1911-07-19

[Stage Direction]
Summary Report of the Geological Survey; also Report of the Chief Astronomer.- Plon. Wm. Templeman.
List of Vessels registered in tne Dominion of Canada.-Hon. L. P. Brodeur.


Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	When was the Steel Company of Canada incorporated by letters patent?
2.	What was the amount of capital stock of
said company?	.
3.	What amount of bonds have been issued, and what is the amount of preference stock and common stock respectively ?
4.	What were the names of the companies and their places of business which were combined together under the name of the Steel Company of Canada, and what was the value of each of the companies that went into the combination?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Letters patent dated 8th June, 1910, were issued incorporating ' Canadian Steel Corporation, Limited.' Supplementary Letters Patent were issued dated 22nd June, 1910, changing the name ' Canadian Steel Corporation, Limited,' to ' The Steel Company of Canada, Limited.'
2.	The authorized capital of the company is $25,000,000 divided into 250,000 shares of $100 each.
3.	The department has no knowledge as
to the amount of bonds which have been issued by the company. Of the capital of the company, one hundred thousand shares were authorized to be issued as preference shares.	.
4.	The department has no information upon this subject.



THE IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

Mr. MONK.: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are proceeded with, I would like to ask when we shall be privileged to see a report of the last Imperial Conference. I presume that the notes have been extended; probably my right hon. friend has brought them back with him. Nothing could be of greater interest for us than to see exactly what has taken place at that important gathering. Also, will we

have a full report of all the proceedings of the conference, and not, as in the last instance, a very much reduced report for most of us, while a privileged few saw a verbatim Teport of all the proceedings. In this instance the conference is not one of a special nature, a conference of defence, but a general conference, and I hope we shall have the full report.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I hope the same thing, and I suppose the report will be published at an early day. I understand that it is now in the hands of the printer.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: What printer -of this House?


Wilfrid Laurier: No. It is printed in England and is to be distributed as soon as it is printed.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, it is very difficult to get any general supply if we are to rely on the British bluebook. 1 think on some occasions at least the book has been printed here in order that members of this House and of the Senate might have full information of what has taken place. Has the Prime Minister taken that into consideration?


Wilfrid Laurier: On previous occasions we have had it reprinted, and there is no objection, if it is so desired, that it should be reprinted this time. I have nothing in my hand. The report is in the hands of the printer, and I expect it from day to day. We shall have a certain number of copies for distribution here and if they are not sufficient, we may have to reprint the report.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the document has been printed in Great Britain, because a copy came to hand to-day I do not know from what source it came.


Wilfrid Laurier: The proceedings of the conference were printed from day to day, but the report is not finally struck until it is revised by each member of the conference. I sent my proof sheets just before I left England.


Robert Laird Borden: The document to which I allude purports to be a report of the conference. I do not know whether it has been revised or not, but it has an index of the various subjects at the commencement.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I understood, from what appeared in the newspapers since my right hon. friend returned, that a copy had reached this country, that my right hon. friend in fact had brought back with him a. report of the conference, and I am a little anxious to know if we have to wait for the printing in England.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 


Wilfrid Laurier: I am sorry to say that, as often happens, my hon. friend has been misinformed. I brought nothing back from the conference; I am no more privileged in that respect than my hon. friend. All I saw was the proof sheets and my last proof sheet was sent to the printer the day before I left England.



THE RECENT GRAND TRUNK STRIKE.

Mr. BLAIN.: May I ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. King) if it is correct that there are still out of employment a large number of the men connected with the recent strike on the Grand Trunk railway, and is it my hon. friend's intention to communicate to the House the report of Judge Barron in regard to that strike?


Hon. MACKENZIE KING.: A few days ago I communicated with Mr. Hays, asking if Judge Barron's report had been received, and what action he proposed to take on the report. In a letter of June 26, Mr. Hays replied
As to the investigation conducted by IDs Honour Judge John Barron, at my request, will say, he has concluded his report, but it is very lengthy, consisting of several hundred pages of testimony, and I have not as yet been able to thoroughly consider it. I may add, however, that any recommendations therein will receive our most careful and favourable consideration.
Mr. Hays further intimates that he has made a similar intimation to the representatives of the employees who have been communicating with him.


Richard Blain: That is not quite an answer to my question. What 1 would like to know is whether the members of the House will have an opportunity of examining that report?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The report is not made to parliament or government. It is a report made to Mr. Hays himself. I cannot say whether Mr. Hays intends to make the report public or not. I have no assurance from him on that point.


Richard Blain: The other question my hon. friend has overlooked, as to how many of the men are still out of employment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand that there are several. I could not give the exact number.


Richard Blain: What is my hon. friend doing towards getting these men reinstated, as he took an active part in the settlement?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government has kept in touch with the company, and has intimated to it that it hopes that it will see its way to reinstate any man who may still be out.


Richard Blain: Has anything been done by my hon. friend or his department since the adjournment of the House a few weeks ago?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. The communication which 1 have just read is an answer to a communication which I sent to Mr. Hays; and other officers of the company have been communicated with as well.



MINORITY REPRESENTATION.

Mr. A. C. MACDONELL.: Mr. Speaker, has the First Minister observed the remarks made in his absence quite recently in the city of Toronto by his Minister of Trade and Commerce, in which he may fairly be taken to have advocated minority representation as applied to cities? His utterance would appear to have been inspired, and 1 would like to know if the government has any intention, in the Redistribution Bill, which will doubtless be brought down in consequence of the new census, of introducing the principle of minority representation in urban municipalities, or if the matter has been considered by the government, and, if so, what action will be taken?


Wilfrid Laurier: I think my hon. friend had better put a motion in writing.



THE IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

Robert Laird Borden: Before the orders of the day are called I would like to inform my right hon. friend in connection with what I mentioned a moment ago, that the document to which I alluded yesterday seems to be a report of the proceedings of the recent Imperial Conference. It is a blue-book entitled ' Imperial Conference 1911;' precis of the proceedings presented to both Houses of parliament, by command of His Majesty, June, 1911, printed by the government printers; and it begins with the proceedings on the 1st day, Tuesday 2Srd May, 1911, on which day a resolution was passed presenting a humble address of the conference to His Majesty, and it ends with a record of the proceedings on the 20th June, 1911, setting forth the concluding speeches of certain members of the conference.


Wilfrid Laurier: When was it presented to parliament?


Robert Laird Borden: June, 1911, the day of the month is not mentioned. The conference seems to have come to the conclusion, according to this document, on the 20th of June, and evidently was presented to parliament some time between the 20th and the end of June.


Wilfrid Laurier: I left England on the 1st of July, and it may have been presented the day before. If so we_ shall have it in a very few days. Perhaps it has come already, I shall make inquiries. If
received, it shall be put on the table of parliament immediately.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would ask my right hon. friend to have the document translated as soon as possible so that we may get it in both languages at the same time.


Wilfrid Laurier: Certainly.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There was considerable delay the last time which, I hope, will not take place again.


Wilfrid Laurier: As far as I
can see this blue-book is the precis which was issued to the press every day, and is not a full record of the proceedings.


Robert Laird Borden: There will no doubt be a fuller record.



THE CENSUS.

Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) promised a statement regarding the census.


Mr. FISHER.: I was to have liad one in writing, and it was to have been here at three o'clock. It may come in a few minutes, and I would not like offhand to make a statement.



WAYS AND MEANS-THE PORCUPINE FIRE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Ways and Means.
["Has the minister seen an article in the 'Winnipeg Telegram' of July 13, dealing with the taking of the census at Calgary. That article reads:"]
Mr. GORDON (Nipissing).: .sary (hat they should be supplied with some funds. No one who has been in that locality. as I have been, could fail to be impressed with the conviction that no stone should be left unturned in order to help these people out. Many sad cases have I witnessed, cases of heart-rending misery, but I shall not attempt to enter into details because you have had that information already through the press. I am glad, however, to find that the loss of life will not be as great as we feared. Up to Monday, so far as I could ascertain, 63 corpses had been recovered, and many people who were thought to have been lost are continually being found out at other points. There is no doubt, however, that the loss of life was considerably more than can be judged by the number of bodies which have been recovered.
I have information from the clerk of the town of Cochrane that the last assessment of that town was $913,000. The rate of taxation was 25 mills on the dollar. The town owed $75,000. It issued debentures to the extent of $50,000, which have all been sold, and there is on hand about $40,000 in cash. The corporation loss through the destruction of town property was $21,000. The total insurance will only be in the vicinity of $200,000, while the total loss in Cochrane alone the assessor estimated at $2,000,000. In this condition of affairs, you can easily see that the town is in very bad shape for the purpose of rebuilding, because those who may go there to build will find themselves at once saddled with a very high taxation. I, therefore, am of the opinion that the government should at a very early date do- something towards relieving that town as a whole. For this we have a precedent created lately in the case of the conflagration nt Campbellton.
I would suggest, and I trust that the suggestion will meet with the approval of the government, that something substantial should be done in that connection, and that a very liberal amount of cash should be at once provided to be handed over to a central committee for distribution throughout the district for the benefit of the settlers. In this one district I have spoken of in the townships of Capreol and Hanmer, of which we have heard very little in the papers, there are to-dav 25 families of settlers home-ltss and destitute. I am sure the government have this matter at heart, and" I simply urge them to make a liberal grant to alleviate the sufferings of these people.


Mr. ARTHURS.: I wish to endorse briefly what has been said by my hon. friend (Mr. Gordon, Nipissing). I come from a district somewhat south of the fire region, but many people from my own home town were unfortunately in that fire at Porcupine. I have their description of the scene there,


George Gordon: and of the results of the fire. Some few men are still undiscovered, and it is feared they have been lost in the fire. These towns are not in a position to help themselves, they have now large debts, they have been built up very quickly, and it is almost impossible to get new settlers to go in there, and assume the old debt created previous to the fire. It would be only reasonable that the government should do something to help out the corporations in that way. It is supposed too that a large number of men have been killed or burned in the woods and there is at present no means of searching for their bodies. Many sufferers from the fire are absolutely blind from the effect of smoke and heat, and some poor unfortunates thus afflicted may be still in the woods around that settlement. The Ontario government has been very generous in this matter, so far at least as the T'eni-iskaming and Northern Ontario railroad is concerned. They are moving the men out free of charge, and carrying in supplies free and in fact doing everything possible to help the settlers. It is only right that this government should do as much for these people as they have done for settlers in foreign countries, as-, for instance, at the time of the earthquakes in San Francisco and Italy.


