers in the cities with beef and pork raised in Kansas and Illinois to the detriment of our farmers. Was that wise ? Was it proper P We got the government to put the duty, not as high as we asked, but up to 2 cents and 3 cents a pound on fresh meat.
What was the result? In two years we shot up every one of these American butcher stalls in Canada, we stopped these refrigerator cars from dumping the fresh meat in Canada and Teduced the consumption of American fresh meat to less than
8.000,000 pounds. Will any man tell me that that did not do the Canadian farmer

any good? I think the Canadian farmer is too intelligent to doubt it. What would be the result to-day if you took the duty off? By this arrangement we reduce it to one and a quarter cents a pound. It was 24 cents a pound when we imported 22,500,000 pounds, and they kept stalls open. Would not the same thing happen again? It would, and to the detriment of the Canadian farmer who is raising meat enough to feed the Canadian people and is entitled to demand from the Canadian government a protection of the home market for the Canadian farmer. But although we are feeding the Canadian people our exports of cured meats, packing house produce, increased from $5,000,000 in 1889 when that duty was put on to $17,196,000 in 1903, and in addition we fed the Canadians, as well. Was that no benefit to the Canadian farmer? Would we not do him serious injustice if we took that duty off? In my judgment we would. By these means we secured a profitable market in Great Britain for all we had to sell over home consumption and we had there a splendid market also for our dairy products? What did we do with regard to dairy products? We sent our dairy instructors and instructed the people how to make better butter and better cheese. We prohibited the importation, manufacture or sale of spurious products, process butter and filled cheese which were largely produced in the United States. We compelled the Canadian people to label all Canadian produce going to Great Britain so that it would not be confused with American produce there. Then the Americans commenced shipping butter and cheese across at Brockville, sending it to England by Montreal and calling it Canadian. We stopped that by compelling them when they brought it across to label it United States produce. By these means we developed that industry until in a few years our cheese products increased, the price and quality went up all along the line until three years ago we enjoyed the advantage of being able to supply the British market with 65 per cent of all the cheese imported from all parts of the world. The United States was our greatest competitor in 1879 and shipped double the quantity of cheese to Britain that we did. The exports have been going down from that time until to-day, and last year they sent there only a few million pounds, a negligible quantity, and there is practically no American cheese in the English market to-day. We supplied England last year with 65 per cent of her imports of cheese. Will any one tell me in the face of these facts that the Canadian dairymen would not suffer and lose his reputation for butter and cheese abroad if he allowed the same thing to happen now that happened years ago? History would repeat itself and the Canadian dairyman
would live to learn that he made the mistake of his life when he passed that resolution saying that all he desired was to get into the American market with his cheese and butter.
The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) said that he represented an agricultural constituency, that there were farmers there who are raising the best cattle found on the continent, and raising splendid horses for which they desired access to the Buffalo and New York market.
He said :
The arrangement presented before us will give Canada tremendous advantages over the position which she now occupies.	|
He added:
Will any one tell me that the people of my riding do not desire to get their cattle and their sheep and their hogs into the Buffalo market ?	,
I would like to ask would they be equally desirous that the man from Kansas, Illinois, Ohio and New York should come into the Canadian market and share the markets of Guelph, or Toronto, or Montreal with the Canadian farmers to the extent they were doing before? Will the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) be willing to see an American butcher stall opened in Guelph, to sell beef and pork from Chicago in competition with the farmers of South Wellington? I think not. He says the Canadian farmers are anxious to get into the American market to sell horses. Where do they sell them to-day? They have a splendid market in the Canadian west, the best we ever had, a Canadian market, a home market, a market that never fails us so long as we protect it against the American people. Last year over 6,000 horses were imported from the United States and paid over $100,000 duty to get into our market.


Mr. MILLER.: Was not a large number of these horses the property of immigrants coming to Canada which as settlers' effects would pay no duty?
Mr. iSPROULE. No, these are horses on which duty was paid, the settlers' effects are not included in this list. Remove that duty and will there not be much greater competition with the Canadian farmers? Our Canadians are buying horses all over our country, and are paying enormous prices. I saw $200 paid for one horse the day I was home, $255 is sometimes paid, and I saw $450 paid for a team. Where were they going? Away to the western provinces to supply our people. The hon. member for South Wellington said that we want to get into New York with these horses. These heavy horses never go to New York ; the only market we have there is for fancy hunters or for driving horses

of which we get perhaps one out of 500. The great and important market we have is the home market, and we have shut out from that the cayuses and bronchos that were destroying the horses of our western country. Are we to bring back the conditions we had when they were coming in with impunity? It would be a bad day for the western horse and for the western farmer, a bad day for Ontario and Quebec whose farmers have such a splendid market there. We are told that the Canadian market is of little value to our people, but the Minister of Agriculture told us the other day that the home market is increasing at the rate of $2,000,000 a year and it is already by far the most important we have in point of volume as it is in point of value ; four times as much as there is a surplus to export..
Are they willing to let that market be destroyed? I say keep the home market for the Canadian people and unless we do that we will not be doing what is right. Will this agreement help us? In my judgment it will do us very serious injury. It will break up and injure our present lines of transportation and foreign trade which aie interprovincial, which are from east to west. To-day the trade is carried by our own lines of railway and steamer through our own ports and through our own great cities. It will break up that trade and will carry it to the south, to the American market. It will seriously injure the earning power of our railway and transportation companies and of those men who own vessels and who are making a good living out of the carrying trade. They will be seriously struck by this treaty. It will injure as well the Canadian ports and cities through which these goods are carried. It will injure Port Arthur, Fort William, Winnipeg and the ports on the Georgian bay, but it will build up St. Paul, Minneapolis, Duluth and Chicago. Is that the national policy that we should desire, is that the national policy that is good for the Canadian people? It is no more suitable for them to-day than it was in 1879 when we introduced the national policy as being suitable for Canada. We have now an interprovincial trade of vast importance, of great value to the people of Canada, from west to east and from east to west. This will be broken up and our trade will be drawn off by the various lines and branches that tap our country every few miles of a length extending from 2,000 to 4,000 miles. The trade which goes through Ontario, which filters through Quebec and the maritime provinces and passes Halifax and St. John on its way to England, will go through the United States by way of Chicago, Boston, Portland, New York, and Canada must inevitably suffer on account of being deprived of the inter-Mr. SPROULE.
provincial trade and the transportation which she now enjoys and which will be taken away from her if this agreement is carried out. It will divert trade from the great cities and towns of Canada to the great cities and towns of the United States. Winnipeg is one of the largest cities in Canada to-day in her population, wealth and enterprise. What will she be in future years? It is true that she will go on developing but not at the same rapid rate as she has been developing of late years. It will be a serious blow' to her if that law goes into force, because the wheat that is shipped through Winnipeg and inspected there will be turned from that route, and sent down across the boundary line, not touching Winnipeg at all. It will not reach the terminal elevators and the complaint of the western farmers that the terminal elevators do them an injustice by mixing their grain will be very largely removed because their grain will go to the western states and find a market at Duluth, Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Superior, instead of Toronto, Montreal and the maritime provinces. That will be the result, and therefore it will do them a great deal of harm. It will Americanize our trade and commerce. Two thousand commercial travellers go out every week from Winnipeg away through the western country with their samples to take orders for the products of our country and England that are distributed through the wholesale houses of Winnipeg to that western country. One hundred million dollars worth of goods are distributed every year through the wholesale houses of Winnipeg to the wholesale and retail stores of the west extending from Winnipeg to the Pacific ocean. Those goods are distributed on account of the orders taken by the 2,000 commercial travellers. What will happen to them? They will be supplemented by from 2,000 to 4,000 American travellers from Chicago, St. Paul and Minneapolis, selling American meat, American cured beef, fresh beef from Chicago and Kansas City, and other goods from the United States. They will become serious competitors of these commercial men.
But, this agreement will do more than that. I say it will Americanize the commerce of our country. We have many Americans in the west who are accustomed to the products of their own country and they will buy them in preference to ours because they know them better. They will establish a demand for them, and these commercial men will get their orders. These orders will not be sent to the Winnipeg whosale houses but to the wholesale houses of Chicago, Duluth and Minneapolis, to the detriment of our great Canadian cities, especially to the detriment of Winnipeg and to the benefit of the Ameri-

can cities. It will Americanize our trade, it will Americanize our (people in social, commercial and industrial life, to the disadvantage of our people, and it will result in injuring the great towns and cities of Canada and building up the great towns and cities of the United States. I said that it would Americanize our commerce, and the social life of our people. The dominating influence of 95,000,000 of people over 8,000,000 of people will soon do more; it will assimilate, absorb, take up and cause us to lose our imperial and British identity, and we will be practically assimilated by the United States. If you have in one school 95 children belonging to one nation and 9 to 12 of another nation, in a few years you will see the greater dominating the lesser and the greater absorbing the lesser. Will not the ideas of the greater overcome the ideas of the lesser? And will that not produce a change in the social, intellectual and commercial habits of the lesser number? Would that not happen in this case? Most assuredly it would, the same as it would in the case of the school children. We will have 95 millions of people overshadowing, overtowering and dominating the seven or eight million people that we have. It will Americanize them, it will wean them away from their British allegiance, it will wean them away from their loyalty to the mother country, and it will pave the way for unrestricted reciprocity and annexation. That is the goal that many of those who are advocating this treaty are aiming at to-day. That is the goal they desire, that is the goal that many of them would have us reach. I fear very much, Mr. Speaker, that is what will come to pass, if in our fatuity, the parliament of Canada should sanction this reciprocal trade arrangement.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 45) respecting the Montreal Park and Island Railway Company.-Mr. Ecrement.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 91) to incorporate the Pacific and Peace Railway Company.-Mr. Douglas.
Bill (No. 11.5) to incorporate the Guardian Accident and Guarantee Company.-Mr. Doherty.
Bill (No. 77) respecting the National Indemnity Company, and to change its name
to National Guarantee and Accident Company.-Mr. Wilson (Laval). (Title changed to ' The Merchants and Employer's Guarantee and Accident Company).

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 56) to incorporate the Hudson Bay Mortgage Corporation.-Mr. Knowles.
On section 31,
William Pugsley: It strikes me that this section is rather extraordinary. It seems to make a special provision for removing doubts that might arise as to certain questions between the company and its shareholders, and it provides that if the doubts which the company had were not unreasonable, even though the decision might be in favour of the shareholders, the cost of the proceedings should be a lien on the stock. I have never seen such a provision in a special charter before. I think that might very well be left to the ordinary provisions of the law with regard to trust matters. I would invite the attention of the hon. gentleman who has charge of the Bill to this section.


Mr. McCRANEY.: The section to which the hon. minister (Mr. Pugsley) refers was discussed in the Banking and Commerce Committee, but not with respect to the particular point that he mentions. The Bill, I understand, is modelled upon that of the Northern Mortgage Company which was ' passed last session. I understand that a similar section is in the Great West Permanent Company's Act also.


William Pugsley: Of course, if there is precedent for it, one must have due respect to that fact. But let me read the section:
34. Whenever the directors shall entertain reasonable doubts as to the legality of any claim to or upon such shares, bonds, debentures, obligations, dividends or coupons, or the proceeds thereof, then and in such case the directors may file in any court of competent jurisdiction in the province in which the head office of the company is situated, a petition stating such doubts, and praying for an order or judgment adjudicating and
1	awarding the said shares, bonds, debentures, . obligations, dividends, coupons, or proceeds ' tc the parties legally entitled thereto, and
such court shall have authority to restrain any action, suit or proceedings against the company, and the directors and officers thereof for the same subject matter, pending the determination of the petition; and the oom-
2 pan.v and the directors and officers thereof . shall be fully protected and indemnified by . obedience to such order or judgment against
all actions, suits, claims, and demands in res' pect of the matters which have been in question in such petition, and the proceedings " thereupon, provided that if the court adjudges fi that such doubts were reasonable, the costs.