Mr. FIELDING.: I will only remind the hon. gentlemen that this matter was brought up in the House yesterday when a brief statement was made as to the action which the government had taken, and the present position of the whole matter. If my hon. friends will be good enough to read that statement they will see that the matter has already been engaging the attention of the government, and will engage their further attention.



Mr. A. S. GOODEVE (Kootenay).: I would ask the Minister of Labour when lie intends to bring down the report of the conciliation board appointed to enquire into the trouble between the miners and operators in southern Alberta and the Crowsnest district of British Columbia, and also what action is being taken or has been taken by the government since the reception of that report? I am sure that he as well as other members of the House recognize that each day the seriousness of the situation increases. In a very short time now we will have cold weather throughout the prairie provinces, and the railways will soon commence to move the large crop of grain so that all cars will be in use, and the difficulty of getting the necessary supply of coal through to the prairie provinces will be very great. Every day the seriousness of that danger increases. I saw it stated

in the press that the assistant to the hrst vice president of the Canadian *racific Railway had made the statement that undoubtedly numbers of settlers would be frozen to death . in the prairie provinces, unless some immediate relief was given. We have been inviting, and are taking in very large numbers of settlers, and it is important from every standpoint that there should be an ample supply of fuel. I have here a number of references t,o this matter from different western papers, most of them couched in very strong language indeed. If I read an extract or two I only do so to impress on the minister, and other members of the government how earnestly the western people feel in regard to this particular matter. Whether rightly or wrongly there is a strong feeling throughout the west that the government has not done its whole duty in this matter ; they feel that there has been unnecessary delay. It is true that, just before the recess, the minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King), in reply to a question in the House, said that the government had offered their services, and he intimated further that it was possibly because neither the operators nor the miners desired publicity that they had, up to that time, refused to avail themselves of those services. I ventured at that time to state that it was possibly not from fear of publicity, but because they had lost confidence in the Lemieux Act that this refusal had been made. I think all subsequent events go to prove that the suggestion I made at that time was correct. Whatever has been the past history of the Lemieux Act in the settling of various disputes, certainly in this case it has been a lamentable failure in every particular. Instead of assisting in any way it has been the means undoubtedly of preventing both parties com-mg together because, relying on that Act, they have waited from day to day until it drifted from week to week, and finally into months before that report was completed.
I shall not criticise the members of that board nor their appointment, but I wish to read an editorial from one of the western papers, which I think voices largely the feeling and the sentiment of those people. As I say the language is strong, but it is because they feel very strongly on the matter, and feel, as I have said, that there has been neglect on the part of the government. This editorial which appears in the Calgary 'Herald,' is as follows:


THE COAL STRIKE.
[Stage Direction]
If for no other reason than its deplorable handling of the coal strike the federal government should be rejected and condemned by the people of western Canada. It is not only that the Department of Labour has utterly failed to reach a settlement but also that it has displayed an indifference to the situation that is nothing else than shameful. Reciprocity versus anti-reciprocity is a debatable question, but the need for coal next winter-, and the suffering which will come to western Canada for lack of it, are not matters of debate but of common knowledge.
for nearly four months the mines of southern Alberta have been closed through a differ-en®e between employers and employed. After a delay that was in itself reprehensible, a con-eiuation board was organized and a man put at the head of it who, in the opinion of those best qualified to judge, has shown himself a lamentable failure.
Meanwhile, what of the young Minister of Labour who, when he was a deputy, used to go arouud hunting trouble in order that lie might settle it. Have the sweets of office clogged the wheels of his industry, or has he grown too great to hearken bo a public cry? In the press dispatches we read that Mr. Gordon's report has at least reached Ottawa, but that it cannot be opened until Mr. Mackenzie King chooses to come back and do so, while we also read that Mr. King is delivering political speeches before a Quebec audience. What cares he for Alberta and Saskatchewan ? A minister of the Crown must not be bothered with trifles.
And here in the west are a million of people who will suffer because of Mr. King's selfish carelessness and Mr. Gordon's laziness. Here homes are without coal, here manufactories are hampered for lack of fuel. Here the steam ploughs on which the development of our country largely depends have had to cease operations on account of the strike. Here we have three great provinces whose people depend on coal for their winter warmth, and we know that however the strike is now settled there will he suffering and privation in thousands upon thousands of western homes during the coming winter. Is it not scandalous that a lazy and surfeited government should sit calmly by and watch its people robbed of the use of their natural heritage? Such a strike as this first impels one to believe that all coal mines should be controlled and operated by the government. But on the other hand if the government were as inefficient as the Department of Labour ha® shown itself to be, the last stage might prove to he worse than the first.
Then there is a long article in another paper, in even stronger language, which perhaps I had better not read.
An hon. MEMBER.: Read it.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: This is from the Lethbridge ' Daily News,' a paper published in the centre of the affected district. I will read an extract.
Must the coal mining industry of this country be tied up to suit the convenience of the cocksure and bumptious youth who presides over the Department of Labour?
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I am not responsible for this language, but I trust the minister will thoroughly understand it.
The interests of thousands of people, the lives of some of them, perhaps, are at stake. Already there has been great inconvenience if



not actual suffering by the cause of this strike.
These mines which are the source of such great wealth to Alberta should be hummm0
with activity. The translation and mW
trial concerns of the country needjoa- lhe householder needs it and cannot get it. The miners need the work. The merchants in the affected districts need the money for the goods that they have supplied the miners. Must all of these multifarious interests languish because Mackenzie King is an Berlin gratifying his vanity and boring bis constituents.
The Lemieux Act specifically states that as soon as the award reaches Ottawa it shall he made public and that a copy be given to any newspaper in Canada that asks for it. H e Terp representative at Ottawa has made this request and no doubt all of the other newspaper representatives have done the same, but Mr. King is not at home.
I admit that the language I have read is somewhat strong, and I have only read these editorials from western papers because they are published in this immediate district, and I think correctly reflect the views of the people of that district. Some portions of the affected districts are in my own riding of Kootenay. There are three great smelters depending on the output of coal from the district. They consume probably on the average 150 tons a day., or 34,500 tons a month. One of these has been shut down for some time; fortunately the others, by making an arrangement with the transportation company for a special rate, have been enabled to import coke from Pennsylvania and to continue running. How long that condition will last, they are unable to say. If, as is more than likely, the fight continues much longer, and they also are compelled to shut down, then many other dependent industries will be closed, and many more thousands of men, just at the season when work is most needed, will be thrown out of employment. For these reasons I think that the Department of Labour should inform the House and the country what steps they are taking to bring about a settlement of these difficulties.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Through the courtesy of my hon. friend in communicating his intention to bring up this subject in the House to-day, I am able to hand him a copy of the report of the board which has investigated this dispute. I may say by way of explanation as to why a copy was not laid on the table before, that it is not customary to lay copies of reports of Boards of Conciliation on the table of the House: they are given out to the press as soon as received, and they are also published in the ' Labour Gazette.' But it has not been a customary procedure to lay them on the table of the House. However, I am glad to present this report to the House, though it has already been published in large part in the press, and I have no doubt the details are familiar to, my hon. friend.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: I must say that I expected, when my hon. friend began his remarks, that he would deal with this question from the point of view of the interests concerned, and the public welfare, and that he would not have introduced into the discussion editorials from party journals that have been written certainly for political purposes, and not to alleviate the situation in the west at the present time. If there is one thing above another which to my mind, is all important in connection with the western situation at the present time, it is that it should not he made a matter of party politics. The moment it is attempted to make political capital out of the serious industrial situation in the west at the present time, that moment the difficulty of settlement is going to become increased, and a heavy onus will rest upon those who take that course in approaching this question. The government, through the Department of Labour, has tried to deal with this question in a fearless and a direct manner. When the cessation of operations took place, the first step taken was to endeavour to get the parties to agree to allow the dispute to be investigated, so that the public might know what were the causes of the dispute, and what would be a fair basis of settlement. As a result of the method by which the department approached the question at that juncture, we were able, without any act of compulsion, to get the parties voluntarily to agree to refer the matter to a board. I admit that it took a little time. But I may say that any other method would not have accomplished the result at all, that the parties would not have willingly referred their differences to a board if we had tried to coerce them. By adopting the method of voluntary conciliation, we were successful in getting the parties to go before a board, and in having a hoard investigate the conditions. That board has gone into the matter fully, and the report which has been presented by the board gives to the public I think an intelligent idea of the causes which are at the bottom of this dispute. It does more than that, it outlines what, in the opinion of the hoard, appears to he a fair basis of settlement of the dispute. It is true that it has taken the board a considerable time to get through its work; but hon. gentlemen must remember that the dispute in British Columbia and Alberta at the present time is one of the largest mining disputes that has ever taken place on this continent. There are some 18 different mining companies affected; there are 18 locals oAhe United Mine Workers affected. The dispute is not one which could have been dealt with quickly, if it were to he dealt with intelligently and thoroughly.

The chairman of the board has very wisely taken the view that if this western situation is to be satisfactorily solved at all it will not be by going superficially into the matter, but by investigating the difficulty thoroughly and giving to the public as full an account of the situation as it is possible to give, at the same time making recommendations which, in the light of all the information, he has reason to feel will furnish a fair basis of settlement The board's report has been given out. It is not unreasonable to hope that the parties, having before them the report of the board, although up to the present, they have not seen their way to reach a settlement, will now use that report as a basis for coming to an agreement.


Mr. SPROULE.: Would the minister tell me when he received that report and when it was given to the press?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: suggested, an agreement can not be come to. We have reached that third stage and I think that if hon. members will unite with the government in expressing the view that it is desirable to keep party considerations out of this question altogether and advise the parties to try to come together on the basis of the award, they will be helping in bringing about a speedy termination of the dispute. _
Just one word more before I sit _down. I think it is well that my hon. friend has brought up this question, for this, if for no other reason, that the people of the provinces in the west which are likely to be affected by this matter ought now, while it is summer to take some steps themselves to see that if we approach winter without this dispute being settled, provision is made for coal for the people there. When the strike took place in Lethbridge some five years ago, on which occasion I intervened myself, the strike had been going on for nine months, we were then in November, snow was on the ground, and those provinces were face to face with a very critical situation. But, it is different in this case. This strike has lasted now for not quite four months. We are still in the early part of the summer, it is possible for those who see danger ahead to make provision, in the event of a settlement not being speedily reached, and I think it would be in the interest of all companies and individuals concerned not to pin their faith too much on an immediate settlement, but to make provision for themselves against any contingencies. The reason that I advise them not to pin their faith too much on an immediate settlement is that the main question concerned is as to whether there shall be an open or closed shop, or as to the degree of recognition which is to be given to the union. I must frankly confess that I do not know of any means that can be used to end a dispute upon that question so long as one body of men take the view that they will work only with union men on certain conditions, and so long as the employers take the view that they will not allow their mines to be operated on those conditions. It comes then to a test of endurance, and it is well for the country to know the facts and face them squarely. However, I believe if the parties do that, with the advance which has been made by this investigation, it may be possible for this dispute to be speedily terminated.
In conclusion, let me say that the thanks not only of the government, but of the whole country are due to Mr. Gordon, chairman of this board, for the exceptionally able manner in which he has performed his work. Mr. Gordon went into the whole question with the other members of the board patiently and exhaustively, and those who have been present have felt that he has rendered a very great ser-Mr. KING.
vice to the Dominion, notwithstanding what hostile political critics may have to say.


Angus Claude Macdonell: The Minister of Labour has been at any rate candid with the House and the country and like the candid doctor who is not afraid to tell his patient the truth he announces to the people of Canada that there is no remedy to be had. The minister has enlightened the House with a long recital of the facts, but what the country wants to know is what relief the government is going to afford. This strike is more particularly one in which the public has a very much greater interest than it usually has in conflicts between labour and capital. Here is a section of the country that for six months in the year is practicably inaccessible to the carriage of _ bulky commodities such as coal and being destitute of wood for fuel purposes the inhabitants are face to face with impending disaster. The first minister is responsible for the doctrine that the government as a whole is responsible for everything that takes place in any department of the government and I commend to the right hon. gentleman that sins of omission as well as sins of commission in any department shall be shouldered by the entire government. Had not this present government been laivsh in giving away the fuel areas of that country for little or nothing in bygone days there would have been to-day a weapon in the hands of the government which would have prevented a strike. In entering a conflict of this kind both parties look to the chances of ultimate success and they know that is measured by the amount of public pressure that can be brought to bear on either side of the question. The American government in their administration of the coal fields, especially in Alaska now retain in fheir own hands large coal areas for public purposes, and had the Canadian government retained only a fractional pant of the vast coal lands in this very region these coal lands would now be capable of early development in the public interest and the dire consequences resulting from this strike would be minimized if not obviated. I understand that coal is being shipped into these provinces for months past by interests that know there will be a great scarcity of fuel in the coming winter, and no doubt the Minister of Labour in his capacity as regulator of combines and trusts will be called on to interfere .iust as soon as the winter comes. The government is well aware that the conditions on the prairies are different in this respect from those in well settled parts of the country where there are means of rushing in a fuel supply in an emergency and altogether it seems to me that from beginning to end 'the whole matter has been inadequately

handled by the government. Immigrants are rushing into that country daily and hourly and if it be found impossible for them to obtain fuel during the coming winter disaster is bound to overtake Jthem. The government has allowed thfe thing to drift along until at this late date all that the minister can do is to hand in a report and say to us, ' What are you going to do about it?' It is the business of the government to do something about it so as to protect the people of the west from hardship.


Mr. TURRIFF.: It is unfortunate that the speakers on the other side of the House pay more 'attetntion to trying _ to '.blame the government than to suggesting a remedy. The question of how the people of the west are to get fuel during the coming winter is a serious one. Let me point out to the hon. member for Toronto (Ma\ Mac-.donell) that this government has done .iust exactly what he says they should have done. Several years ago they withdrew absolutely from sale all the coal lands of these western provinces and for years back no one has been able to purchase an acre of coal land from the government.


Mir. TAYLOR (Leeds).: Because it was all sold.


John Gillanders Turriff: I may tell my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) that there are thousands and tens of thousands of acres of coal lands the equal of any that have been disposed of available to anybody who is willing to develop them, and to pay a yearly rental of $1 per acre and a certain royalty per ton on the coal. My hon. 'friend (Mr. Taylor) or anybody else can get some of the richest coal lands on earth for a specified rental and royalty and without having to invest one dollar on Capital account. In addition to that in the Crows-nest Pass on the British Columbia side, the government has 50,000 acres of the finest coal lands in the world ready for development. At present there are hundreds of thousands of tons of coal coming in from the United States to southern British Columbia and all through the Calgary district and the railways are using American coal now. That very report which was tabled to-day states that the minimum wage paid in one of these mines during the past year amounted to $4 per day for the miner, that the maximum wage was $12 a day, and that the average earning of the miner in that mine was $6 a day. Under these conditions the men have struck and they demand that none but. union men shall be employed and the operators contend that they cannot afford to operate their mines if they have to meet the demands of the miners. I do not know which party is right, but there
is the condition. Will some one suggest now a means by which the Minister of Labour can end that unfortunate strike? In dealing with it I think we should deal with it as a coal strike, and not bring in party politics for the purpose of blaming the government for something, for which they are not to blame at all.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: In view of the quotation from the resolution of the Nelson Board of Trade, may I ask the Minister of Labour if he has notified both parties to the dispute, as well as the public, that they have no intention of taking any further action in the matter, and that they will leave the parties to the dispute to work out their own salvation?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The purpose of my remarks to-day was to acquaint the public as well as the parties themselves with the fact that for the present the view of the government is that, the matter having been fully investigated and a report brought down, the parties should now feel that they themselves must try to get together and settle this difficulty. If they believed that the government were going to intervene further, what my hon. friend said at the beginning of his remarks would probably take place: they would wait for that further intervention before coming to a settlement. But I would not like my hon. friend to believe that because the government takes that position it is not watching every phase of this situation and taking care to see that the interests of the public are duly protected.


Richard Blain: After listening to the discussion I do not think there was any justification for my hon. friend from Assi-niboia (Mr. Turriff) charging members on this side of the House with introducing party politics. My hon. friend is very ready to make charges against members on this side of the House when they are discharging their duty. For my part, 1 would like to know if it is not the duty of members on this side of the House, particularly gentlemen coming from the west, to direct the attention of the Minister of Labour and of the government to a condition of affairs that is threatening the western development. I notice that my hon. friend had no suggestion to the government or the House for the settlement of this case; but he is seeking from the opposition side what the Department of Labour is unable to give. When the Lemieux Act was introduced, we were told of past strikes and the suffering that the public of this country had endured in consequence of them, and we were assured that when the Lemieux Act was put on the statute-book, strikes would be at an end. Now we have, as the Minister of Labour states, the most fax-

reaching strikes ever known in the history of this country, and still we have the Lemieux Act on the statute-book. What is the matter? Either the Minister of Labour or his department are unable or unwilling to enforce the Lemieux Act, or else the Lemieux Act is not sufficient to meet the difficulty. I would like my hon friend the Minister of Labour to state which side of this question he is on, and which side the department is on. In the early part of this session, when a matter of this kind was up, my hon. friend pointed out that the difficulty was whether unions should be recognized or not. I asked on which side was my hon. friend and his department, and my hon. friend said, 'we are on neither side'. When we have a Labour Department, and a full-fledged minister, and a Labour 'Gazette', and correspondents all over this . country, it seems to me that if that is the essence of the difficulty, my hon. friend should be able to say, after years of experience and investigation, whether it is in the best interests of this country that labour unions should be recognized or not. It is not enough for my hon. friend to say, I am not on one side or the other, I have not made up my mind whether labour unions should be 'recognized or not. We had all that information before my hon. friend was put into the government, and when we had this labour legislation, we were told that before labour disputes reached the stage of strikes, the Lemieux Act would be applied and everything would be settled. The duty does not rest on the opposition to settle these strikes. The opposition is not responsible for the Lemieux Act. We questioned when it wasl introduced whether it would be sufficient to meet the case; but we were told and the country was told, and the labour organizations were told, that in future there would be no strikes. And now we are confronted with strikes lasting for several months, and a supporter of the government asks, what has the opposition to suggest for the settlement of this difficulty? My hon. friend the Minister of Labour has been criticized for delivering political speeches. It strikes me that my hon friend is more of a partisan than a Minister of Labour, or he would have been out in the west looking after this difficulty himself. It hardly becomes my hon friend to suggest that it is the duty of the opposition to make suggestions how this matter could be settled, and I don't think he will do it again.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It rather amused me to hear the statement of the minister that this matter should be kept out of the domain of party politics. That is very good advice, but I would like to remind nun that from time to time on the public -platform, and sometimes in this House Mr. BLAIN.
he tells the country how many strikes have taken place and about the important part taken in their settlement by the Labour Department and the Minister of Labour, and how many were settled by his intervention. He is quite willing that this matter shall be in the arena of party politics when there is anything to be made out of it; but when he sees danger ahead, he wants it to be kept out of politics. I was very much amused to hear the minister give the history of the operations that have been carried on since the appointment of the commission was made, and then to find, after it was all cleared up, that the Minister and the Department of Labour had nothing to do and did not intend to do anything-they only intended to stand aloof and let the parties fight it out. This reminded me of the story of the Irishman who met the bear. He was not very pious, and did not know what to do. It occurred to him that as he was face to face with trouble he ought to pray. At last the situation became very dangerous, and he said, 'I am not much at praying, but, good Lord, if you don't help me, don't help the bear, but just stand aside, and you will see one of the damnedest rackets you ever saw'.
He said we are not done with it because we are watching it carefully and are waiting patiently what will be the outcome. That reminds me of a story I heard of a celebrated Scotch grit away up near Owen Sound who had a little rat terrier. That terrier one day caught a small rat as it came out of its hole, and having chewed it up, watched that hole steadily for years but never another rat came out of it! In like manner the minister is going to watch that rat hole and will continue to watch it all year to see if anything will come out which he can turn to political advantage.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: Might I ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. King) when did the government come to the decision to sit tight, and did it advise the parties to the dispute that it had come to such a decision?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government is taking exactly the same position in this dispute as it has done in all disputes. When the board makes its report, it is not necessary for the government to make any statement. That report is submitted for the consideration and action of the parties.