[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Ways and Means.
["YTes, I have read it many times. To-morrow I will pass the book in which it is contained over to my lion, friend. It is in Justin McCarthy's History of Our Own Times, and Justin McCarthy, although a well-known home ruler, is\tan\tup\tto date\tand\tfairminded historian. He states it in so many words. Goldwin Smith has also quoted it\tin\this\tbook on\tthe\tCanadian question. Did we ever accept the interpretation of the Monroe doctrine, suggestive as it was, by the United States Secretary of State, Mr. Olney, to the effect that no European power would be tolerated any longer upon the American continent? Did we ever accept with fear the policy embalmed in Mr. Dingley's and Mr. McKinley's Bills? We stood the days of adversity like men, like Canadians, like British subjects and surely with prosperity we can trust ourselves. We gave willingly our help to Great Britain in South Africa. We have offered cheerfullv our help to Great Britain for the well-being of the British Empire in the various colonial conferences and we have given, as I stated a moment ago, without expecting anything in return, a fiscal preference. If now, the westerner, in that beautiful country west of Lake Superior, can sell his wheat to the United States to better advantage, if the poor fisherman from Gaspe can sell his catch to better advantage to the eastern states, if the Prince Edward Islander can sell his potatoes in a wider market, if the Quebec habitant can add a dollar to his ton of hay, if the Ontario farmer can raise barley and do a better trade in cattle with the United States, surely his or their loyalty will not be impaired. If, on the contrary these things are done, as my hon. friend sirggested this -evening, at the cost of the loyalty of Canadians, then indeed the empire possesses no real strength.\nI hold no brief to speak for my friends of the English persuasion, but I know that no English-speaking Canadian will , ever barter his birthright for the flesh pots of Egypt. I know that no French Canadian at least would ever accept annexation. I can sneak for my fellow countrymen. We in the province of Quebec, French Canadians one and all, Conservatives and Liberals are against any idea that smacks of annexation. Why ? Because of the privileges we enjoy under the\nBritish Crown. By the Quebec Act of 1774, under which Act our language, our faith, our laws, our customs, our usages have been respected in a privileged manner by His Britannic Majesty and by the imperial government. We know what has been the fate of our fellow countrymen in Louisiana and we know that as long as we live under the British flag, as long as we live under the benign laws of Great Britain, our rights and our privileges will be protected and safeguarded, and we are willing to do our duty towards the Crown of England which is not only a bond of unity between the colonies and the mother land, but also between the various races in those colonies. The sentiments expressed by Joseph Howe at the time of the Detroit convention are ours. They are ours to-day as they were ours in 1865:\nI have heard it said since I came to the convention that if the reciprocity treaty is annulled the British provinces will be so cramped that they will be compelled to seek annexation to the United States. I know the feeling in the lower provinces, and I believe I am well enough acquainted with the Canadians to speak for them also when I make the assertion that no considerations of finance, no question of balance for or against them on the interchange of commodities can have any influence upon the loyalty of the inhabitants of the British provinces, or tend in the slightest degree to alienate the affections of the people from their country, their institutions, their government and their Queen. There is not a man who dare, on the abrogation of the treaty, if such be its fate, to take the hustings and appeal to any constituency on annexation principles throughout the entire domain. . The man who avowed such a sentiment would be scouted from society by his best friends. What other treatment would a man deserve who had turned traitor to his government and violated for pecuniary advantages all obligations tq the country that gave him birth? The very boy to whom I have alluded as having fought manfully for the stars and stripes would rather blow his own father's brains out than, haul down the honoured flag under which he was born. If any member of the convention harbours the idea that in refusing reciprocity to British America they would undermine the loyal feelings of the people of those colonies, he is labouring under a delusion. ... I sincerely hope that all thought of forcing annexation upon the people of Canada will be abandoned.\ti\nThe sentiments of Joseph Howe expressed in 1865 at the Detroit Convention are the sentiments of Canadians in this v-ear of grace 1911, on the eve of adopting this reciprocity treaty. I say further, that not only are w'e against any idea of political\tunion with the\tUnited\nStates, but that on the contrary, we believe that such agreements as these make for genuine Anglo-Saxon solidarity. The Trent Affair, the Fenian", 'Raid, the Behring sea seizures are things of the past. A firm friendship between the several branches of the Anglo-Saxon race is worth striving for. We are told, Sir, that we are against the empire in propounding such a policy, but do you know that the greatest imperialist of modern times, Cecil Rhodes, devoted his life and his wealth after his death to the advancement of just such a policy of Anglo-Saxon solidarity. In his will he provides a sum of money to enable young men in each stale of the Union to take a course at Oxford University, there to study British life and British ideals. His object was to spread throughout the world that love for liberty and justice and right which is begotten of British institutions and British law. At the end of this century of peace (the celebration of which will take place in 1912 on the wise suggestion of my colleague the Minister of Labour), this reciprocity agreement will be the crowning event of that century. We believe it will be a means of serving the empire and Canada; we believe it will prove a link between the mother country and the great republic. In the past our loyalty has borne its trials, even with the mother country. While we were -still suffering from the effects of the abrogation of the reciprocity treaty, statesmen high in station in England gave us to understand that they would see us part from the old connection without regret, but we did not believe that those were the feelings of the people of England, and so we held on, and so we will still continue to hold on. We have fairly won our way into /the British brotherhood, and we will not hear with patience that any trade arrangement, however favourable, will turn us from the course we have freely chosen for ourselves within the greatest empire that has been.\nProgress, reported.\nOn the motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 12.03 a.m. Wednesday.', 'Wednesday, February 22, 1911.']
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at six o'clock I had pointed out to the House the probability that if we 'established closer relations with the United States in commerce, in social, professional and official life, the tendency would be for the larger nation to dominate the smaller, for the 95,000,000 of the United States to influence the 8,000,000 people of Canada, so that we would become more like them and lose our own identity. I had also dwelt on the injury likely to be inflicted on the farmers, of Canada by giving access to the Canadian market to the stockraisers of the United States. I had pointed out that it will injure the meatraising industries of the country as it did in 1885 to 1890. It will also injure them in another way.
By the importation from the western country into Ontario and Quebec of the grain necessary to keep our millers going we have more food supply for our cattle and hogs down here. We have 300 flour mills going in Ontario and the upper portion of Quebec that are supplied with a large portion of the grain they grind from the west every year, and the stock feeders of Ontario and Quebec will use up all the offal, the bran, shorts and coarse flour. They bring thousands of cars of this feed from these western provinces in addition to that produced down here. Will we have the same system that we have now when


William Pugsley: that grain goes across to the American market? We are not likely to have it. If the grain of the west is ground in the mills of Minneapolis and St. Paul the offal will not be brought to Canada, and__tlie Canadian farmer and feeder who requires it so much for the growing and fattening of his stock will be deprived of it. It is another source of supply that will be taken from him; it is another handicap that will be placed upon him in carrying on this operation out of which he makes money. It will very seriously injure him. as well as injure the millers of the country. These 300 mills are obliged to get grain from the west to keep their mills running for about six months in the year. I know something of the business, because I was in it for a short time some years ago, and I found that we were obliged to import from the west sufficient grain to keep our mills running for nine months in the year. Of late years we have been growing more grain in Ontario, and perhaps it is only necessary to bring down grain enough to keep them running for six months in the year. But the flour that seems the most saleable, the strong bakers' flour, is made from the hard wheat of the west and the soft wheat of Ontario mixed in equal quantities. Therefore, the Ontario and Quebec miller requires that western wheat to make the quality of flour that the Ontario people desire to have, and they require to get it to keep their mills running as well. They have a large amount of wealth invested in these plants, and unless their mills are running fairly up to their capacity they stand to be seriously injured. The harder you make it for them to get that grain from the west and the more grain that goes to Chicago, St. Paul and Minneapolis the more difficult it will be for them to meet the supply down here, and the less there will be of offal from the grinding of that grain to supply the farmers of this country. In that way it will seriously injure our country. I am speaking especially of Ontario, the conditions of which I know something about. If this arrangement is carried out it will strike a very serious blow at the interests of the millers, as well as the stock breeders and farmers.
Then, it will injure the stock raisers generally by a serious reduction in the amount of feed that they will be able to get. But it will injure them in another way. If you make it possible for cattle, sheep and horses to be transported across the line free of duty, what will be the result? With a plentiful supply of corn in the west there is a great demand for our young cattle for the purpose of feeding them there. Why? Because if they have a large supply of feed and they are short in their supply of cattle, our young cattle will be purchased in the northwest and in other

provinces at the very time when the farmers should begin to fee.d them, and when they should become most profitable to them, they will be sold on the farm, because of the higher price which will be offered for them, and it will be as it was a few years ago, when we had the freedom of that market for our young cattle. Our young cattle were bought uo by thousands, taken over to the United States and fattened by these western people, because they had a plentiful corn crop with which to feed them. In a few years, I believe we will have a great shortage, and I am afraid that instead of the Canadian farmer finishing his product upon his own farm and returning the required nourishment to the soil the young cattle will be taken away, the farms will be impoverished and our farmers will be going around during a portion of the year doing very little on account of it.
We are told that this is going to be a most valuable thing for the farmers of the northwest. Tile hon. Minister of Finance said: Look at the large deputation we had down from that country, and what were their wants? One of the great wants was the freedom of the American market in order to enable them to sell their cattle and grain. It may be a very attractive prospect to the western farmer to-day to get a few cents more a bushel for his grain for a short time, or a few dollars a head more for his cattle, but I say that in doing that he is sowing the wind and is bound to reap the whirlwind. The system of farming -if I may say so, and I think I know something about farming-that they carry on in the country to-day is not the best kind of farming for the progress of the country, or for the future. What is their system of farming to-day? Having broken up some virgin soil on the prairie, rich, Strong and fruitful, they go upon the land in the spring of the year, put in their crop, allow it to remain for a few months, harvest it, thresh it, put their grain into the elevator, and get their elevator receipts. It is all done in a few months in the year, commencing about March or April and ending about the following September or October. What does the farmer do after that? He does a little ploughing in the fall, but he has got the full return of a year's labour by working only a few months and that suits him very well, because human nature is always ready, in a few months, to take the wage of a year's work if circumstances will permit. You have the full return of a year's work in a few months when you get your warehouse receipts. Having obtained their warehouse receipts, what do they do? Three or four farmers will employ one man to stay on the homesteads and look after the stock of all of them while these farmers come down to Ontario and the east and go around
visiting in the country until next spring. This is inculcating, not industrious habits, but indolent and unthrifty habits, because these men are away from their farms. When a farmer leaves the farm generally everything is going to the bad. He should be on his farm in winter as well as in summer. He should be carrying on mixed farming, he should have enough stock to keep the boys employed in the winter time feeding the coarse grains from his own farm that he has in such plentiful supply and return to the soil by that system the nourishment which it needs instead of the system of farming *which is carried on now. He is impoverishing that rich virgin soil, with the result that it will yield him less every year. It will bring him to the same condition as that which is found in the States, where they have carried on the same kind of farming until to-day they are receiving a return of only eight or ten bushels to the acre, whereas it ought to be 25, 30, 35, or. 40, as we find it in Ontario to-day. Is that healthy farming? It may please the western farmer to get the returns from what ought to be a year's labour in a few months. But that is not the kind of farming that will pay in the future. It reminds me of what an old Scotch woman said to her boys who were rather given to running around all winter and doing nothing. She said in my presence: It is all right for you to have a good time now, and it will be very well if there is no hereafter, but if there is you wall have a fearful reckoning.
A day of fearful reckoning will come, but I fear it will be when the land is impoverished and the soil no longer able to continue giving the large crops it yielded when first brought under cultivation. The system of farming now pursued will not ensure to their benefit and it will do incalculable damage to the land. They should remain on the farms during winter, feed and grow the animals on the soil just as the Ontario farmer does, instead of denuding the land of its fertility. The Ontario farmer has learned by experience that it requires a different system of farming from that to bring him a suitable return, and no doubt the time will come when the western farmers will see the errors of their present system. This reciprocity agreement will tend to build up the cities of the United States	and to impoverish Canadian cities. Our lake port towns on Lake Superior, at the Sault, on the Georgian bay, instead of being on the great highway of commerce as they are today, will be side-tracked, and the trade of the country will go by them instead of through them. This reciprocity arrangement will decrease the business of the railways which is looked to to pay the dividends to the stockholders. Winnipeg, Port.