William Sora Middlebro: Evidently the Department of Labour is absolutely useless in the present instance. The minister says the question is one of endurance, but that is the case in every strike, and he is practically admitting that the Department of Labour, to which we grant an annual subsidy of some $30,000, is pracicalfy of no use whatever. Evidently the minister hopes

that by sitting tight and looking wise he is going to hatch out a solution of the difficulty. He reminds me of a hen sitting for weeks on an empty nest and expecting some results. To-day the hon. gentleman hopes that by looking wise and sitting tight on nothing, he will accomplish something. That seems to be his policy. I was rather struck by the remarks of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff). To my mind these remarks were a corroboration of the general opinion that the western members on the government side have control of the government. The other day wnen we offered a resolution to grant some substantial recognition to the veterans of 1866 and 1870, that proposal was turned down because it did not meet with favour among the western members on the government side. They said they were not in favour of granting any recognition to the veterans of 1867 and 1870. Although they W'ere in favour of granting similar recognition to the veterans of 1885 and to the South African volunteers. A similar control is evident in the matter we are now discussing. While we are told by the Minister of Labour that his policy is to sit tight and do nothing}, we have had the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) telling us that the operators are getting too much pay as it is.


John Gillanders Turriff: I did not say that.


William Sora Middlebro: The hon. gentleman said, speaking of the pay they were getting, that they were still dissatisfied, and 1 took that to mean that, in his opinion, they were getting sufficient pay to-day. He apparently also thinks it is good policy to have the coal which is being used in our west taken from the mines in the United States, transported by American railways and delivered in this country, thus encouraging our neighbours to the south. That is a policy on the. lines of reciprocity, and the hon. gentleman thinks it is a good policy. We on this side do not agree with him. And I think that it is up to the Minister of,Labour (Mr. King) to take some steps for the purpose of settling this strike.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: Was there not a commission appointed by the minister last year to visit the different countries throughout the world and find out the conditions of labour in each?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend must be thinking of the commission on technical education.


John Dowsley Reid: At all events the minister himself visited a great many foreign countries in order to find out how they settled their labour troubles. He went to China and even to Japan to find out how strikes were settled in those countries. He was then in the position of deputy minister
and had full power to go to all those countries and see how the labour unions were working there and how strikes were settled. Therefore, if there be anyone in this government qualified to give some information regarding the settlement of strikes, that one should be the minister himself. The minister, however, and the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) want information from this side on that point but there has not been any member on this side who has had the opportunity the Minister of Labour has had of finding out what has been done in China, Japan and other couhtries. When this Labour Department was first created, I understand, the object was to put into the hands of the government a means of settling strikes, yet not one has so far been settled by this government.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Yes ,the telephone girls of Toronto.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister may have been able to settle that strike but he could not settle that of the Grand Trunk Railway operators. Beyond doubt it was understood that the Labour Department was to have settled that strike so as to give satisfaction to the men or give them the terms on which they understood the strike was settled. I have heard of a great many strikes, but I fail to find that any have been settled by the government. They have all been settled by the parties themselves. In the case of the Grand Trunk railway strike, the minister undertook to settle it, but to-day some of the men are walking around yet, doing nothing within 12 miles of where I live. The hon. minister knows that on the Grand Trunk railway some of the strikebreakers are still occupying the very best positions in charge of the trains or as conductors, and men who served for years have not been put back in their former positions. If that is the way the Labour} Department is going to settle strikes, of what use is it?


Mr. BRADBURY.: Abolish it.
Mr. REffD (Grenville). It should be abolished and the minister superannuated and I believe that the strikes would then be settled a good deal quicker, Although we have a -minister in charge of the Labour Department, who has been all over the world inquiring into labour conditions, the department is evidently useless.


Mr. PERLEY.: This is only another example of the incompetence of this government. From some remarks of the Minister of Labour this afternoon, it seems to me he ought to have been a supporter of the leader of the opposition in his policy m regard to the lands and natural resources of the Northwest provinces during the last ten years. The Minister of Labour tells

us to-day that the Dominion government has practically made up its mind that it can do nothing to settle this difficulty, and that the people of the Northwest will have to freeze this winter, so far as this government is concerned. At the same time he says the provincial governments out there ought to take proper steps now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend misunderstood me. I did not mention the provincial governments at all in this matter.


Mr PERLEY.: The people of the northwest provinces, I understood him to mean that the people of the northwest as a whole, and as a body ought to make preparation for this trouble and to provide themselves with coal for the coming winter. If the policy of the leader of the opposition had been carried out the provinces of the northwest would have had control of these lands, and these coal mines, and could then have taken proper steps to see that they were operated in such a way as to be of benefit to the people of the northwest. We know that years ago many of these lands, the best of them, were practically given away and that there were many frauds in connection with applications for these lands as has been brought out m discussion in this House many times, and if the provinces had had control of these lands they would have been able to find some other method of administer-mg them, and would have better control over the coal mines themselves.


THE CENSUS - OMISSIONS IN ENUMERATION.
George Halsey Perley: In connection with the question asked by the leader of the opposition before going into the orders of the day yesterday with regard to the census, it seems to me very necessary that the Minister of Agriculture should hasten his explanation and statement regarding the census. Many reports have appeared in the newspapers as to the incompetence of tim census officials, the incorrectness of ifix. rePor^s and their failure to enumerate all the people. In that connection I would read an article which appeared in the Ottawa Evening Journal' yesterday:


CENSUS TAKING IN OTTAWA AN EXAM
[Stage Direction]
OR wSr.SE. °SSAL ^COMPETENCl
Conditions Prevailing in Other Cities seem be much more Serious in the Capital Ottawa seems destined to lose considerably Population owing to very many famili being overlooked-Most Glaring Examp of Carelessness in connection with tl Census that Canada has yet witnessed Numerous complaints being register! daily by families and individuals who ha-been overlooked.
Whatever grounds there may be upon whi< to base the numerous protests in other towi Mr. PERLEY.
and cities of omissions from the census records, of one thing at least a great number of Ottawa citizens are perfectly satisfied. In so far as the capital city of the Dominion is concerned, the census taking has proven to be a colossal farce.
The question asked by the average citizen in the streets of Ottawa to-day is not what gains in population the city will show, but what success has attended the apparent efforts of the enumerators to make its population appear smaller.
Facts are Supreme.
It is not merely a question, as claimed by the census commissioner, ' that it is quite possible that, in some instances, persons and families have been overlooked.' It is a demonstrated fact that very many families have failed to attract the wandering eye of the casual enumerator long enough for census purposes, and it should not be forgotten that the numerous instances which thus far have been reported must merely represent a small portion of the entire number.
Whether or not the deplorable situation, or conditions, which prevail in Ottawa, so evident in the daily and almost hourly complaints from families and individuals, it at least lends colour to the complaints being registered all over the country.
Not a Political Question.
And in face of the bare proven facts it is difficult to understand how certain newspapers, and persons, can find ground ujion which to base the charge that the complaints made so far are registered merely for partisan and political purposes.
Every citizen is, or at least should he desirous that Canada should show a large increase in her population. The same applies to the citizens of Ottawa and of every other city, town, village and hamlet, throughout the whole Dominion. The public spirited citizen of any community is anxiously awaiting the returns to ascertain whether or not his district is showing the growth, which he believes it must. It is hard to understand what any one party could possibly hope to gain through certain families or even districts being ' passed up.'
Therefore it must be taken that any complaints which have been made were not prompted by a desire, for political purposes, to show that enumerators, who ' omit persons or families,' are doing so under orders from their superiors. It can only be said that they are registered because of a desire on the part of citizens who take a just pride in this city to have their names entered in the census.
Negligence Astounding.
Although, it is pointed out that no census, that has ever been taken, or that ever will he taken in the future will be absolutely correct or infallible, it is yet astounding and almost unbelievable that so many prominent and well known citizens of Ottawa should have been overlooked.
Almost every day cases are coming to light where the entire households, and in some cases the entire staffs of offices have aparently been overlooked with almost studious care.
In the face of the fact it is not surprising that the bulk of Ottawa citizens should disagree with the census commissioner when he

says that ' the work of enumeration has been well and thoroughly done/
Ottawa will Feel Loss.
It is very easy to see that it is in cities like Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, &c., where the loss will he felt the most through the inefficiency or carelessness of the enumerator or of the officials in charge. They have the largest population without fixed and permanent abode, or domestic relations, and it is this class that is more likely to be neglected or overlooked.
The enumerator received 5 cents per name, and was not altogether likely, if not closely watched to chase ail day after illusive people who could not be discovered on his first or second visit.
Many enumerators have complained of a lack of co-operation on the part of the people which they consider they were entitled to. While this complaint may he just in many respects on the other hand, business men do not think it was their duty to remain at home from their offices in waiting to accommodate the enumerator when he was pleased to call at their homes.
Some of the Causes.
They declare that this census man had a right to hunt them up at their places of business for the necessary information. And just here is the cause of a great number of persons being overlooked.
Enumerators have undoubtedly refused to do this as it made their work more onerous and unremunerative. What the results have been is daily being demonstrated.
Of the whole piece of business only one thing can he said, to quote a well known citizen yesterday:
' It is the most glaring and serious example of incompetency, through lack of proper organization, that Canada has yet had to contend with/
The system of payment by the department of 5 cents per head is one that may lead to many abuses and that, as this article points out, will not induce the enumerator to take the trouble of going to the house more than once or twice in order to enumerate the people. In June, when the census was taken, many people were out of town, and I know myself how difficult it would be for the enumerator to get track of them all. I have been told by several persons that they were not enumerated in this census. I mention that in case the minister may think that this article is not definite enough. I also find specific charges contained in a telegram from Montreal appearing in the ' Citizen ' of July 11. That article reads:

[Stage Direction]
Many Complaints as to way Numbers were Left Out.
Montreal, July 10.-Complaints as to the manner in which the 1911 census has been conducted are coming in by the score, not only from individuals who have been overlooked, but also from whole districts.
' Not a householder in Rosemount has been called on by the census enumerators, as far as I can learn/ said Aid. Drummond to-day.
' No enumerator called at my house, although I represent the ward in the council of Montreal. But I was not the only one treated in this way. I have received scores of complaints from residents of the ward That no enumerators called upon them. This is remarkable. In my ward there are some three thousand houses, so you would think that the enumerators would not have been so careless as to neglect the place. It is most remarkable/
Whole parishes, streets and corners have been similarly neglected. While a canvass of business men shows that in very many cases the enumerators, finding the head of the houses away, jotted down what information they could obtain from servants and children, completing their work by the use of imagination.
This is a matter of great importance. _ In the first place, we are all naturally anxious that the entire population of Canada should be enumerated in order that we may make as good a showing as possible in that respect, and on this census will be based the representation for this House of Commons for the next ten years, in the Bill which, I presume, will he brought down in the House before long. Now it would be an unfortunate thing if the census should not be reliable. I am not bringing up this matter as a political question, but simply to call the attention of the minister to this state of affairs, and to ask him fox an explanation.
Sydney Arthur Fisher: In reply to the hon. gentleman I would say that the statement which he has just read, taken I believe from the 'Journal' of last evening, is about as reckless, and as unfounded a statement as I have read in a newspaper. It is an exaggeration in every way, snape and form. It happens that in the city of Ottawa the chief census office is situated; and if any such condition of affairs has existed as described in that paper, it is extraordinary that the people who were concerned did not make their complaints to the census office. It was the easiest thing for them to do. My hon. friend shakes his head. They are not bound to do it, I grant; but at the same time the public were asked to co-operate with the census officials in taking a correct census, and if such a state of affairs existed as described, it seems to ' me that the' people affected would have made their complaint to the census office, either by telephone or verbally.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Could they not make their complaint in the public press much more effectually than by communicating with the officers of the department?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, if xne public press gave names and places. But when a reckless article of this kind la published, giving no name or place, it is evidently not the best way of making complaints. But.


&quot;9715 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
if any one makes a complaint in the press giving name and place, it 'will be investigated at once. But here in Ottawa there was an easy opportunity for people who are thus described, as numbering scores and hundreds, according to the tenor of that article, to notify the census office, and have matters set right. That would not be the case in Montreal, Toronto, and elsewhere, I grant; but at the same time the public have been invited to make any complaint of that kind to the census office, free by post, and such complaint would be investigated. Now as a matter of fact in the city of Ottawa we have had a few complaints, not a score in all have come to>
the office. A majority of these complaints have been investigated, and have been discovered to be unfounded. As a matter of fact there have been a few cases where people have not been enumerated, and immediately on representations having been made, the enumeration has been properly done. There have also been a few such complaints in other parts of the country. Many of those coming from the cities are owing to a fact which the complainants seem to have overlooked. This census has been taken as of the 1st of June, during which month a large number of people left their residences for -other parts of the country. We have, however, provided machinery for looking after them. They are enumerated in the place where they are found, and a special card is sent to the department here to indicate that these people, while enumerated at their temporary residence, at Britannia or up the Gatineau, for instance, are residents of the city of Ottawa, and the enumerator in Ottawa who has not been able to find the individual in his house, or to get information, sends a card into the general office to that effect. We compare the two, and when the final revision of the enumeration is completed, the corrections will be made, and all these people will be counted in the place where they are properly resident. That has all been arranged for, and I have no doubt whatever, that the people who have made the complaints spoken of have all been enumerated as inhabitants of the city where they live. I may say that in the census of 1901 we had such complaints as are now being made. Every complaint where a name was mentioned was investigated immediately, and according to my memory, it was discovered that a large majority of the complaints were unfounded. The people had been enumerated. An instance was given to me the other day. A gentleman resident of the city of Montreal said that his household had not been enumerated. His household was away for the summer, he himself was away, but he had left in charge of the house a confidential servant, and that servant had given full details of the Mr. FISHER.
entire family. She had made one mistake, however, in giving the age of the proprietor, reporting him as two years younger than he actually was. That gentleman came to the census office about the matter, and on investigation we found that his complaint was absolutely without foundation. That is a kind of thing which has occurred in a few instances in different parts of the country, and that is a kind of thing om which reckless journalists are basing absurd accusations, such as are contained in the article read by the bon. member for Argen-teuil. I venture to say that the census is being accurately taken, that it is being taken with the greatest care, that proper machinery has been provided to take it effectively, and that when the returns are finally revised the actual population of Canada in its various parts will be known. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition asked for a statement which I had not at the moment, and which I now have. The census was taken as of the 1st of June, and we expected the last enumerators to get through their work in less than three weeks. That has been done to a large extent, but not altogether. In some instances where the enumerators have made omissions they have been directed to go over their work again. In one instance I know of a half street being left out. The census enumerator was sent back by the commissioner to do that half street, and it has been done, and the return is in. I will now make an answer to the questions of the leader of the opposition yesterday. The returns have been coming in very rapidly. At the present date there are 9,322 enumerations. I may say that that number will be slightly added to, because some of the outlying districts have been subdivided, but the actual number as reported to us at the time of the taking of the census, was 9,322.
We have received the returns from 6,556 of these districts leaving the balance of 2,761 to be received. Of those that have been received the first compilation has been going on since they were received, and out of 6,556 about 6,500 have been gone over up to the present day for the first count. I say clearly for the first count, because we have to revise all these schedules and compare them after the first count. Then we go over them a third time, check them and see that they are correct. That provision includes the compilation of these cards I have just alluded to, and a comparison and correction where any indication exists that a_ person may have .been counted in two places. For instance, the other day I was counted here. I found when I went home to my farm in Brome that I had been counted there also. Therefore, this checking and revision have to take place before we can issue any figures which would be reliable or correct. After that is done we

have to go over the whole of them again and check them, this being largely done by the machines, to see that they are accurate before we can issue any statement of figures. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition asked if we were going to issue statements of the returns as they came in. In former censuses we issued statements when we had finally concluded what was the actual population, but I would not like to undertake to issue a statement until that final revision and checking have taken place so that no misconceptions may arise, and so that nobody may be misled by what may turn out to be not absolute accuracy. My hon. friend also asked when the final figures would be given out. I am not prepared at the moment to say, but we think that the final figures should be completed in the month of October. It is possible we may be able to get them out earlier, but I would not like to hold out any hope that it would be at an earlier date than some time in the month of October.
Robert Laird Borden: I would like to have one point cleared up, and that is to ascertain whether I am enumerated in this census. I do not know whether I have the honour to be included in this census as a citizen of Canada. I do know this: that up to the time I left on the 15th of June for the west I had not seen anything at all of these enumerators. I have been informed since my return that inquiry was made at my house as to whether the head of the house was at home, that the person who made the inquiry was informed that the head of- the house was absent, and that is the last that has been heard of him. No papers were left at my house to be filled in there as far as I can ascertain, and I do not know whether I have the honour to be included in this census. I would like very much to find that out.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will find it out.


Robert Laird Borden: I know that a memorandum was prepared giving the particulars, as far as they could be foreseen, that would be required for the census enumeration, and if a call had been made at any time when any person was at home who would be prepared to hand that out, these particulars would have been available But, that has not been handed out as no one has called whatever, except on the occasion to which I have alluded at which time he got no information on the subject. That does not seem to me to indicate that care which the minister is so confident has been taken in the city of Ottawa. I was here for fifteen days of June, ready and willing to give all information available and I heard absolutely nothing of any census enumerator having called; nor was any application made to me. I do not know the method of
taking the census. Is it not customary to leave some papers in which the person being enumerated) will find out certain statistical information?


Mr FISHER.: No. That might be done in case several calls had been made and a person could not be found or something of that kind The duty of the enumerator is to see somebody in the household.


Robert Laird Borden: I am absolutely confident that if the information is of a character anything like that which was asked for in the census of ten years ago they did not obtain it in my case unless the enumerator has put it down by mere conjecture, because no one who was seen at my house would have been capable of giving any of the information. I think that the Minister of Agriculture may find that the taking of this census has not been of that almost perfect character which would bo indicated by his remarks this afternoon. It is almost impossible to believe that the complaints that are coming from every city in Canada, or almost every city in Canada-I have seen a great many of them-are simply raised without any real foundation. I heard them in the west when I was there, I have heard them since I came back to the east, and I am inclined to think that the character of the census taking on this occasion ought to be the subject of a very strict and careful inquiry. The census enumerator has not taken the pains to obtain the information in regard to myself; is it not equally reasonable to believe that that has been the case in a great many other instances? It was perfectly available to him if he had seen fit to come to me and ask for it and obtain it. It would have been available to him in some degree at least if he had gone to my house during my absence. I do not know whether all the information could have been obtained in my absence, but certainly the most important part could have been, and that has not been given. I would like to know how many persons have been enumerated in my household. I do not see how any correct enumeration could have been made of my servants if there has been only the one visit to which I allude!. IThe whole proceeding 90 far as that particular instance is concerned does not lead me to conclude that there was very great care in Ottawa, and if care has not been taken in Ottawa it is equally reasonable to conclude that the complaints which have been made to my own knowledge in western and eastern citie3, are not entirely without foundation.
It seems singular that the enumeration should be so long delayed. In 1901, if I recollect correctly, the enumeration was completed on the 1st of September, or the latter part of August. That was mentioned in the House on a previous

occasion, and I think the Minister of Agriculture in reply to that said that ten years ago the enumeration commenced on the 1st of April, and this year it commenced on the 1st of June. If it could commence on the 1st of April ten years ago there seems no "ood reason why it should not have commenced on the 1st of April this year.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Only the law.


Robert Laird Borden: Why was the law changed?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It was changed by this House six years ago.