Arthur, Fort William, Collingwood, Owen Sound, Meaford, Midland, Sarnia, will, if this reciprocity arrangement is passed be seriously injured-and when you injure these towns you injure the surrounding country-and the United States cities like Detroit, Chicago, Superior, Minneapolis, St. Paul, will improve just in proportion as our Canadian towns deteriorate. This arrangement will give the fruit raisers and garden vegetable producers a bad blow, and in this industry to-day in Canada an immense amount of money is invested and a great number of people employed in its pursuit. The fruit growers of British Columbia and Ontario have with no uncertain voice told the Prime Minister the injury that will be done to their industry if this arrangement is sanctioned, but the government turned a deaf ear to them, and the Prime Minister told them they had come too late. Surely it is never too late to mend ; surely until the die is finally cast it is not too late to retrieve this step which is calculated to do so much injury to our country. Then, the lumbermen have said that it will injure their business and they ought to be the best judges of that. The fine lumber for which the Americans receive a good price will be consumed in the American market and the coarse lumber will be thrown into Canada, to the detriment of the Canadian lumbermen in Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, and the maritime provinces. This reciprocal trade arrangement will give the American manufacturer access to the natural resources of Canada, and a greater supply of raw material to keep their factories running and employ labour on the American side. The other day we were told by tlie Finance Minister that the Americans would have no more advantages under 'this arrangement, in the future than they have had in the past, but listen to what President Taft said in his message to Congress :
We have on the north of us a country contiguous to us for 3,000 miles with its natural resources of the same character as ours which have not been drawn upon as ours have been, and in the development of which the conditions as to wages and character of wage earners and transportation to market, differ but little from those prevailing with us. The difference is not greater than between different states of our own country or between different provinces of the Dominion of Canada. Ought we not then to arrange a commercial agreement with Canada if we can by which we shall have direct access to our great supply of natural products without an obstructing or prohibitory tariff.
And yet in the face of such language from President Taft the Minister of Finance tells us that this reciprocity agreement will give the Americans no better advantages than heretofore in the rich inheritance of our forests and other natural resources. President Taft continues :


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Ought we not now, therefore, before their policy has beoome too crystallized and fixed for a change, meet them in a spirit of real concession, facilitate commerce between the two countries and thus greatly increase the* natural resources available to our people?
That is what Taft says, and that is what he hopes to gain, and now will the Minister of Finance pretend that the arrangement will not give the Americans access to our forest wealth? President Taft further says :
The currents of business and the transportation facilities that will be established forward and back across the border oannot but enure to the benefit of the boundary states.
Mark that language well. And just in proportion as this inures to the benefit of the boundary states, to a like extent it will injure Canadian cities, towns and provinces. President Taft goes on:
Some readjustments may be needed, but in a very short period the advantage of the free commercial exchange between communities separated only by short distances will strikingly manifest itself. That the broadening of the sources of food supplies, that the opening of the timber resources of the Dominion to our needs, that the addition to the supply of raw materials, will be limited to no particular section does not require demonstration.	!
If it does not require any demonstration on his part, it ought to suggest to us the danger that we encounter if we adopt this proposed treaty. What will it do ? It will give the raw materials of our country to keep labour employed in the United States. What will it do more than that ? We are told by one of their most -eminent men, that because of the obstructions at the boundary line, $350,000,000 of United States capital have been invested in Canada during the last few years, to establish in this country branches of American factories, because they could not otherwise get access to the markets of Canada. That meant the employment of our mechanics and artisans and an immense increase in the wealth of our country. The same man said: We need to do something to stop that great influx of capital from our country into Canada. Do we, in Canada, want to stop that ? I say we do not. This measure will make ultimately foT commercial union with the United States. It will weaken the tie that binds us to the mother country. Some say that it will not affect us one iota. On that point let me quote one or two American writers and speakers. President Taft's speech in Columbus, Ohio, elaborated as follows:
The greatest reason for adopting this agreement is the fact that it is going to unite two countries with kindred people and lying together across a wide continent in a commer-

cial and social union, to the great advantage of both.	,
How long afterwards will they be kept apart politically ? I say that commercial and social union inevitably ripens into something more-ultimately into political union. Then, I take Mr. Wilson, the United States Secretary of Agriculture. He is equally frank as in his addressed letters to the farmers of the republic, he assures them that:
The removal of the duties on Canadian products will do them no harm, and that the great feature of the compact is that under, it our relations with Canada will be more intimate and we will become more and more one people.	I
One people commercially, one people socially, one people politically, if that is not leading us away from our ties of loyalty to the mother country, I do not know what English language means. The Detroit ' Free Press ' says:
That the principal merit of the agreement is political and social. It will, it is hoped, and confidently expected, be the beginning, of the end of the stupid separation of two, halves of a continent which is inhabited by( substantially one people.	i
If I , know what the English language means, I say that there is but one interpretation to be placed on this, and it is that it means ultimate political union. Then, the ' Free Press ' of Milwaukee, says:
The terms of the agreement will be viewed by some people from the standpoint of the pocket book, but the man of larger visioni will regard it not only in the light of its| present effect but in the light of its future fruitage. Thus viewed, a reciprocity agrees ment with Canada assumes a significance far transcending even its great promise of beneJ faction to the living people of these neighs bouring nations.	[DOT]
It means a union of the two countries in the future. I said that it will tend inevitably to weaken the tie that binds us t-o the mother country. I have here a. speech made by Mr. Austen Chamberlain, at Birmingham, a short time ago, and I wish to quote from it briefly, to show how the subject is viewed over there. To my mind, he has voiced the situation very correctly. He says:
What is going to be the effect upon the trade of our city of such an arrangement as this? I cannot doubt that it will he serious.' I cannot doubt that, whilst depriving us of advantages which Canadian imperial patriot-1 ism has hitherto afforded us, whilst deprive mg us of those, it will expose us to a new and an additional and a more eager competition-from the United States of America. In the first place, the purchase from Canada of its grain and raw- material, creating a new trade route, will bring back the trade route ai
stream of manufactured articles; and I can-! not help saying that, as I think of this agreement, I come more and more to the conclusion that the American policy of conservation of its natural resources is turning into a policy for the exploitation by American capitalists and American manufacturers of the national resources of Canada. It must increase enormously the competitive power of America in the world's trade, and its export power as well as its domestic production. And as its new ties become more firmly established, as new interests grow up under them,
I feel that the independent national growth of Canada, within the British Empire, will he seriously menaced by the overwhelming strength and the overwhelming wealth of its great neighbour. As the years roll by, as the north and south trade develops, as the transport interests become greater and ever greater, the hold of the American upon the Canadian market will become closer; his grip upon Canada will be firmer, and the national development in which we all rejoice, the material development to which we have looked forward, will be hampered, if it he mot jeopardized, by the growing competition of continental ties.
I take up the speech of Mr. Asquith when answering in the English House of Commons the speech of Mr. Balfour, and in that speech we find illustrated the callous indifference of our government to the great policy of inter-imperial preferential trade to which we ought to look forward knowing what it would do for us. What does Mr. Asquith say:
I come to the main point in the debate. The charge against the government is that during all these years the Dominion has been knocking at our door, that we have turned a deaf ear to her appeal, and that the first-fruits of our indifference and neglect are to be found in this agreement between Canada and the United States of America, which the leader of the opposition tells ns, if ratified, will be a disaster to the empire. Well, but have they been knocking at our door? What do they themselves say? Sir W. Laurier. speaking at Nelson on August 30 last, said:
' It is not the policy of the Canadian government to ask Great Britain to change her fiscal policy one iota. (Ministerial cheers.) We make our arrangements bo suit our own interests, and so it is with Great Britain/
Mr. Asquith gave that statement of our Prime Minister as an answer to the contention of the leader of the opposition in the British House of Commons that Canada had been knocking at its door for imperial preferential trade, that she had been knocking in vain and was now about to make a tie which would alienate her affections from the mother country and seriously cripple -every chance of bringing about that inter-imperial trade. Am I not justified therefore, in saying that this proposed reciprocal arrangement with the United States will operate to our disadvantage? It will give American manufacturers command of the timber resources of Canada, it

will give them a greater supply of raw material to keep their own establishments going, it will give employment to labour in the United States and deprive Canadians of that labour in their own country, and will make undoubtedly for commercial union. In every way it will operate to our disadvantage. It will weaken the ties that bind us to the mother country. In the face of all these facts, why should this scheme be forced on the Canadian people against their will and desire? What is impelling the government to take this course? They say they do not desire to make this a'political issue. Neither do the opposition. We have endeavoured to keep this question as much as possible out of the arena of party politics, and have it discussed solely on its merits. On every side we have protests against it. The boards of trade in Toronto and Montreal, Halifax, Vancouver, Winnipeg and a dozen other towns and cities have pronounced against it in the strongest possible languuge. The most eminent and influential men in the public life of this country have declared against it in the most unmistakable terms. The great financial magnates of this country, our professional men, our great manufacturers, our railway and transportation interests, our agricultural interests-all these have come out most emphatically in opposition to this policy yet it is being forced on the country all the same. Why force it through this parliament? Why not submit the question to the people before the die is oast, and it is too late to retreat? I challenge the government to do that, and will be willing to abide by the decision of the people and offer no more objection.
Canada values her own interests very highly and desires to have that commercial freedom in the future which she enjoys at present. Canada is now enjoying a prosperity she has not had for years. Her products are abundant, her granaries are overflowing, she has profitable markets for all she has to sell at home as well as outside. Canada produces nothing which she cannot now dispose of readily at remunerative prices, her people are happily employed, and are being paid good wages and what more can she want? Our railways and other transportation companies are taxed to the utmost to carry on the commerce of our country and are earning large dividends from year to yeaT; our banks are overflowing; our factories are unable to cope with the orders they receive and are obliged to enlarge their premises from year to year, and we have others being established in order to supply the great demand which exists at remunerative prices in our own market. Why then should the government carry on this flirtation with Miss Jonathan? We are making money in every line, we are rapidly becoming rich, and our people are strong and vigorous in their physical man-Mr. SPROITLE.
hood and national life. Why then continue that flirtation with Miss Jonathan? Our Finance Minister seems to have become infatuated with her appearance. Her attractiveness has captured his fancy and he seems disposed to carry on that flirtation and lead us into an alliance from which there will be no escape. He is today in the garden of Eden enjoying all the luxuries which the finances of this Dominion can procure, he is now revelling in the milk and honey of political life, but if he persists in carrying on this flirtation, until it results in the fruition he desires, he will find himself iq the position of that Irishman w'ho was advised to go and get married. This man was employed as a gardener by a lady who owned a beautiful place and was much pleased with the manner in which he cared for her garden. Why, said she, you are a fine gardener, and I have kept you many years at good wages, but although you earn good wTages and at the entrance to those grounds there is a commodious house to occupy if you only get married, I think it is your duty,, under the circumstances, to get married, and I have told you often that my desire is that you should do so. You are here very much as Adam was in the garden of Eden. When the Almighty put Adam in that garden to till the soil, he saw that it was not well for man to live alone and he got him a helpmate. Do you not think that you should also get a helpmate? Did you not go to school when a boy and did you not hear the story of Adam? The Irishman replied:	Faix,
ma'am I did hear that well. Don't you think Adam was no better gardener than you. and had no better place? Don't you think that you should go and do likewise? Faix, ma'am, I remember it very well, and I remember he didn't hould his job long after he got her, but the Lord turned him out to wander up and down upon the earth. So it will be with the Finance Minister, if this comely face and attractive form and immense wealth win him away from the trust given him by the people of Canada. He may make this matrimonial engagement, but it will be with him as the Irishman said of Adam in the garden-not long after he will lose his job and will be turned out to wander up and down upon the earth.
What does Canada want to-day? Canada enjoys freedom and desires to have that freedom continued. Canada desires to be left alone; she does not wish to be a slave to either man or nation. She desires to have the full benefit of her own country and the bountiful resources with which nature has provided here from the sustenance of man and beast. She desires to be left alone to wmrk out her own problems and her own destiny and to develop her national, commercial and financial life as she has been doing. This is the desire of

Canada and her sons of whom Robert Reid, the poet of Canada has said:
Sing me a song of the great Dominion; Soul felt words for a patriot's ear;
Ring out boldly the well turned measure Voicing your notes that the world may . hear;
Here is no stravelling-Heaven forsaken- Shrinking aside where the nations throng;
Proud as the proudest she moves among them-
Worthy is she of a noble song.
Smg me the worth of each Canadian- Roamer in wilderness, toiler in town-
Search earth over you will find none stauncher,
Whether his hands be white or brown;
Come of a right good stock to start with, Best of the world's blood in each vein;
Lords of ourselves, and slaves to no one, For us or from us, you'll find we're-men.
And Canada desires, with her men, to be left alone to work out that destiny that she has been working out so bravely for the years of the past. And if the present government do not allow her to go on in her own way with her own development, there will come a fearful day of reckoning for them as soon as the Canadian people have an opportunity to speak their mind upon this question.


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General).: Mr. Chairman, I shall crave the indulgence of the committee for a short time to express to the House and the country the arguments that offer themselves to me in favour of the policy wisely pursued by this government and cheerfully held by the best elements of this country of ours.
I hope that in the few remarks I intend to make I shall approach this subject dispassionately. It is one of those issues of national importance which naturally should bar out any party spirit and any dissonant accents; because, Mr. Chairman, speaking of reciprocity of trade between Canada and the United States of America can only mean discussing the development, the progress, the ultimate grandeur of both countries.
I have listened, as I listen always, with great interest and great attention to my old and genial friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule). I paid careful attention to his tale of woe. When I refer to my hon. friend as an old friend, I only mean that he is one of the old members oi the House of Commons. It is one of the privileges of old age to become at times sentimental, reminiscent and even witty. My hon. friend in his tale of woe, has interspersed that tale with reminiscences of the past, with a little sentiment expressed at times in poetical quotation, and with a few witticisms, from the south of Ireland I suppose. In the closing sentences, and even at the beginning of his speech, he stated in a very manly way-forgetting the immediate pastthat this Canada of ours had good markets, had good times, and that we should let this country work out its own destiny. Without discussing all the points raised by my hon. friend in his very interesting, very witty and very sentimental speech, let me tell him that I take issue with him on this point. Granted that we have good times, but our policy is to have better times; granted that we have good markets, which we of the Liberal party have created during the past 14 years; but we want better markets. And so, while accepting what my hon. friend said, I will put it this way: Let Canada, with better times and better markets, work out its own destiny under the aegis of the British Crown. My hon. friend (Mr. Sproule)- is full of fears as to the future of this young country, I am full of hope as to the future of this country of ours. And as he has quoted a little poetry let me remind him of the beautiful words of Tennyson, the great poet laureate, in speaking of the grandeur of England, and of the still greater hopes of that country:
We sailed wherever ships can sail,
We founded many a mighty state;
Pray God our greatness may not fail .
Thro' craven fear of being great!
And I must say at once, that this can be addressed as much to myself as to my hon. friend. Sentiment, however, is a sorry substitute for sound argument. I am reminded of this old English truism by the fact that my hon. friend in his many reminiscences, in his sentimental moods, whilst unbiassed by party politics, as he stated from the beginning, paid his compliments to the old National Policy. I do not blame my hon. friend, he was a faithful supporter of the old chieftain, Sir John A. Macdonald. But has he forgotten that when Sir John A. Macdonald introduced in 1879 the National Policy before this parliament, he inserted a clause in the statute, whereby a reciprocal offer was made to the United States of America ? The reciprocity offer did not work, and we remained with the high protective wall raised by the Conservative party in 1879 until 1896. What is the'tale of woe of that policy adopted in 1879 ? I say that sentiment is a sorry substitute for sound facts and sound arguments. It is rather remarkable that. I should lecture, if he will allow me, my old friend from East Grey, and tell him, I, a Frenchman, that I have more faith in facts and figures than in poetry, when discussing a financial question. What did the National Policy do during the 18 years of office of the Conservative party ? Under the National Policy, from 1879 until 1884, the rate of increase of exports of Canadian produce was 17 per cent; from 1884 to 1889, 7 per cent; from 1889 to 1896. 29 per cent: and from 1896 to 1901 during our tenure

of office, 78 per cent. The aggregate foreign trade of Canada increased under the National Policy, from 1878 to 1884, at the rate of 20 per cent, a good start; but from 1884 to 1890, it increased 5 per cent, a decrease of 15 per cent; from 1890 to 1896, 9 per cent, a slight increase; but under the Liberal policy from 1896 to 1902, it increased 77 per cent. You have there the record of both parties in each their fiscal policy.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the bon. minister give the figures from 1902 to 1910 ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have not these figures at hand, but they can be given to my hon. friend, I am sure, during the course of this debate. My hon. friend *will understand from the position he occupies in the ranks of his party, that we, on this side of the House^I, at all events, do not object to his criticism of the measure, which is now engaging the attention of the House. The opposition is a necessary part of the machinery of constitutional government. The opposition is bound to watch the affairs of the country, the conduct of the government, the conduct of public business. The opposition, under our constitutional government, is bound to criticise, and it is in the interests of the country that it should criticise. It must find fault with the government. That is the chief occupation of my hon. friend, and I do not blame him for that. I was myself born in opposition. I wished, when I was elected for the first time to the House of Commons, that I had sat a few years where my hon. friend now graces the seat he occupies. But let me remind my hon. friends that our fiscal policy, as this reciprocity agreement with the United States, has always been unjustly criticised by the hon. gentlemen opposite. If they had been satisfied with criticism, I would not object, but they fall into that very bad habit of making predictions. There is no worse thing in public life, than adding a prediction to a criticism. Might I remind my hon. friend of the speech, the very remarkable speech, he made in this House some 10 or 12 years ago, when I was still a young man, when the Yukon railway project was brought before parliament? I never heard such a prediction as the one formulated that fateful afternoon by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule). Does he not remember describing Mackenzie & Mann reaping every year in the wilds of the Yukon territory, crops after crops of gold as a result of the arrangement they had made with the Canadian government ? If I remind my hon. friend of the predictions he made at that time, it is only to emphasize this fact, that on all great issues, whilst it is the duty of the opposition to criticise and find fault with the policy of the gov-Mr. LEMIEUX.
eminent, in order to enlighten the minds of the country and to give a little courage to the Conservative party in the country, yet, Sir, the opposition should not venture to predict and to prophesy, because it becomes a very bad piece of business when facts come a few months afterwards to defeat the arguments propounded by the prophets. Speaking only of our fiscal policy, which, in the words of my hon. friend a moment ago, is a monument to this Liberal government, because as he described the condition of affairs in this country, we have good times, we have good markets, and Canada should proceed to work out its own destiny. Does not my hon. friend remember the words spoken by the honoured leader of the opposition when the British preference was introduced in this House by the present Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson), and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) ? Does he not remember the words spoken by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), the financial critic of the opposition? I shall not refer to the old Cumberland war horse, to that great Canadian statesman, Sir Charles Tupper, when he said in the House:
The result is that this tariff goes into operation and the hon. gentleman knows that the industries of this country are already paralyzed in consequence, while honourable members gloat over the destruction of Canadian industries. I was reading the wail, the sorrowful wail, of those industries in the Montreal ' Gazette/ where one manufacturer after another declared that those industries were ruined, that their mills must close, and that they saw staring them in the face a return to the deplorable state of things that existed when the hon. gentleman who last addressed the House was in charge of the fiscal policy of this country. I say that a deeper wrong was never inflicted upon Canada.
These are the words, this was the prediction, made by the leader of the Conservative party in 1897, when the British preferential arrangement was proposed to this House. But, what said the financial critic of the opposition, the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), then member for either Kings or York? He said:
Is it right, is it fair, is it statesmanlike to allow this young and growing industrial life and development to be hampered and shackled, if not totally destroyed by invoking a competition on the basis of a reduction of duty to the extent of .25 per cent in favour of these countries that may come if the standard is as I have said and we have not a word to the contrary from the government.
The hon. member for Kings then, now for North Toronto, was prophesying that the industries of this young country would be hampered and shackled if that British preference came into existence. The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Hali-rax), then one of the young members of the House-we were elected the same

year-in 1896, discussing the same measure, said:
Wliat is this noble contribution of 25 per cent

to British trade and British industries.
-the noble contribution is this that the hon. gentlemen opposite, without taking the trouble, in an important matter of this kind, to ascertain whether they were right or wrong, have seen fit to take a step which can. to my mind, have only one of two results: either it is bound to bring this country into direct conflict with the mother country on this point, or else it is bound to bring the mother country into direct conflict with Germany. One or the other of these results may follow.
We were declaring war on the industries of Great Britain, we were hampering and shackling Canadian industries, we were creating a scare-yes, 13 or 14 years ago we were anticipating the scare of last year-we were creating a real scare between Great Britain and Germany because forsooth we were giving a British preference of 25 per cent. This emphasizes the fact that it is very dangerous to make predictions.
Now, let us come to the arguments which are invoked in favour of this measure. First of all let us rise to the height of the question, let us rise to the height of Canada, let us not belittle our country, let us trust ourselves in this bargain with the United States. Sir, the wealth of Canada baffles all description. Our resources are enormous, are unbounded, our development during the last fifteen years-I maintain the expression fifteen years, which I used at the manufacturers' banquet, because I want to give just a little slice of these good times to my hon. friends opposite-our development during the last fifteen years has been unprecedented. To make a short inventory of the resources of Canada, let me say that it is a country as big as Europe 111,000 square miles, larger than the United States, it could absorb the United States, the United States materially could not absorb Canada; it is a country thirty times as large as the United Kingdom, eighteen times as large as Germany, extending over 40 parallels of latitude, with resources the like of which are not known in any other country in this wide world; we have the greatest timber resources in the world, 550,000,000 feet of standing timber; wheat fields 600 miles wide, 1,000 miles long, waiting ready for the plough, not less than 190,000,000 acres of wheat land; we have 12,500 miles of coast fisheries, 250 miles of which are in the beautiful county of Gaspe; we have 440,000 miles of fresh water fisheries; in coal alone, according to the statistics of the Department of the Interior, 172,000,000,000 tons; in gold we have produced the worth of $260,000,000; in silver we occupy
third place in the world; in nickel we have three-fifths of the world's supply; in 1901, of pig iron we produced 160,000,000 tons, in 1904, 509,000,000 tons; we have estimated water-powers available to the extent of
25,000,000 horse-power. Sir, I think it will not appear ludicrous if I give this short inventory of the resources of our country.
My hon. friend the leader of the opposition the other day concluded his speech by saying that his motto was.: Let well enough alone. I say that with such col-lossal natural resources, with such a heritage, and with such a future, we can well afford to say: Not let well enough alone, but let us open wide the gates of our country, let us not be afraid to bargain and to trade with our neighbours.
Thanks to a wise immigration policy, our great west is filling rapidly with the best elements of the white people of this world. Not to speak of the two old races in Canada, the English and the French- and when I mention the English, I wish to include my friends from Ireland, from Scotland, from Wales, and I hope that the flag shall wave on St. David's day -not to speak of the last two races which I claim come from the best stock in the world, I say that we have a good element in the other races that are filling up rapidly our virgin soil in the far west. Therefore, Sir, we should not be afraid with such a population, ever and ever increasing, to trade with the United States of America. Not speaking of my own countrymen, but of the English race in Canada, it is the descendants of that hardy race which, in the last two or three hundred years, has conquered all the best markets in the world. Great Britain is not afraid to trade east and west, north and south, not afraid to trade with the United States, not afraid to trade with the Latin republics, nof afraid to compete with Germany, with her high tariff wall, not afraid to compete her colonies with those nations which are slowly conquering the deepest recesses of the wild continents of the earth.
Great Britain, that nation of shop-keepers as it was so aptly described by Napoleon Bonaparte ; Great Britain by trading with the, whole world, by leaving her doors open to all comers has not lost her autonomy. The British race is still the hardy race it was 300 years ago, and I believe that for centuries to come it will continue to lead the world. Canada is looking for markets for her enormous surplus products. We are subsidizing steamship lines east and west and north and south ; we are bonusing the construction of railways ; we are establishing commercial agencies in the United States, in France, in Belgium, in Germany, in Italy, in Japan, in Australia, in China, and in

Africa. At- Durban in Natal I was met by a young Canadian from Ontario who represents there the commercial interests of the Dominion. We have an agent at Cape Town, and I trust the government will soon have an agency in British South Africa- a colony founded only yesterday but which already under the governorship of Sir Percy Girouard a French Canadian is producing enormous quantities of cotton and coffee 'and tea, and will be able to buy and consume in large quantity the products of Canada. And, if we are subsidizing steamship lines, and bonusing the construction of railways, and appointing commercial agents in the four corners of the earth, why should we refuse an invitation to trade with the United States ; an invitation' which by the way came this time from Washington to Ottawa, and did not go from Ottawa to Washington. Why in the name of common sense should we refuse to develop our commerce with the 95,000,000 of neighbours to the south of us, The greatest consuming people in the world?
The policy of reciprocity with the United States is not new. My hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) is an old parliamentarian, and having read the history of our commercial ventures he knows full well that ever since the fight for responsible government in Canada the question of a reciprocity agreement with the United States has always been the first article in the programme of both political parties. Let me recite briefly the circumstances under which the first reciprocity treaty was negotiated. And my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) having given what I think to be a biased recital, may I be permitted to give my version of the history of trade negotiations between the United States and Canada for the last 50 years. We know that when Lord Elgin came as Governor General in 1847, it was just one year after the repeal of the corn laws in England ; laws under which Canada in a degree benefited by a preferential tariff in the mother country. If the corn laws were not completely repealed in 1847 it was because Sir Robert Peel had provided a gradual sliding scale which delayed the result for some years. In 1847 when Lord Elgin assumed the governorship of Canada we were fresh from a revolution; discord and discontent were abroad in the land, and in 1849, the Rebellion Losses Bill was passed, and the parliament buildings burned in Montreal, and Lord Elgin stoned in his carriage on his way to Monklands. A few months afterwards when the sliding scale had run its course, and the corn laws were completely abolished, there was in Canada a deep sentiment of distrust in the mother country because forsooth the Canadians of those days thought they were not supported by the mother country as they ought to Mr. LEMIEUX.
be. Then was published the annexation manifesto to which memorable document was attached names famous in Canadian history-Sir John Abbott, Sir David Macpher-son, Luther Holton, A. A. Dorion, Sir John Rose ; I need not mention others. At this juncture the leading men in both political parties appeared ready to pass under the stars and stripes because, as I said, there was a deep sentiment of distrust caused by the friction in trade relations between Canada and the mother land. It is a notable thing that the only time there ever seemed to be any annexation sentiment in Canada was a time when we were refused the advantages of a reciprocity treaty with the neighbouring republic. Need I remind the House, however, that our predecessors in political life were labouring under a delusion, and that the statesmen of Britain were not averse to a reciprocity treaty between Canada and the United States. They had more faith in 'the loyalty of the Canadians of that day than has my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) in the loyalty of his fellow countrymen of to-day. I hold in my hand an historic document which I have obtained from the archives, it being a letter of instructions from Lord Grey to Lord Elgin, Lord Grey was colonial secretary, and writing to Lord Elgin on his assumption of the Governor Generalship of Canada, and within a week of Lord Elgin's departure, under date Downing Street, 31st December, 1846, he said :
This is an occasion upon which I cannot with propriety enter into any discussion of the grounds upon which this change of policy has been adopted.
But without doing so I may express my firm conviction that eventually the welfare of the colonies even more than that of the mother country will be promoted by the abandonment of a system of artificial restrictions upon trade. Looking to the great natural advantages possessed by the British colonies, and especially by the fine provinces of North America, I cannot doubt that adopting a policy of which the object is to render industry productive by leaving it to follow its natural channels of employment, and by affording every possible facility to commerce, must lead to their rapid advancement in wealth and prosperity.