Robert Laird Borden: Upon the initiative of the government, and upon a government measure.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Unanimously passed six years ago without a complaint or a suggestion.


Robert Laird Borden: Very good; suppose that was the case, what was the object or reason of it?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That was explained when the law was passed, and my hon. friend was in the House and did not object.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it should be explained now. I did not introduce the measure; I am not responsible for it. The minister did introduce it, and he is responsible for it. As a matter of fact the Australian census has been announced already, the announcement having been made two or three weeks ago in the public press of this country. The enumeration has been completed there. It cannot be completed here for some three or four months according to the minister's statement.
It has been completed in Great Britain and in other countries who have undertaken the work this year, and Canada seems to be coming along at the end of the procession. I would much like to ascertain whether I am really to be excluded from this census. I am prepared to give any information that may be necessary for the purpose of enumeration, and if it is not too late I would like to enjoy the privilege of being included m the census of 1911 which I ' believe I enjoyed in 1901.
, Mr. PERLEY. Has the minister seen the definite statement in the newspapers concerning Rosemount?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have. It has been investigated, and I have received a report with Tegard to it.


Mr. HERRON.: 1 am surprised at the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture, and judging by it he cannot be well informed as to the manner in which the Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
census is being taken. In one instance, near where I live several heads of families went to the enumerator for their district and complained that they were not included in the census, and they were told by him that as he had no authority to go outside certain lines he could not include them. I have heard very general complaints of th& same sort from people who are perfectly reliable.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Was there not another enumerator to take these people in another district?


John Herron: They were not taken by any enumerator.


George Taylor: Probably the gentleman from Montreal who complains about not being included in the census will lind that he was taken by another enumerator at his summer residence so that he will be counted twice.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He will not.


George Taylor: An American gentleman who resides on the Canadian side of the Thousand Islands asked me recently what business the census enumerator had to come to his house and threaten to tine him if he did not answer a lot of questions.


Mr. LENNOX.: Reciprocity.


George Taylor: This American gentleman whose family resides , there during the summer and who himself only comes there for a visit for a very few_ days in the year, was asked what his life insurance was, and what was the age of his wife and a lot of nonsense like that. He told them it was none of their business, and that as an American citizen he did not want to be included as a Canadian. I wish to ask the minister if all the Americans who reside during the summer months on the Thousand Islands are to be counted as part of the Canadian population. The enumerator for my district met me on the street and asked me what life insurance I carried and I told him to call at my office where I could get my papers and would answer him, and I have never seen him since. My wife told me he had called at the house and asked a few simple questions, but nothing about life insurance. Anyway it is an impertinent question to put on the paper, but nevertheless, if the enumerator had come tome I would have given him the information.
Now, with regard to the coal miners' strike in the West, I can tell the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) that I sent suggestions to the Minister of Labour some years ago which if he had carried out would have prevented any trouble. I was president of a coal company in the Crowsnest Pass and there was a strike which lasted

from March until April, and I proposed to the Minister of Labour that he should appoint a commission similar to the railway commission before whom parties could be heard and that when that commission gave its award it would be binding upon the parties, and it would be illegal to have any strike or lock-out.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My recollection is that the hon. gentleman from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) suggested that the government should drive the men back at the point of the bayonet.


George Taylor: It would be better to drive them back at the point of the bayonet, than to let innocent people be frozen to death as they are likely to be in the Northwest this year. Is the government going to let the settlers on the prairie suffer and die? There would be no point of the bayonet about it if we had a commission whose findings would be binding on both parties. I think the hon. member (Mr. Turriff) is quite astray when he says that there is any quantity of coal lands in the west which have not been taken up by speculators. If the government has coal mines let them notify the operators and the miners that if coal is not supplied in time to save the people from death the government will open up these lands, and let any one who wants to, work the mines and distribute the product, and that no charge will be made for it. At all events I advised our company to sell out the coal mine owing to the labour conditions in the west. The Minister of Labour talks about interfering in politics, but I tell him that his Labour Bureau is nothing but a political machine from head to foot, and every one of his correspondents throughout the country is simply an agent for the government. The 'Labour Gazette' is nothing but politics from start to finish. I throw the thing into the waste paper basket every time I get it, and I would be obliged to the minister if he would stop printing it at the expense of the country.


Mr. EMMEKSON.: Go you read it?


George Taylor: No.


Henry Robert Emmerson: How do you know it is politics then?


George Taylor: I read a few copies of it until I found out what it was, and I got disgusted with it. If my hon. friend (Mr. Emmerson) will speak the truth he will say it is a political production from beginning to end.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Not at all.


George Taylor: Then my hon. friend gets up and and asks us not to talk politics in reference to this coal strike. Let the hon. gentleman adopt the plan I suggest-appoint a labour commission, and
let the verdict of that commission apply to both employers and employees.


Haughton Lennox: In reference to .the census, as a matter of'justice to the press* which has been pretty violently abused by the Minister of Agriculture I do not know that it was far out. I believe, if there was an investigation, there would be found to be a good deal of ground for what the ' Journal ' has said. Although the minister has had the good luck as an unmarried man to be enumerated twice, and his wife was not asked any questions as to her age, I may tell him that as far as I know I have not been enumerated at all. I have been living in a place where I have lived for many years, and since the adjournment of the House two months ago I have been pretty regularly at home, and I have never had a suggestion in reference to the enumeration. My house has been constantly occupied, and I feel quite confident that if any inquiry had been made at my residence I would have been told of it. I will inquire, however, to make it absolutely certain. I do not think this is an isolated case. I think numerous instances will be found all over the country in which enumerations have not taken place, and the minister need not get violent about it until he knows the facts better than he does at present. In some respects I know the enumerators have been very active. I was at some public gatherings where discussions of a political nature took place, and the South Simcoe enumerators were very active in interrupting and contradicting and making themselves offensive. That is the only knowledge I have at the present time of the duties performed by the enumerators in South Simcoe.


Mr. DOHERTY.: I understood the Minister of Agriculture to say that the case of Ros-emount had been investigated, but I did not gather what the result was.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have not got the report.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The minister is not in a position to say that the statement of the reckless journalist in that ease was not correct.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am not in a position to say positively.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Rosemount in my section is a very large district. Another large district, Vilieray, I believe, was entirely omitted, and attention was called to the fact by a paper which the minister would not characterize as reckless because it has the great prudence of supporting this government, and if I am not mistaken the commissioner himself admitted that it was overlooked. Then, it is stated generally

by the newspapers that Hampton Court, a large apartment house, had been entirely overlooked. These cases seem to justify me in asking whether there is any method provided for checking )the /work 'of the enumerators, or does the department consider that its duty is done when it sends out enumerators and only concerns itself with their possible omissions when newspapers or individuals take upon themselves to call attention to them? If that is the position, it occurs to me that it is a very loose method of getting at the census. What is the provision for checking the enumerators?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is the duty of the commissioner to go over every schedule that comes in, and cheek it by his general knowledge of the district, and see that all the houses are included. If several houses were omitted, that would be evident from the fact that the numbers of those houses were not scheduled.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As I understand, he
only does that from his general knowledge of the locality. That will not enable him to go any further than to say that every kcuse number has been counted up. There is no means of saying that the enumerator has made a correct return of the number of people in each house. The matter seems to me to be of sufficient importance to require some more effective check over the work of the enumerators.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That would simply mean another enumeration by somebody else.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think it would be absolutely necessary to have a second enumeration. But we have now before us evidence of the fact that there aire omissions,, and I would think that would be something to be anticipated. 1 do not know the enumerators of the city of Montreal, but I would think that a check might be got at by making some sort of test which would enable one to arrive at a conclusion as to whether in a general way the work had been carefully done. It seems to me a very unsatisfactory answer to say that if an individual complains, the matter will be looked into and rectified. The department is charged with getting this work done. People of public spirit, when they find that they have not been enumerated, may come forward and point it out, but there are a great number of people' who are careless about such matters or who do not really know that a census is going on at all. This is not a case in which there is a grievance on the part of a person whose name has been omitted. The work is being done for the public benefit and it transpires that the department charged with finding an effective way of getting it done correctly, sends out people


Charles Joseph Doherty: to make the enumeration of whose qualifications or responsibility . it is quite impossible for the public to have any knowledge.
Without casting any reflection upon the commissioners, there is no method given them whatever by which they can check the enumeration. Without proposing that another man should be sent out to do the enumeration over again, I submit that some means could be devised which would enable the commissioners to conclude whether the enumerators generally were doing their duty. For instance, somebody might be sent afterwards to inquire generally whether the enumerator had gone from house to house in that locality. The matter is one sufficiently important to warrant every precaution being taken. On the correctness of the census depends the right to representation of the different sections of this country. This important work has necessarily to be trusted to a class of our people who have no other occupation at that moment, and we are consequently depending upon the unchecked and uncontrolled action of enumerators of whose qualifications and responsibility we have no means of being informed and whose work we have no means of checking. Without proposing two separate enumerations, it seems to me that some method could be devised of finding out whether these men were doing their duty properly or not.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am rather surprised at the character of the complaint. In as much as the pay of each enumerator depends on the number of names he secures, one would think that he would show a good deal of zeal in securing a large number.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Would it not be just as bad if too many names were enumerated? The complaint is not that we do not get as many as we should but that we have no guarantee of accuracy.