So Lord Grey, in his instructions to Lord Elgin, on the very day after the Canadian rebellion, on the very day -when the Corn Laws were repealed in England, was advising the Governor General to give to Canada the benefit of a convention with the United States of America, to do away with the artificial barriers existing between those two countries, so as to develop trade and industry, so as to make the colonies of North America prosperous provinces. As a result of the annexation manifesto, Lord Elgin proceeded to Washington and negotiated the famous

Elgin-Marcy Treaty, which lasted from 1854 to 1866. What was the effect of that reciprocity between Canada and the United States? Turning to the reports published in those days, I find that the exports of the various provinces to the United States in 1854 amounted, to $10,473,000; in 1855, the year following the treaty, they amounted to $19,368,000, and in 1866, the last year of the treaty, they amounted to $3$,950,000, so that in 12 years the exports from Canada to the United States increased 280 per cent.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the hon. member may have overlooked the fact that on account of the depreciation of American currency, the exports seemed to be very much larger than they really were. Greenbacks were standing then at about 58.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: These are the values of the exports in gold.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: American currency was not on a gold basis.


Rodolphe Lemieux: At all events, the men who lived between 1854 and 1866 duly appreciated the vast importance of that treaty. Listen tc what Sir Alexander Galt, who was the Minister of Finance, said when that treaty came to an end on the 17th of March, 1866:
If we require to find an example of the benefits of free commercial intercourse, we need not look beyond the effects that have followed from the working of the reciprocity 'treaty -with the United States. In one short year from the time when that treaty came into operation, our trade in the natural productions of the two countries swelled from less than $2,000,000 to upwards of $10,000,000 per annum, and now, when we are threatened with an interruption of that trade-when we have reason to fear that the action of the United States will prove hostile to the continuance of free commercial relations with this country, when we know that the consideration of this question is not grounded on just views of the material advantages resulting to each country, but that the irritation connected with political events exercises a predominant influence over the minds of American statesmen, it is the duty of the House to provide, if possible, other outlets for our productions.
And Sir John Bourinot, who for many years occupied the position of clerk of this House, but who is probably better known as a great historian of Canada, in his sketch of Lord Elgin, described the results of that treaty in the following terms:
Not only was a large and remunerative trade secured between the United States and the provinces but the social and friendly intercourse of the two countries necessarily increased with the expansion of commercial relations and the creation of common interests between them. Old antipathies and mis-127
understandings disappeared under the influence of conditions which brought these communities together and made each of them place a higher estimate on the other's good qualities.
Sir, I prefer this appreciation of Sir John Bourinot, who was a descendant of a United Empire Loyalist family, to the appreciation given this evening by my hon. and loyal friend from East Grey. I know that my hon. friend is loyal to his country; I know that he has faith in his fellow-countrymen, but I could not help thinking this evening, when he was describing his fear of the effects of this treaty on the social and political conditions of Canada in the future, that my hon. friend was, _ perhaps, more loyal at times to his political party than to his country. Sir, what was the opinion of Canada respecting the abrogation of the reciprocity treaty in 1866? My hon. friend is speaking of the evil effects of that treaty 40 or 50 years after its abrogation, but the men who lived in those days, the men who were at the head of affairs in this country, who piloted the ship of state, thought otherwise. I hold in my hand a Minute of Council adopted on the 19th of February, 1864. Canada was then under the Union. The meeting of Council was held in Quebec, and there were present the Hon. Mr. Thibaudeau, Mr. Macdonald, Mr. Dorion, Mr. McDougall, Mr. FeTgusson Blair, Mr. Holton, Mr. (afterwards Sir Oliver) Mowat, Mr. Letel-lier de St. Just, Mr. Huntington and Mr. Laframboise-all names of good old Liberals, loyalists and patriots if ever there were loyalists and patriots in this country. This Minute of Council Teads as follows:
Certified copy of a report of the Committee of the Privy Council, approved by His Excellency the Governor General on the 19th February, 1864.
The committee of the Executive Council deem it to be their duty to represent to Your Excellency

His Excellency, Lord Monk

-that the recent proceedings in the Congress of the United States respecting the reciprocity treaty have excited the deepest concern in the minds of the people of this province.
Those proceedings have had for their avowed object the abrogation of the treaty at the earliest moment consistent with the stipulation of the instrument itself.
Although no formal action indicative of the strength of the party hostile to the continuance of the treaty has yet taken place, information of an authentic character as to the opinions and purposes of influential public men in the United States has forced upon the committee the conviction that there is imminent danger of its speedy abrogation unless prompt and vigorous steps be taken by Her Majesty's imperial advisers to avert what would be generally regarded by the people of Canada as a great calamity.



The committee would specially bring under Your Excellency's notice the importance of instituting negotiations for the renewal of the treaty with such modifications as may be mutually assented to before the year's notice required to terminate it shall be given by) the American government, for they fear that the notice if once given could not be revoked, and they clearly foresee that owing to the variety and possibly the conflictory nature of the interests involved ou our own side, a new treaty could not be concluded and the requi-1 site legislation to give effect to it be obtained before the year would have expired and with' it the treaty.
Under such circumstances, even with the certain prospect of an early renewal of the treaty, considerable loss and much inconvenience would inevitably ensue.
It would be impossible to express in figures with any approach to accuracy the extent to which the facilities of commercial intercourse created by the reciprocity treaty have contributed to the wealth and prosperity of this province, and it would be difficult to exaggerate the importance which the people of Canada attach to the continued enjoyment of these facilities.
Nor is the subject entirely devoid of political significance, under the beneficent operation of the system of self-government which the later policy of the mother country has accorded to Canada in common with the other colonies possessing representative institutions combined with the advantages secured by the reciprocity treaty of an unrestricted commerce with our nearest neighbour in the natural productions of the two countries, all agitation for organic changes has ceased, all dissatisfaction with the existing political relations of the province has wholly disappeared although the committee would grossly misrepresent their countrymen if they were to affirm that their loyalty to their Sovereign would be diminished in the slightest degree by the withdrawal, through the unfriendly action of a foreign government of mere commercial privileges however valuable these might be deemed, they think they cannot err in directing the attention of the enlightened statesmen who wield the destinies of the great empire of which it is the proudest boast of Canadians that their country forms a part, to the connection which is usually found to exist between the material prosperity and the political contentment of a people; for in! doing so they feel that they are appealing to the highest motives that can actuate patriotic statesmen, the desire to perpetuate a1 Dominion founded on the affectionate allegiance of a prosperous and contented people.
This is the statement embalmed in a minute of council by the men who represented public opinion, who represented the best interests of Canada, on the eve of the abrogation of the famous reciprocity treaty which lasted from 1854 to 1866. That treaty was abrogated, but I come again to my first proposition, and I say that since its abrogation there have been repeated efforts made by every government, every Minister of Finance in this country, to obtain a similar commercial agreement between the United States and Mr. LEMIEUX
Canada. Several attempts at renewals were made. The first were made by Sir Alexander T. Galt, Sir John Rose, Sir Francis Hincks, and in 1874 by the Hon. George Brown; and last but not the least was the attempt made by one of the giants of Canadian public life, Sir John Alexander Macdonald.
My hon. friend (Mr. Sproule), referring to the campaign of 1891, said that Sir John Macdonald then declared that if Canada would again return him to power, he would be ready to again approach the American authorities on this question, and particularly Mr. Blaine who was then Secretary of State in the United States, in order to obtain a renewal of the treaty of 1854. In this my hon. friend is right, but where he was wrong was when he said that the policy of reciprocity was defeated at the polls in 1891. It was not. The policy which was defeated at the polls in 1891 was quite different from that of the present government. The policy of the .present government is a restricted policy of reciprocity.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is not that exactly what I said, namely, that the Reform party went to the country on unrestricted reciprocity, and the Conservative party on a policy of limited reciprocity, and the country decided in favour of the latter.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, and now that these hon. gentleman are getting it, they are not satisfied.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We needed it then, but not now.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What was the attitude of Sir John Macdonald in 1891? My memory of those days is evergreen because I began my political life in 1891, and addressed many meetings in the province of Quebec in favour of the policy of the Liberal party. I quite remember that from 1887 until 1891, the then leader of the opposition, who is now the leader of this government, (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), and Sir Richard Cartwright, Minister of Trade and Commerce, and my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher), offered to this House resolution after resolution in favour of reciprocity-not of unrestricted reciprocity because that policy culminated only in 1891. But they offered resolution after resolution in favour of a policy of reciprocity of whatever form or kind with the United States. Year after year these resolutions were rejected. I shall not say that they were rejected by the servile majority of the day, but they were rejected by the followers of Sir John Maedonald from 1887 down to 1891. When, however, Sir John Macdonald saw that the tide was rising in the country and that his party would be swept by the wave of public opinion in favour of reciprocity, he suddenly, before the parliamentary term had expired, dissolved

parliament and appealed to the country on the reciprocity issue. But the statesmen in the United States, and foremost among them was the late James G. Blaine, took the precaution, for what reason I do not know- of insisting on Canada setting forth what she desired in writing. That same precaution has not been taken this time between Mr. Taft, President of the United States, and Mr. Fielding, the Minister of Finance of Canada, No written agreement was required before the negotiations began. But in those days Mr. Blaine wanted to know what the gentlemen from Canada would propose to the United States; he wanted it in black and white in order that he might know what they would discuss at Washington. And Lord Stanley, our Governor General of that day, wrote to the Colonial Secretary, Lord Knutsford, a series of questions which would be debated by the Canadian representatives with Mr. Blaine and the members of the American executive. The first question they were to debate, according to Sir John Macdonald-because although the letter is signed by His Excellency the Governor General, yet in this country, where we have responsible government, the Governor General speaks only by his Prime Minister and his cabinet- and this letter-the utterance of Sir John Macdonald-was:
The renewal of the reciprocity treaty of 1854, with the modifications required by altered circumstances of both countries and with the extensions by the commission deemed to he in the interest of Canada and the United States.
Then follow some other questions respecting the fisheries, the Alaskan boundary, the coasting laws and other matters. And let me say en passant, that this unrestricted reciprocity policy, which, for my part, I would not advocate to-day-because I have grown older and probably wiser-so appealed to the electorate of this Dominion, that they divided almost evenly at the polls. And remember that we, of the Liberal party, had lost the services of our great leader, Hon. Edward Blake. We were defeated, but only by a very slim majority. After the elections of 1891, if I mistake not, the majority of the Conservative party, then sitting at the right of the Chair, numbered only 19 or 20, having dwindled to that number from 50 or 60. And what appeals were made to the province of Ontario, and to the province of Quebec and other parts of the country ! It was during the last phases of Sir John Macdonald's brilliant career, his last appeal to the electors,-a British subject he was born, a British subject he would die ! The right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), who now leads this House had only been selected as leader of the Liberal party a few years before, in 1888 or 1889. He was not then so well known in 127*
the country as he is to-day. And he belonged to the minority. Yet, Sir, in the great province of Ontario, the majority for Sir John Macdonald in the elections of 1891, was not more than half a baker's dozen. And the province of Quebec we carried by a majority of 15. We lost in all the other provinces, except, I believe, Prince Edward Island. All this to show you that, now that we are not asking to commit this country to unrestricted reciprocity with the United States, but have receded to the sounder policy of restricted reciprocity, if parliament were dissolved, and an appeal made to the electorate of the Dominion, I have no hesitation in saying, the Liberal party would again carry the country. At all events, the policy of the Liberal party in 1891, for the many causes I have mentioned, was defeated by the electors. But, Sir, the Liberal party, in 1893, again raised the flag of reciprocity.


Mr. WRIGHT.: Before the hon. gentleman leaves the elections of 1891, let me point out several points in which he has not stated the facts with accuracy. He says that in 1891 the Liberals carried the province of Quebec by a majority of 15. Quebec only gave them 5. And he is wrong also with regard to the general result.


Rodolphe Lemieux: All I know is, that the party of my hon. friend (Mr. Wright), came back to office with a largely reduced majority. And we must thank the electorate for having postponed the final victory of the Liberal party. If the Liberal party had come into power in 1891

and we were very near reaching the coveted goal-we should have inherited the effects of the National Policy; we would have been held responsible of the Black Fridays; and, no doubt, in 1896, the electorate would have done for us what they did for our opponents.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: Had the Liberals come into power, would they have carried out the policy of unrestricted reciprocity, which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux), has just said he is sorry for having advocated ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend (Mr. Middlebro), is a lawyer, I believe. As a lawyer, he knows that the witness cannot answer a hypothetical question, especially when it refers to past events. Let bygones be bygones. But in 1893 at the Liberal convention in Ottawa, the Liberal party once more raised the flag of reciprocity- restricted reciprocity-with the United States. We Liberals generally bow to the wishes of the electors. In the platform laid down at that convention appears the following:

That, having regard to the prosperity of Canada and the United States as adjoining conntries, with many mutual interests, it is desirable that there should be the most friendly relations and broad and liberal trade intercourse between them;
That the interests alike of the Dominion and of the empire would be materially advanced by the establishing of such relations;....
That a fair and liberal reciprocity treaty would develop the great natural resources of Canada, would enormously increase the trade and commerce between the two countries, would tend to encourage friendly relations between the two peoples, would remove many causes which have in the past provoked irritation and trouble to the governments of both countries, and "would promote those kindly relations between the empire and the republic which afford the best guarantee for peace and prosperity;
Since 1896, when we took office, the Liberal party has striven to open negotiations with the United States on this question^ of reciprocity. In 1898 or 1899 a high joint commission under the presidency of Lord Herschell proceeded to Washington and there and then discussed the question with the American statesmen. We all know why this commission did not meet again after'the sittings held in the summer of 1898. We all know, it is a matter of history that it is on the question of the Alaskan boundary that it came to grief. But strange to say, in the document which I quoted a moment ago, the letter of Governor Stanley of Preston to James G. Blaine, then Secretary of State in the United States, the first question to be debated is that of a renewal of the reciprocity treaty with the United States. The Alaskan boundary question has since been settled, alas ! against the best interests of Canada. The question of the fisheries has been settled in the interests of Canada by the Hague Tribunal. The other questions pending between the United States and Canada concerning our boundaries on the lakes and rivers adjoining the United States have also been settled and now, as the crowning event, it is the first question in the letter of Governor Stanley of Preston which is settled last. We have ceased to make pilgrimages to Washington. Washington has come to Canada, and the result is the policy which is now offered to the consideration of the Canadian parliament. Mr. Chairman, I stated a moment ago that the two policies of 1891 and of 1911 -are quite different. As I stated, in 1891 we were advocating unrestricted reciprocity; in 1911, we are presenting to parliament a restricted reciprocity agreement. In 1891 we were opposed by Sir John A. Macdonald and the Hon. Edward Blake, because both were opposed to the free interchange of all commodities including manufactures as well as natural products. But, Sir John Macdonald Mr. LEMIEBX.
favoured the free interchange of natural products. That is mentioned in the statute of 1879, and in his last address to the elec-tore of Canada. The Hon. Edward Blake- and by the way, I may say his distinguished brother, in a letter published in this morning's ' Globe ' stands by. the present policy of the Liberal government-the Hon. Edward Blake in his Durham address of 1891 opposed the policy of the Liberal party, first, because in his mind it was discriminating against British manufactures, second because Canada would become dependent on the United States for the adequacy of the Dominion revenue and third because in his mind commercial union or continental union might mean political absorption or annexation. How different from the present situation ! In the first place, there is not in this agreement a discrimination against Canadian manufacturers. There is in our fiscal policy, however, a discrimination in favour of English manufacturers. Our revenue has never been larger and it will become larger and larger as the years roll by. We are discriminating in favour of Great Britain's manufacturers.
Let me quote from a pamphlet issued by the Tariff Reform Association in England. In this pamphlet, Tariff Reform, by Mr. J. Ellis Parker, the effects of the Canadian preference in favour of British manufactures are pointed out. It says:
Before the Canadian preference, British imports into Canada constantly declined. The effect of the Canadian preferential tariff, which was introduced in 1897, upon the British export trade as a whole, and upon the individual manufacturing industries, may ba seen at a glance from the following table which is taken from the report on Conditions and Prospects of British Trade in Canada, published in 1908.
Then he gives the three columns of British imports. These figures are in round numbers:
1888	$30,848,000
1897	 20,217,000
190G	 52,615,000
Proceeding with the advantages that must inure to Canada let me mention in as few words as possible what the farmers will draw from the present agreement, The benefits from the opening of the markets of the United States to the products of Canada are so obvious and have been set forth with so much ability by those especially qualified to deal with the subject that it would be idle to again recite a catalogue of these benefits. Last year Canada exported rather more than $90,000,000 worth of agricultural products. This is nearly one-third of the total exports from this country which totalled $279,000,000. These agricultural products consisted mainly of wheat, oats and flour, and of the $90,000,000,

$71,000,000 were marketed in Great Britain whilst the United States took only $8,200,-
000.	These figures would appear to tell us their own tale so far as the mother country is concerned, and no person listens to the tale more gladly than I do. Great Britain purchases from us as well as from all the rest of the world in great abundance. There is no index more accurate of the value of the services of her great industrial army and the consequent prosperity of a country than the extent of her purchases. But note this, whilst Great Britain sells to the whole world Great Britain buys from the four quarters of the globe. Englishmen sell where prices are highest and buy where they are lowest, and forget to ask whether, as the result of their transactions, they are less English than they were before. Canadians have the freest access to the market of Great Britain, but so have the people of every other country. We must not forget that fact. In 1908, the last year for which we have the British trade returns, Great Britain took over 16,000,000 cwts. of Canadian flour. But she took on precisely the same terms, 17,800,000 cwts. from Russia, and 20,000,000 cwts. from Argentina as well as large quantities from other countries foreign and colonial. The effect of this miscellaneous buying on the part of Britain upon the trade of Canada is well set forth in a tabulated statement prepared every year by the Montreal ' Gazette ' on the business done at the port of Montreal. Let me quote on that the report of the export trade at the port of Montreal. It says:
Canada's export grain trade from the port of Montreal for the season of 1910, has been anything but a profitable one to exporters, owing to the unsettled condition of the wheat markets of the world and the keen competition that was met with from exporting: countries, which tended to depress values in the English markets, frequently during the season, below prices on the Canadian market.
Mark this, Mr. Chairman. There is no question of the welcome ready for goods in the English market; if only our farmers are willing to take as low prices as the same goods can be had for from any other country. Our farmers are compelled and indeed are quite satisfied to pay' their labourers wages high enough to enable them to live according to the standards of a high civilization, but the Canadian farmer will not on that account, receive one iota, of advantage over the Indian, Russian or the South American farmer, who can hire labour at wages our farmers would be ashamed to pay their men.
Let us see what is the scale of wages paid in Argentina to farm hands. It is 64 cents per day, in Russia 40 to 45 cents per day, and in India 8 and 12 cents per day.


Herbert Brown Ames: By this reciprocity treaty, do not the natural products of Argentina and Russia come free into Canada?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Well, I am not ready to answer my hon. friend, but I do not see what the wheat from Argentina, or Russia, or India would do in Canada when we export our surplus production. I am only a tyro in business, but surely my hon. friend will not contend for one moment that we must fear the competition of Argentina in our grain markets.


Herbert Brown Ames: I think the hon. gentleman shows that very strongly.


William Sora Middlebro: Would not the same argument apply to the United States, which exports 114,000,000 bushels?


Rodolphe Lemieux: If I were in Scotland I would be willing to be heckled, but I am not in Scotland, I am in Canada. My hon. friend will find my tables and statements in ' Hansard,' and he will read, mark, learn and inwardly digest them. In Canada, according to this table-


Herbert Brown Ames: Would my hon. friend be kind enough to repeat the wages paid in Argentina and Russia?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes. The wages of labour in Argentina, Russia and India are, according to late United States consular reports, as follows, in each case without board or keep: Argentina, 64 cents per day; Russia, 40 to 45 cents per day, and India, 8 and 12 cents per day. Now, in Canada the schedule shows the rates for 1899 and for 1909, the comparison being for ten years:
The information received at the Department of Labour is to the effect that there has been no substantial change in farm wages since 1909.
I will not take all the different sections of the country, but I will take the northwest provinces. On a yearly engagement the rate is $35 per month around Winnipeg.


William Wright: Does that include board?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Per month, with board, during the summer season around Winnipeg; Brandon, $30 and $33; Moose; aw, $50; Calgary, $35 and $40. Now, Mr. Chairman, with these figures giving the scale of wages paid in various countries, it is easy to see that as Ion?* as we give our farm hands living wages, as long as we uphold the ideals for which we live in a white country in British North America, we cannot compete against the wages paid to the peasantry of Russia, to Indians, or to the farm hands of Argentina. I mean on the British market, not on the Canadian market.


Herbert Brown Ames: The minister probably knows that Halifax is nearer Buenos Ayres than London.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, but Halifax is also nearer Canada, and I would like my hon. friend, with his knowledge as a member of the Board of Trade-and probably one of the protesting members of the Board of Trade-to give me the name of one firm in Halifax importing wheat from Argentina.


Herbert Brown Ames: Of course, at the present time there is no firm in Halifax importing wheat-


Rodolphe Lemieux: Let well enough alone.


Herbert Brown Ames: On account of the duty.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Let well enough alone! Now, with regard to the export of Canadian Hour, I shall quote further from this carefully prepared report issued by the Montreal ' Gazette: '
In this department of the export trade the volume of business done during the past season has not been as large as the previous one, which has no doubt been due to some extent to the unsettled condition of the markets for raw material, and the keener competition on the part of other exporting countries for the business, and the fact that the present milling capacity of Great Britain is equal to their requirements, they having the advantage of cheaper labour, and to the fact that the raw material is carried at from 50 to 100 (sic) per cent less than the manufactured article from Canada. In fact, milling in England has reached a state of efficiency equal to that of any other country. Besides, they have the entire world to draw upon for supplies, consequently the English miller to-day is our strongest competitor in some of the importing markets.
So, Mr. Chairman, when my hon. friend says, as he stated a moment ago, that we are going to injure the milling industry of this country by this reciprocity convention, he forgets two facts. He forgets, first, that already there is a refund of duty on wheat exported from Canada to the milling industries of Minneapolis. Second, he forgets that our strongest competitor is the English miller, because the milling industry in England is better equipped and is favoured with lower wages and cheaper raw material than the same milling industry in Canada. I quote from that report, published in the Montreal ' Gazette: '
For the year ending 31st March, 1910, Canada exported $14,900,000 worth of flour, of which $8,900,000 went to the English market.
It would seem, therefore, from this most reliable journal that the retention of the present body of trade with England in flour is quite problematic, and indeed the writer did not scruple to suggest that with her several advantages, notably the employ-


Rodolphe Lemieux: ment of cheaper labour than could be got in Canada, Great Britain may be able to wrest from us some of our present markets. So it will be seen that the old mother country is not yet asleep, and I will be able to show that the centuries tiiled soil of Great Britain to-day gives a greater yield per-acre of wheat than does the virgin soil of Canada. Our resources vast in extent will compel us for a long time to come to seek markets for them, and we have formidable rivals in Argentina, Russia and India. In 1909 with a population almost the same as that of Canada or probably somewhat less, Argentina had an export trade of $397,000,000 against Canada's export trade of $243,000,000 for the same year. Argentina resembles Canada in having an enormous extent of disposable land fit for cultivation. She. Argentina, already exports more agricultural products to Great Britain than does Canada, and there is no possible limit to the expansion of her trade on these lines. Russia, both in Europe and Asia has great stretches of territory available for agriculture and there are other countries coming to be our rivals in the British market, and which have this great advantage over Canada that they have a class of labour which does not exist in this country, a white country, and which truth to tell we do not want. In North America we have a great white population living up to the same standards of civilization. We pay in Canada about the same wages as are paid in the northern and western states of the union, and therefore, we are on a common ground where as rivals we can meet and compete. This enlarged market in the United States will be only another string to our bow. When the prices in the markets of Great Britain are high, enough to attract our natural products there will be no reluctance on our part to ship our goods to Great Britain. There is no fear but that the movement towards the mother country will in the future be as it has been in the past, and that taking into account our rapid expansion there will be a steadily increasing surplus of products which must find their outlet in the British market. If our farmers should profit greatly by the new arrangement, as I believe they will, the influx into our prairies from Europe and the United States, of farmers desiring to share these profits, will produce surplus enough to keep prices reasonably low and provide great stores for export. The fear is expressed that our trade will not follow the same route from east to west, but that it will take to channels north to south. This could only take place if the United States consumed all the cattle and wheat and, different products we have to sell, and if we on our part replaced the British and European wares we have been accustomed to purchase by wares of a similar character from the United States. This, of course,