Henry Robert Emmerson: So far the complaints we have heard are to the effect that a great many names have escaped the attention of the enumerator. I have not heard many complaints that too many names were entered except the complaint of the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) who says that American citizens were entered in our census. I can quite understand that American citizens who own property in this country would have their names taken down as the enumerators would require, to know who were the owners of the property. The hon. member for St. Anne (Mt. Doherty) says it would be desirable to have a sort of review of the enumeration. He would like to have a supervisor to supervise the work of the census commissioner and enumerator in

each county or district. As we are dependent upon individuals for the enumeration there must necessarily be inaccuracies, but I think that in the main we can fairly conclude that the census has been pretty accurately taken. In the section from which I come the commissioners, when they got their schedules from the enumerators took special pains-I know that to be the case at Westmoreland-sought to go through the several districts and inquire as to whether, generally speaking, there had been a correct census. 'J}he comm)is(sioner of course does not travel from house to house or from community to community, but he makes inquiry as to whether the enumerator has attended generally to his work. I am bound to admit that we did, in some instances, find some inaccuracies-one in particular because of a misunderstanding regarding the boundary of a district. As a result of the supervision thus taken by the county commissioners, the correction was made and the census properly taken with Tespect to that section. W'e must deal with this matter practically. There may be errors here and there as in the case of my hon, friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden); and I am sure it would be a very unfortunate circumstance if his name were omitted as it would be if any man's name were omitted.
Every one counts one and we are all anxious to have as accurate a statement of the actual population in our respective sections as can be had. I think that an accurate census has been taken. I hope the enumerators have not omitted any names in the maritime provinces for I am sure that with the numbers we have been sending to the west during the past two or three years, we have suffered very largely in the matter of population and I trust that the enumerators throughout New Brunswick have not been negligent and have not failed to take the names of every individual. I had the honour of a call from the census officer; I was permitted to give him my name and age, and he took them down. I think we should dead with the matter practically and I hope there is no ulterior object in bringing to the notice of the House and the country any of these slight mistakes or inaccuracies or want of attention on the part of the officials that may have occurred. I think a sincere effort has been made to get the best men. I found it in Westmorland very difficult to secure men, people are not free. While it was difficult to get officials there was a splendid selection.


Richard Blain: Did my hon. friend make the selection?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I did not but I knew some of the names and had an opportunity of judging the character, capability and
qualities of those engaged in the work and I only hope that throughout Canada they had an army of enumerators equal to those in the County of Westmorland.


Richard Blain: Did the census commissioner in 1901 send out a letter similar to the one sent out by Mr. Blue this year asking that people who had not been enumerated would communicate direct with him as chief census officer?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not remember such a letter being sent out.


Richard Blain: Why was it necessary to send such a letter if the census was being taken correctly?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Because of the remarks in certain newspapers.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think the census commissioners in the counties are asking that question generally.


Mr. SHARPE (Lisgar).: Has the minister seen an article in the 'Winnipeg Telegram' of July 13, dealing with the taking of the census at Calgary. That article reads:


CITIZENS DECLARE CALGARY CENSUS A PUBLIC SCANDAL.
[Stage Direction]
Hundreds of persons assert they haven't been counted-Dominion Government scored for its neglect-Eighteen men in City's Fire Hall not counted at all.
Calgary, Alta., July 12.-The manner in which the census is being taken in Calgary is now approaching a public scandal. To-morrow is the day which the census commissioner has set for the completion of the work, yet it is safe to say, declare citizens, that there are thousands of names which have been left off the lists.
In response to appeals in the newspapers hundreds of persons are coming forward declaring they have never seen a census enumerator.
Liberal Machine Agent.
Appointed commissioner for Calgary because of his faithful attachment to the Liberal machine, John W. Dingle has not even placed a telephone in his office.
The Dominion government is being roundly scored and it is even hinted that the present situation was designed for the purpose of a general scheme to cheat the west out ot its proper parliamentary representation.
It was discovered to-day that no enumerator had visited the Central Fire Hall, where 23 men were employed.
Fear for Correct Count.
In another office where there are 23 employees, 12 have never seen the enumerators. Fears are expressed to-day that Calgary will not receive credit for anything like its proper population.
If that description of the state of affairs is at all accurate it would be the duty of the minister to direct the attention of his officials in that important city to their omission, and to have the remedy applied
[Stage Direction]
It appears to me that a lot of census enumerators have been appointed for their political zeal rather than for their ability to take the census. The hon. member for Westmorland (Mr., Emmerson) said that the men were financially interested in getting as many names as possible but an incompetent man would be negligent in his duties and incompetent men have been appointed on account of their political activities rather than for their ability to do the work. The taking of the census is a matter of great public importance, it has to do with the representation in this parliament and every constituency is vitally interested in the accurate taking of the census. It seems to me the minister has been derelict in his duty in appointing incompetent people to do this work.
Motion agreed to and House went into Committee of Ways and Means.

[">\n$300,000,000 of American capital to Canada, to build up branch industries which compete with our own in foreign markets. It has also resulted in stifling the growth of Massachusetts and New England industries and kept us out of the business and commerce which belongs to us by every right. It has kept the great Canadian railways from our ports. It has ruined our coastwise shipping interests and made our wharf property of little value.\nNow, I want to deal with a phase of this question that has not been dealt with by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, though it has been alluded to several times by hon. gentlemen opposite. It is a delicate subject, and I am asking now, not on behalf of this side of the House, but purely from my own personal standpoint, in regard to the preferential clause in our tariff. But as it is past the hour of 12 o'clock, I would very respectfully beg to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again."]
Mr. URIAH WILSON (Lennox and Addington).: Mr. Chairman. I have the honour to represent a very old agricultural county in the province of Ontario, a countywhich I believe understands this question perhaps as well as any agricultural county in this country. The electors of that county elected Sir Richard Cartwright in 1863 and he continued to support Sir John Macdonald until Sir Francis Hincks was taken into the cabinet as Financial Minister. Then Sir Richard became very independent and when Hon. Alexander Mackenzie offered him ttm position of Financial Minister in his cabinet he took the position and in 1873 was elected by a majority of 800. It will be remembered that the members of the cabinet went to the country before the general election and were returned. At the general election of 1874, he was returned by acclamation and in 1878 the gentleman whom he defeated in 1873 by 800 defeated him at the polls and Sir Richard, so far as I know, has never held a public meeting in the riding since that time. I feel that he was driven from the county because he opposed the National Policy.
I shall perhaps not again be a candidate for this House but I feel that I would not represent the feeling of Ith'e county of Lennox and Addington did I not oppose m this House what I believe will be injurious to this country. It is all very well for the government to place before the county through their speakers, as I believe they do all over the country, the 90 000 -000 market. They never tell us a word about what the 90,000,000 market will do in the way of sending in their produce to
+nr*murMet' They do not tel1 the farmers that while we will have the privilege of


William Henry Sharpe: sending eight men to sell goods in that country they will have the privilege of sending into our country 90 men; that while we have a surplus of farm products to sell perhaps representing $140,000,000 they have, according to an article in the 'Toronto News' on the 8th of this month, a surplus of $956,000,000 of products of a similiar character to dispose of.
I wish to discuss briefly the old reciprocity treaty of 1854. The conditions in Canada to-day are very different from what they were then as is known to every member of this House. We were then a few scattered provinces, having little if anything- to dio with each lother. Our transportation system was very poor, we were practically a poor people and a small people in those days, a little over 3,000,000 people and our trade, which was very small, was principally with the United States. I do not believe that that treaty did as much for this country as many of its admirers pretend, because shortly after that treaty was signed we had what is known as the Russian war.
The price of farm products, as every body knows, went up higher, I think, than they have ever been since. Wheat went as high as $2 or $2.25 a bushel. The result was that we were prosperous- for a time. I know a firm of three brothers that lived in our district. They said they could have cleared $60,000 on what wheat they held had they sold it at the right time. But unfortunately they held it too long, and they went to the wall, and became bankrupt on that one speculation. Well, I think the older men in this country will remember that in 1857, notwithstanding that we had this treaty in full force, we saw as hard times as had ever been seen in Canada up to that time, and that condition continued until about 1860 and 1861. But in 1861, you remember, the American rebellion broke out, and the war, as a matter of course, took away a great many men from the ordinary pursuits of life. The country had not the men to perform the ordinary avocations of life, and of course prices went up, and that was a great advantage to the people of Canada, because they were able to supply the food stuffs for the American people. But unfortunately for us, and I think for the American people, they took umbrage at the sympathies which some of our people manifested towards the rebellion. I myself was a very strong northern sympathizer, but there were some people in this country who sympathized strongly wijh the south. The American people -took umbrage at that, and gave notice in 1865 that they would abrogate the treaty at the end of one year. That was done. We had been in the habit of dealing largely with them, and we depended largely on thgm to take the farm produce we"raised. But nothing

would persuade them to continue the treaty, or to deal fairly by us. It looks to me, and it always has looked to me since I have thought the matter over, that the American people have always treated us unfairly. They have always acted like a big boy bullying a little one. I do not think that is the kind of usage we had a right to expect from them, but that is the kind of usage we got.
We remember that in 1876 Sir John A. Macdonald introduced his resolution for a protective tariff, either reciprocity in trade or reciprocity in tariff. When he introduced that resolution in the House of Commons it was opposed by the then Mackenzie government, and the Liberal party, and although the times were very hard, and they had to increase the tariff on a general scale, I think, of about 2i per cent, they did not alter, so far as I remember, the duties to any extent, they appeared to think that the tariff was as nearly perfect as it could be made. This resolution of Sir John A. Macdonald was introduced year after year, until 1878. Then the government dissolved the House and went to the country, and I do not think any gentleman occupying the treasury benches need information from me as to what the result wras. The country went strongly in favour of protection, and protection has been continued from that day to the present. I know that in our riding the question was fully discussed, and the farmers were just as enthusiastic supporters of protection as the manufacturers were. We had it discussed by Sir Richard Cartwright, the Finance Minister of that day. He was opposed by a young man named Rowe, who had taken great pains to inform himself on the question, and he made it so hot for the Minister of Finance that he would not allow him to come to one of his meetings unless he spoke first, But Mr. Rowe made himself so familiar with the speeches of the Minister of Finance that he could repeat them, and answer him. The result was that Sir Richard would not allow him to come to his meetings at all. On that occasion the government was beaten. We did not believe it was possible to defeat Sir Richard, because he had large interests in our county, and because of his great wealth, and because he belonged to an old family. I recollect that the first vote I ever gave was against him, although he had been a Conservative. But I have always been one of the people, and I never believed in aristocracy, and do not now, and I never supported him. I have no sympathy with men who are not willing to associate with the people, and live with them. I have nothing personally against Sir Richard Cartwright, but he thought we had nothing good for him, and he went to live in Kingston. I recollect one little instance 307
that occurred, and I was told this by the man himself. He was going to support Sir Richard, but he thought he would chaff him a little on his lack of ability to represent the riding, and Sir Richard replied-' I want you to know, Daly, that I was educated to represent Canada.' ' Well,' said Daly, ' I would not have known it if you had not told me.' That is the way things were going then.
Now I want to speak a little on the action of the two parties when they came to power. When Sir John A. Macdonald came to power it was not believed by the Liberals of that day that he would put in force the National Policy as he had promised. But he did so. He thoroughly investigated the matter by a commission, and brought down such a measure of protection that the Liberals were greatly astonished at it. I believe the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie said that he had trotted out the whole white elephant. Now they carried out their pledges, and that is what I think every public man ought to do. I do not think any man has the right to ask the people to vote for him under certain conditions and then, when he comes to this House, to go back on his pledges. Now what was the difference between the course pursued by Sir John A. Macdonald, and his government in 1878-9, and that pursued by this government in 1896-7? Everybody supposed that the Liberal party was in favour of free trade, by the course they took in 1891, when they stumped this country from one end to the other in favour of unrestricted reciprocity, when they said they had nailed their colours to the mast, and they would never come down until their policy was carried. I think everybody remembers that, I remember it distinctly. Now when they came to power we expected, I think naturally expected, that they would make at least some changes in the tariff. I want to call the attention of the government to the changes they did make, which were very few. This tariff was revised in 1897 when this government was fresh from the country. They made these pledges, and told the people that they were being robbed by the manufacturers, that they were going to cut the head off the monster of protection, and trample on its body, and all that kind of thing. Now in 1897, when they revised the tariff, the first group of items was ales, beers, wines and liquors-10 items. These were let severely alone, save that one was changed and increased.
Agriculture, animals and dairy products; 93 items under the tariff of 1894. Of these, 93 items, 81 were left unchanged, 5 were decreased and 6 increased. One was changed from specific to ad valorem.
Fish and products of the fisheries, 19 items under the tariff of 1894. The duties