is most improbable, and it is only possible ] when the products of the ill-paid' peasants of India, Russia, and South America bring down the price in the British market to a point at which our farmers cannot sell their products at a profit sufficient to enable them and their neighbours to live in the comforts to which they have been accustomed. But, shall we lose the traffic from east to west? The opinion of Sir Donald Mann, one of the great railway builders of Canada is that we will not. The opinion of Sir William Van Horne at one time president of the great Canadian Pacific railway does not sustain that view that we shall. Some years ago a committee was appointed by the Senate to inquire into the feasibility of the Georgian Bay canal, and Sir William Van Horne appeared before that committee and although the Georgian Bay canal when built will take from the railway a vast amount of a certain class of freight, Sir William Van Horne did not oppose the scheme, but on the contrary gave it his strong support. Like this reciprocity agreement, it would add he said to the prosperity of the western farmer and lumberman, and he declared it to be his opinion that the canal would in that way contribute to the business of his railway far more than it took from it. The greater prosperity of the people, whether due to cheaper transportation of grain through the canals or because of higher prices due to reciprocity, means for the railways and the great seaport cities an augmentation of the volume of business in finished products. Neither the Canadian Pacific railway, nor the Grand Trunk Pacific, nor the Canadian Northern railway, are likely to lack any conveyance of natural products for a long time to come. It is the law of nature, that for centuries to come and may be for all time to come the North American continent will be the great purveyor of natural products to the continent of Europe. The trade from Canada to the United States will continue to increase, and it requires no unusual foresight to see that this increase will inure to the benefit of our ocean ports. Montreal will beyond all doubt replace New York as the first ocean port of North America ; indeed, Montreal has already taken the premier position. That is a decree not of mine, not of the Canadian government, it is a decree of nature and of geography. There can be no evasion of the fact that the water route from Montreal to Liverpool is 220 miles shorter than that from New York to Liverpool, and that 1,000 miles of the Canadian route lies within the shelter of adjacent shores. During last season of navigation, and the season before that, Montreal defeated New York in the race, for in the export of butter and cheese the port of Montreal leads the way on the North American continent. And, Sir, fifty years ago Montreal entered in the race
with New York and the American ports. Fifty years ago the Post Office Department of Canada carried the mails of the United States by the St. Lawrence river. Fifty years ago the mails from Paris, from Brussels, from London, were sent by Liverpool and Riviere du Loup in the St. Lawrence, not to Canada alone, but to Chicago and all the western states. There were some accidents in the St. Lawrence in those days ; it was not so well lighted and as well buoyed as it is to-day. We have to-day three main lines running from Montreal and Quebec to Liverpool, and I venture to say that 60 per cent of the passengers on those lines are from the United States. Why do they go by Montreal and Quebec? It is because it is the shortest route, and I dare say also because it is the most picturesque route. There need be no fear of our not maintaining the supremacy of the St. Lawrence river for the North American continent. We need not be afraid that the trade of the north will pass to the south by New York or by New Orleans, as has been suggested of late years.
One of the objections urged against this agreement is that so much benefit will inure to Canada from it that we shall waste all our natural resources, devastate our great wheat areas, our lumber and our standing timber, and deplete our fisheries. Well, Sir, there is no fear of our depleting our natural resources, now that the people are becoming impressed,' through the policy of this Liberal government, with the supreme importance of the schemes for the conservation of the country's resources. Canada last year produced 21J bushels of wheat to the acre, which is about 5f bushels to the acre higher than the yield of the United States. But in our western provinces we are working a virgin soil of great natural fertility. We bave, however, a long way to go yet before we reach our ideal, and indeed the figures which I am about to quote from Professor Robertson, give me the ground for the confident hope that we shall not only obtain for our soil a productiveness 50 per cent greater than it has at present, but will maintain it for all time. England has been taking crops of wheat from her soil for a thousand years, and her soil should have been exhausted centuries ago if constant cropping results necessarily in depletion. But listen to the figures. During the last ten years the average yield of wheat per acre in England has been 31 h bushels to the acre, while last year the average was 33J bushels. So that far from a lessened productiveness in England, Professor Robertson assures us that the yield per acre now is higher than ever before.
The farmers of Canada start with an unsurpassed soil, and by the application of intelligent methods, such as are followed in all the leading European countries, they

will increase the productiveness of their fields, and maintain them at the highest level they can reach.
In our forests, we are equally assured. An estimate from the Forestry Branch, which is moderate, gives the acreage of our standing timber as 500,000,000 acres. In Germany, where forest conservation is carried to a high point, it is estimated that every year there is produced new timber to the extent of 100 feet of merchantable timber to the acre. Suppose that, by the methods now put in operation to stop the waste, Canada was able to raise no more than 50 feet of new timber per acre yearly fit for cutting, the produce from this would go far to supply not only the Canadian market, but the whole United States market as well.
_ What benefits shall we derive from this free market for our Canadian fisheries? With the protection afforded by the regulations of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, I have no fear whatever that our fisheries in the Gulf of St. Lawrence will be depleted. This agreement opens up a friendly market fifteen times larger than our own for fish. We have a surplus of fish. All engaged in the fish industry say that the Canadian market is too limited. Our vast waters, the largest fishing areas, fresh-water and marine, in the world, must produce a surplus which the United States market will take. They depend upon Canadian fish now but with the duty removed an immense increase will result. Our fisheries produce not less per annum than 450 or 500 million pounds of fish of every kind. It can be increased by opening up new waters in the Northwest and probably Hudson bay. Not 50 per cent of these fish can be sold in Canada, even with increasing population.
It will result in better prices. Hitherto United States fish combines have dictated prices to our fishermen and fish firms, and we had the advantage of the duty. With open United States markets our fishermen will not sell through the restricted trade channels or be at the mercy of combines. They will sell at current prices to any buyers, on the same terms as United States fishing firms. The United States buyers want our fish.
Fish will have increased value, especially kinds for which our fishermen get low prices or have no sale. I was reading this morning in the New York 'Fishing Gazette ' what Mr. Edward Born, president of the Seaboard Trading Company said, as follows:
In view of the fact that the production of salt fish on the American side has been entirely inadequate for the requirements of the home market, and that Gloucester has been a heavy buyer of stock in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, free fish is a perfectly logical demand.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Our salt fish have other markets than the United States, but a leading New York fish merchant recently said that Gloucester and other cured fish centres must buy heavily from Canada in the future, hence our salt fish trade will receive an impetus. Herring bait, fresh mackerel, live lobsters, &c., will be in greater demand under the new conditions. Even the Pacific fisheries will benefit. Fresh salmon, halibut, &c., will no doubt be sought, u'ith returns higher than the canned fish bring.
Lobsters on the Atlantic coast similarly will bring far greater profits to fishermen and firms in Canada if shipped fresh or alive. Thus four lobsters in a 1-lb. can, bring 15 or 20 cents, but sold whole, four lobsters bring 80 cents or $1. A free market in the eastern states means increased demand for live lobsters, and increased transportation facilities which may make it easy for Prince Edward Island and Bay of Chaleur lobsters to be sold at these high rates.


Mr. JAMESON.: Do not lobsters enter the United States now free of duty?


Rodolphe Lemieux: They may, but with this increased trade between the United States and Canada, the demand will be much larger. I have already answered the statement made by my hon. friend that our transportation systems would be affected by this agreement. It is absurd to say that the trade, instead of running east and west, will run north and south. Why, the railway systems of the United States run many of them, east and west. The great transcontinental lines in that country run east and west. A great part of the American grain, in spite of the existing tariff, now finds its way through American railways and canals to Montreal, and Montreal i3 taking the lead, as a shipping port, over the ports of the United States. Mr. J. J. Hill, who is such a bogey to my hon. friends opposite, will have to compete against our railway barons of the Canadian Pacific railway, the Canadian Northern railway, and the Grand Trunk Pacific, and he will meet his equals when he comes against Sir Thomas Shaughnessy, Sir Donald Mann, Sir William McKenzie and Mr. Hays. If you will look at the stock reports every night, you will find that the Canadian Pacific stock has not been affected prejudicially by this proposed agreement, but rather to the contrary, nor has the credit of the Canadian Northern railway, and the Grand Trunk Pacific been injured. The Grand Trunk Pacific will still go on and be soon completed and prove one of the best traction systems on this continent notwithstanding the pessimistic prophesy of hon. gentlemen opposite with regard to reciprocity. The dividends earned by our railways will be as large as ever, and as the

result of this proposed agreement, we shall have a large inflow of population into our west. I am told by the officers of the immigration Department that we may expect in the west this year not less than 500,000 people. And with a greater population in the west, more wheat will be grown, and there will be greater hauls for the railways, and lower prices for the consumer. Our hon. friends need, therefore, be under no apprehension that this agreement will in any way prejudice our transportation systems.
We are told, however, by my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) that it is a one-sided agreement, and he quoted to this effect the words of two or three prominent men in the United States-I think even the President of the United States.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: So did my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr Foster), but we also have one of the highest protectionists on this continent, Mr. Joe Cannon, Uncle Joe, prominent in American public life, who objects to this agreement because it is onesided. It is, indeed, strange to find protectionists on both sides of the line agreeing that it is a one-sided agreement to the prejudice of each. Well, I believe with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), with the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier), with Mr. Taft, the President of the United States, that it is a compact which involves mutual advantages. That is only natural. Canada could never expect, in dealing with the United States, or even in dealing with the smallest island in the West Indies, to obtain in a trade bargain, a one-sided arrangement.
But my hon. friend says that we have given up our fiscal independence, and he quoted from Mr. Austen Chamberlain, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer in England some years ago, to prove this assertion. But he failed to remind the House that Mr. Chamberlain stated, probably in the same speech, that Canada had just entered into the American vortex. Well, such a statement is a silly one. We are not in any way divesting ourselves of our fiscal independence. We are simply propounding a policy which parliament is free to accept or reject. We have kept clear of all entangling alliances because we know that the conditions of this country are likely to change rapidly within the next 5, 10 or 20 years and at any moment we may alter our course. In a brief period we shall have a much larger population and be much stronger, and the British preference still remains. That preference is still, in the words of my right hon. leader, the Prime Minister, the cardinal feature of our fiscal policy. We gave that preference willingly to the mother country and we asked nothing in return. We have maintained that preference, although it is one-sided, and to the advocates of inter-imperial preference we said: We Liberals, we Canadians, shall never put a price on our loyalty. Why did we give this preference to Great Britain? We gave it in order to show our gratitude for the blessings of responsible government which we owe to her wise policy and the efforts of her statesmen, such as Lord Durham and Lord Elgin? We gave Great Britain a preference because we recognized that her markets were free to the countries of the world and her colonies in particular, and because during more than a century she bore the brunt of Canadian defence on land and sea. We have not altered or impaired in the least our nsca. independence, we have simply made a bargain, and are submitting that bargain to the Canadian people. This parliament is free to accept or reject it, but we still maintain, in either event, the British preference which we gave of our own free consent, and which we still maintain because of our gratitude to the mother country, and also because it suits us.
We are told, however, by my hon. friend, that this is a dreadful blow to tariff reform in England. Well, if such be the case, what then? I am a Liberal, and as a Reformer I accept the verdict of the people- vox populi, vox Dei. On three different occasions, the electorate in Great Britain has been consulted on tariff reform-in 1906, 1909 and a few months ago-and on each John Bull declared that, even for the sake of his colonies, he will not tax the food of the large masses who are working at low wages, and sometimes starving, in London, Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool. Mr. Balfour himself during the last campaign made a proposal to the British electors. He would not, he said, discuss mutual preference at that election, but if returned to power he would have a referendum. That was the chief plank of his platform in the month of December last. He offered to give John Bull an occasion to show whether he was for or against mutual preference. What did John Bull answer? He answered that he would not even consider the propriety of a referendum of that question. Therefore, it is not this proposed arrangement which is giving a death blow to tariff reform. Long ago in 1906 and 1908, the people of England themselves gave a death blow to mutual preference.
. But see what confusion exists among hon. gentlemen opposite. We have my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), who rose in his place the other day, and asked the House to postpone the consideration of this question, because forsooth, he had reached in his	own
mind the idea that we were playing into the hands of the British government in making this bargain with the United States. He wants to postpone

Listen to the business man.
-any hope of establishing a customs union among the various parts of the empire.
And later on, in 1887, the first intercolonial conference was held, and a resolution was adopted favouring a policy of mutual preference. But nothing was done. In 1891 the colonies urged the imperial government to denounce the treaties with Germany and Belgium, which prevented imperial preference. Lord Salisbury declined courteously to take action. In 1891, my hon. friend, sitting on this side of the House, joined with his fellow members, and with the Canadian Senate in passing a resolution in favour of the denunciation of these treaties, because it was stated in England that even if we obtained mutual preference they would have to include Belgium and Germany, because we were bound by old treaties with those countries. The House of Commons passed a resolution asking the mother country to denounce these treaties. But no action was taken. In 1892 the House of Commons made a formal offer of a preferential tariff; in 1893, the Ottawa conference passed a similar resolution. What was the answer of Lord Ripon then colonial secretary ? He said:
A consideration of these practical difficulties and of the more immediate results indicated, of a system of mutual tariff discrimination, has convinced Her Majesty's government that, even if the consequences were confined to the limits of the empire, and even if it were not followed by changes of fiscal policy on the part of foreign powers unfavourable to this country, its general economic results would not be beneficial to the empire. Such theories are really a weapon of commercial war, used as weapons of retaliation, and inflicting more loss on the country employing it

than on the country against which it is directed, and which would not be likely to view them with indifference.
In 1897 we passed the British preference to which I referred a moment ago. The Prime Minister of Canada knew it was the time to strike the popular imagination of Great Britain. It was at the time of the Queen Victoria's Jubilee, and the imperial conference had been summoned. The Prime Minister of Canada was there with his colleagues and at this the psychological moment, a resolution was passed unanimously at the request of the Prime Minister of Canada by the delegates of the various colonies urging upon the imperial government the .necessity of denouncing the German and Belgian treaties. It was due to the wisdom, the statesmanship, the ability which one must, recognize in the Prime Minister of Canada that the German and Belgian treaties were denounced.	.
However, there were conferences in 1902 and 1907, resolutions after resolutions were passed urging imperial preferences, and now all the self-governing colonies, yes, even distant Rhodesia, on the shores of the Zambesi river, has adopted a preferential tariff between the mother country and,herself. Yet, Sir, the electors of Great Britain, loving their fellow-subjects in the overseas dominions, as they do love them, will still get free food, free bread before taxing the masses swarming within the four corners of the - United Kingdom. We have heard protests from Toronto and Montreal against this arrangement. I see among the names given in the Toronto and Montreal papers as opposed to this agreement the names of bankers, of insurance men, of men connected with great trust companies. They urge, all of them, that if we carry out this agreement it means ultimately the fusion of Canada into the United States, yes, we are going to be drowned in the American ocean. Well, Sir, I never thought that the question of dollars and cents might weaken the ties between the mother country and Canada; I never expected that trading with the United States would mean the wiping out of the frontier which exists between thp two countries. I did not forget, when I saw the names of those bankers and magnates of insurance and trust companies, the good old French dicton: L'argent ne connait pas les frontieres et l'argent n'a pas de sentiment-money knows no frontier, and no sentiment. Many of our banks, the Bank of Montreal, the Bank of Commerce, to name two of the most important, have branches established in Chicago. in Detroit, in New York, in Baltimore, in San Francisco, Seattle, and, perhaps, in Washington. I am not aware that the managers of these banks, who are
Canadians, have become Americans; I am not aware that they have transferred their lealty and their loyalty to the Stars and Stripes, but if I look at the two last bank returns in the ' Official Gazette ' for the month of October and the month of December, I see that those bankers who fear for the future of Canada because we are going to trade with the United States, to sell hay, and horses, and wheat, and potatoes, and fish, and lobsters, have made call loans and current loans outside of Canada in the United States to the amount of $144,548,600. I see that in the month of December they made call loans and current loans to the amount of $131,111,276. Still, in Toronto and Montreal, on the shore of Lake Ontario and on the bank of the St. Lawrence, there has been no necessity to cail my ion. friend for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr Hughes) to defend those cities, they are still Canadian, the banks still fly the British flag and the bankers reap a good interest from the investment they have made abroad. It is not only their money they invest; there is a little of their money and very little of ours, but it is the money of our fellow-subjects in the different provinces of the Dominion. Do you believe that the insurance men would refuse a good investment in Mexico, Brazil, or the United States of America? No. Last year and two years ago when a commission sat, what limitations were not urged upon the insurance rnen so as to prevent them from investing too much of our Canadian money abroad? Yet, Sir, in the House of Commons, when we came to study the Bill we gave our insurance men a free scope; we had confidence in them, in their loyalty and fealty; we believed that tbev were shrewd business men, that money had no colour and no sentiment, and knew of no boundary. They say that reciprocity is injurious to Great Britain and the empire. What is the answer of the home government to that statement? I see that my friend Mr. Buxton the ex-postmaster general, who is now president of the Board of Trade in England, said in the House of Commons on the 8th of February, in answer to Mr. Austen Chamberlain:
They had neither changed nor modified their view that the proposals of Mr. Chamberlain-
That is the father who was advocating an imperial preference,
-and his friends would be injurious to this country and injurious to the empire as a whole. This very agreement

Speaking of our agreement,
-afforded a good object-lesson of the evils and dangers of the fiscal relations which Mr. Chamberlain suggested should exist between

the mother country and Canada. Had a system of preferences existed

This is a hypothetical case,
-at the present moment Canada would have had to consult the mother country before entering into an agreement with the United States. Then the local interests of Canada would have been antagonistic to the interests of Great Britain, and colonial preference, instead of being a link in the chain of empire, might well have brought that chain to the snapping point.
This is what the home government answers to the charge that this agreement is injurious to Great Britain. Now, it is stated that reciprocity would even impair the existing preference. I shall not read to the House the answer made by Mr. Buxton, but I will ask permission to file it on ' Hansard.'



[Stage Direction]
The government recognized the advantages which we in this country received from the preference which Canada had been good enough to give us, but he would point out that Mr. Eielding and his ministers had always based that preference upon the advantage which it conferred upon Canadian trade. Holding the views which they did, the government could not regret any arrangement or agreement which might weaken the opportunities of putting a tax upon corn coming to this country, nor could they regret any fiscal arrangements which tended to the reduction of high duties in any part of the world and to break down tariff walls. Neither could they regret any arrangement under which the trade of Canada itself would, as Canadians thought, be largely increased. They certainly felt very strongly that at the present moment the allegiance and loyalty of the Canadians were not involved in this agreement (ministerial cheers). He could assure the right hon. gentleman that the very pessimistic view which he took of the effect of the agreement upon Canadian preference to Great Britain was much exaggerated. We sent at the present moment nearly £20,000,000 worth of goods to Canada, and of those two-thirds received a preference under the old agreement, and £969,000 represented the goods dealt with in the agreement between Canada and America.
Of the last figure £176,000 represented goods free to all nations, and about £800,000 only was affected by the agreement so far as British preference was concerned. Out of that £477,000 still retained a preference of 10 to 12 per cent, leaving a balance of £316,000, or only li per cent, of British imports to Canada on which the duties in future would be identical with the duties on American goods. Therefore he thought he might say that the alarm which seemed to have been excited in some quarters had really been very much exaggerated. Mr. Chamberlain had declared that as a result of the agreement less Canadian corn would come to England, and that the price of corn in this country would consequents go up. That was the argument which free traders had always advanced against a colonial preference which involved ' Mr. LEMIEUX.
a tax on imported corn. They had been told that under tariff reform the growth of corn in the colonies and at home would be encouraged to such an extent that in the end the price would be cheaper. If that would be the result under the proposals of tariff reformers, was it not still more likely to be the result of the stimulus given to Canadian corn growing by opening the markets of America? (Ministerial cheers).
Now, I will answer, and I will conclude here, the last argument-I will not suggest that this last argument is the last refuge because I might bring in the name of Dr. Johnson, and I do not wish to apply the words of Dr. Johnson to my hon. friend- but I will answer the last argument of my hon. friend that this agreement will weaken the tie between Great Britain and Canada. That is a very poor argument. It is more than that ; it is a panicky argument. Why Sir, the loyalty of Canada and Canadians stood the test of adversity during half a century. Will it not stand the test of coming prosperity ? There were days of adversity in 1775 and in 1812 and we were just a few isolated provinces defending ourselves against the invading armies of the United States of America. Yet the French who had recently been conquered on the Plains of Abraham united with the descendants of the United Empire Loyalists, resisted the invasion of the American soldiers and saved Canada to the British Empire. In 1866, when the abrogation of the Elgin-Marcy Treaty caused all the evil forebodings contained in the state document which I read a moment ago, we were able to steer our own course, and to maintain our dignity. In 1867, when Sir John A. Macdonald, Mr. George Brown, Air. Alexander Mackenzie and Sir George Cartier united their forces to make this confederation of ours, the United States of America were not slow in passing a resolution in their Congress offering the several provinces of Canada the opportunity^ of becoming so many different states in the American union. But the Canadians were not lured by the offer made by the United States. In 1870 we repelled another invasion. How did Canada accept the suggestion that England should hand over our country as a compensation for the Alabama, claims? A few days ago I was reading the reminiscences of Goldwin Smith and-I do not know if my hon. friend has read the book-it is stated in so many words that there was a time in the seventies when Mr. Gladstone, being Prime Minister of England, was'ready to sacrifice Canada as com-nensation for the Alabama Claims made by the United States. Canada resisted the suggestions made by British statesmen. The great Disraeli, himself, stated that we were a millstone around the neck of the mother country ; yet, in spite of these remarks, in spite of this pol-

icy of oblivion followed by the mother country, we remained firm and staunch to our colours and we decided to live under the Union Jack instead of under the Stars and Stripes.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think my hon. friend is doing Disraeli a great injustice by that statement; at least, I have no remembrance of his having made it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: YTes, I have read it many times. To-morrow I will pass the book in which it is contained over to my hon. friend. It is in Justin McCarthy's History of Our Own Times, and Justin McCarthy, although a well-known home ruler, is	an	up	to date	and	fairminded historian. He states it in so many words. Goldwin Smith has also quoted it	in	his	book on	the	Canadian question. Did we ever accept the interpretation of the Monroe doctrine, suggestive as it was, by the United States Secretary of State, Mr. Olney, to the effect that no European power would be tolerated any longer upon the American continent? Did we ever accept with fear the policy embalmed in Mr. Dingley's and Mr. McKinley's Bills? We stood the days of adversity like men, like Canadians, like British subjects and surely with prosperity we can trust ourselves. We gave willingly our help to Great Britain in South Africa. We have offered cheerfullv our help to Great Britain for the well-being of the British Empire in the various colonial conferences and we have given, as I stated a moment ago, without expecting anything in return, a fiscal preference. If now, the westerner, in that beautiful country west of Lake Superior, can sell his wheat to the United States to better advantage, if the poor fisherman from Gaspe can sell his catch to better advantage to the eastern states, if the Prince Edward Islander can sell his potatoes in a wider market, if the Quebec habitant can add a dollar to his ton of hay, if the Ontario farmer can raise barley and do a better trade in cattle with the United States, surely his or their loyalty will not be impaired. If, on the contrary these things are done, as my hon. friend sirggested this -evening, at the cost of the loyalty of Canadians, then indeed the empire possesses no real strength.
I hold no brief to speak for my friends of the English persuasion, but I know that no English-speaking Canadian will , ever barter his birthright for the flesh pots of Egypt. I know that no French Canadian at least would ever accept annexation. I can sneak for my fellow countrymen. We in the province of Quebec, French Canadians one and all, Conservatives and Liberals are against any idea that smacks of annexation. Why ? Because of the privileges we enjoy under the
British Crown. By the Quebec Act of 1774, under which Act our language, our faith, our laws, our customs, our usages have been respected in a privileged manner by His Britannic Majesty and by the imperial government. We know what has been the fate of our fellow countrymen in Louisiana and we know that as long as we live under the British flag, as long as we live under the benign laws of Great Britain, our rights and our privileges will be protected and safeguarded, and we are willing to do our duty towards the Crown of England which is not only a bond of unity between the colonies and the mother land, but also between the various races in those colonies. The sentiments expressed by Joseph Howe at the time of the Detroit convention are ours. They are ours to-day as they were ours in 1865:
I have heard it said since I came to the convention that if the reciprocity treaty is annulled the British provinces will be so cramped that they will be compelled to seek annexation to the United States. I know the feeling in the lower provinces, and I believe I am well enough acquainted with the Canadians to speak for them also when I make the assertion that no considerations of finance, no question of balance for or against them on the interchange of commodities can have any influence upon the loyalty of the inhabitants of the British provinces, or tend in the slightest degree to alienate the affections of the people from their country, their institutions, their government and their Queen. There is not a man who dare, on the abrogation of the treaty, if such be its fate, to take the hustings and appeal to any constituency on annexation principles throughout the entire domain. . The man who avowed such a sentiment would be scouted from society by his best friends. What other treatment would a man deserve who had turned traitor to his government and violated for pecuniary advantages all obligations tq the country that gave him birth? The very boy to whom I have alluded as having fought manfully for the stars and stripes would rather blow his own father's brains out than, haul down the honoured flag under which he was born. If any member of the convention harbours the idea that in refusing reciprocity to British America they would undermine the loyal feelings of the people of those colonies, he is labouring under a delusion. ... I sincerely hope that all thought of forcing annexation upon the people of Canada will be abandoned.	i
The sentiments of Joseph Howe expressed in 1865 at the Detroit Convention are the sentiments of Canadians in this v-ear of grace 1911, on the eve of adopting this reciprocity treaty. I say further, that not only are w'e against any idea of political	union with the	United
States, but that on the contrary, we believe that such agreements as these make for genuine Anglo-Saxon solidarity. The Trent Affair, the Fenian

Raid, the Behring sea seizures are things of the past. A firm friendship between the several branches of the Anglo-Saxon race is worth striving for. We are told, Sir, that we are against the empire in propounding such a policy, but do you know that the greatest imperialist of modern times, Cecil Rhodes, devoted his life and his wealth after his death to the advancement of just such a policy of Anglo-Saxon solidarity. In his will he provides a sum of money to enable young men in each stale of the Union to take a course at Oxford University, there to study British life and British ideals. His object was to spread throughout the world that love for liberty and justice and right which is begotten of British institutions and British law. At the end of this century of peace (the celebration of which will take place in 1912 on the wise suggestion of my colleague the Minister of Labour), this reciprocity agreement will be the crowning event of that century. We believe it will be a means of serving the empire and Canada; we believe it will prove a link between the mother country and the great republic. In the past our loyalty has borne its trials, even with the mother country. While we were -still suffering from the effects of the abrogation of the reciprocity treaty, statesmen high in station in England gave us to understand that they would see us part from the old connection without regret, but we did not believe that those were the feelings of the people of England, and so we held on, and so we will still continue to hold on. We have fairly won our way into /the British brotherhood, and we will not hear with patience that any trade arrangement, however favourable, will turn us from the course we have freely chosen for ourselves within the greatest empire that has been.
Progress, reported.
On the motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 12.03 a.m. Wednesday.

Wednesday, February 22, 1911.