on these 19 items were left unchanged under the tariff of 1897.
Books and papers; 18 items, all left unchanged.
Chemicals and drugs; 14 items; 9 unchanged, 4 increased, one lowered.
Opium; 3 items; all unchanged.
Colours, paints, oils, varnishes; 21 items; 14 unchanged, 3 increased and 4 decreased.
Leather, rubber and manufactures thereof; 11 items; 8 unchanged and 3 increased.
Jewellery and materials thereof; 8 items; 6 unchanged, one increased and one decreased.
Textiles, furs, etc.; 51 items; 22 unchanged, 17 increased, 6 decreased and 6 readjusted as between specific and ad valorem.
Sundries; 26 items; 21 unchanged, 3 decreased, one increased, one new.
Sugar, syrups and molasses; 7 items; one unchanged, 6 increased.
Excluding the items of iron and iron manufactures, there were 348 items in the tariff, of which 244 were unchanged, 54 were increased, 34 decreased and 16 readjusted as between specific and ad valorem.
I will appeal to the First Minister if he thinks that-he carried out his pledges to the people when he made that tariff. I remember the statement that the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) made in his speeches in the House and in Montreal, that, although he had talked so strongly in favour of unrestricted reciprocity, he had converted himself to the belief that it was not right, that when they came to form a government and he entered it there was an understanding that they would have a reasonable tariff and that they would not go in for reducing the tariff as had been advocated by himself and his colleagues. I think we have made it pretty plain that the government have not done as they agreed to do. It is true that since 1907, from time to time, they have made some slight changes in the tariff, some items they have increased and some they have decreased. The most noted change they made was in giving the British preference. If I remember correctly they raised the duties on almost all goods that came from England before they gave the preference. But there was a great difference between the preference they gave and the preference advocated by Sir Charles Tupper and his supporters. Sir Charles Tupper believed in a mutual preference; that is to say if they would give us a preference in their markets we would give them a preference in ours. I think that the right hon. Prime Minister said in Toronto that he was just as capable of getting that kind of a bargain from Great Britain as was Sir Charles Tupper, and that he would endeavour to do it. But. I am afraid that when he went to England he changed his tactics. He said that it was Mr. WILSON (Lennox and Addington.)
a free gift and that we did not want anything in return. That is not the way England deals with us. England does not give us any preference in heT market that she does not give to every other nation under heaven as far as I know. If we give her a preference-and I would be in favour of giving her any reasonable preference we could-I think she should give us. something in return. I do not see why she should treat her own children as badly or no better -than a stranger who sets up a high tariff against her, who does not treat her fairly, but who simply takes advantage of her position to impose as high duties against her as possible. I may come to the treatment that President Taft is prepared to give to England before I get through. He seems very desirous that this pact should get through before we can make any arrangement with Great Britain because he savs as a matter ot- course that when preferential trade leaves England and goes around the world it will make a tariff wall against the United States which they will not be able to get over. That is the trouble and I would think that the government would see it. I think it would be much better to have closer trade relations with the motherland than that we should try to cultivate trade relations with a nation that does not produce anything but what we produce. A great bulk of theiir surplus is exactly like our surplus, and while we have a large surplus to export they have a much larger one.. According to a statement in- a newspaper that I read the other day the United States have $956,000,000 worth of goods to dispose of in other countries. How can we expect to sell profitably to people who have such -a surplus? There was a transaction in our town the other day. A man got sick of business and wanted to sell out.. If he could have sold to some man who wanted the business as a going concern he could have got pretty nearly par for it, but unfortunately he had to sell out to a man who did not want the business as a going concern and, therefore, he had to sell".at sixty cents on the dollar. That is about the way I view this reciprocity business. We are dealing with people who do not want our surplus. If we send our surplus over to the United States we displace just so much of the surplus of the United States, and they will, therefore have to find a market for it. I noticed a statement in the ' Globe ' the other day to the effect that they were going to give the farmers better prices for their products, and that at the same time they were going to make cheaper living for the mechanics and working people. How it is possible to do that is something that I have not been able to find out, and I would be very glad to sit down if anv man would get un in this House and tell me how it can be done.

I do not know and I do not anticipate that I will be able to find out from any person now present in the House.
As far as protection is concerned, we all know that both parties have been in favour of it. The party at present in power claim to be the low tariff party, but they have given us no indication of it. They claim that the Tory party, as they call it, instead of the Liberal Conservative party, is a high tariff party and that their policy is to increase the tariff. That is not true, and any motion that has been made by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) has not been specially for an increased tariff, but for an adequate tariff

	[DOT]


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.
Mr. WILSON (Lennox)

in order that
we may equalize the tariff, in cases where changes have to be made. My right hon. friend says ' hear, hear. I see that he is in favour of that. But, he has not done much for the poor farmer in the way of providing a revenue tariff for him. They have been here in great numbers to see him, and while he was out in the west he said that the tariff would be investigated by a tariff commission and that they would make such changes as they thought desirable after getting the information^
But is that the course he pursued? Did he not send two of his ministers to Washington, who when they presented their programme to Taft andi Knox, these astute Americans said:	' Why, we will not only
give you all you ask, but will give you free trade in everything.' That is what the Liberals wanted in 1891, 'but in 1911, I think they were wise in refusing it. True, the Liberals went back on their principles by -not accepting free trade, but that is a good thing for the country and it does not trouble the Liberals much. They have got the habit of breaking their solemn pledges and a thing like that does not worry them.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Uriah Wilson: Mr. Chairman, at six o'clock I was- referring to the tariff policy which the government had' placed before the country. The changes they made in the tariff were so slight that they were almost imperceptible. With reference to this reciprocity arrangement, Mr. McKay, the leader of the opposition in the Ontario legislature, saw fit to pay a visit to my riding, and addressed a meeting at the village of Tamworth, about 20 miles from Napanee. I have it on reliable authority that there were present about 250 people, 75 per cent of them Liberals, and when it 307J
was asked that those in favour of reciprocity should stand up, only 27 stood' up, and they were wise enough not to ask for a contrary vote. What I wonder at is the great effort the government is making to get rid of about 20 per cent of our farm products. It is stated on good authority that we consume -in this country 80 per cent of the products that we raise on the farm. It is also reported that England takes 10 per cent, leaving only 10 per cent to be disposed of to other countries. Under such circumstances, when we were doing so well, it does seem to me that it was unwise for the government, especially in such a hurry, to send representatives to Washington without even taking the trouble to inquire what the needs of the country were. It is said that President Taft had his experts go all over the United States and Canada to gather information, which he submitted to the Congress of the United States, and that he had this information when our representatives' met him. I understand that our government took no such pains. If they did, they have not laid the information before this House as far as I am aware. They, therefore, were not in as good a position to deal with the question as were the representatives of the United States. It is stated that very few even of the cabinet knew what arrangements had been made until the day they were presented to the House. They had a cabinet meeting just before that, and the Finance Minister came direct from that meeting to the House and made the announcement to the public. Under such circumstances is it any wonder that the leading business men of Toronto, of whom 18 or 20 were prominent Liberals, should issue a manifesto protesting against such a course as that, especially as they had the promise of the First Minister that before any changes were made in the tariff thexe would be a commission to investigate the whole tariff question? These people held a public meeting in Massey Hall in Toronto., at which all the speakers except one, I believe, were Liberals, men of high standing as business men, and men who have been life-long Liberals. I want to refer to a few remarks that were made on that occasion by Sir Mortimer Clark, a gentleman whom this government appointed lieutenant-governor of the province of Ontario, a man who has spent 50 years in this country and a man of more than ordinary intelligence. 'Not here for the party, but for the country'-that was one of his statements, and it is a motto that might well be followed by any man in public oir private life. 'A mere handful of men changing the whole policy of the country and compelling us to accept.' This is what he protested against. He did not see, and I do not think anybody sees, why two men should go to Washington and change the

whole policy of this country without any notice being given to the country or to parliament. That is a matter well worthy of the attention of the whole country. He said further: 'A United States railroad magnate told me that he approved of the agreement because it renders impossible closer relations between Canada and Great Britain.' If there is anything we should desire in the matter of trade, it is to make the very best possible -arrangements with the mother country, which ,is the -great consumer of the surplus products of the world. There is no posdbility of our selling profitably our surplus to the United States, -because they have eight or ten times as much surplus as we have, and anything we send to the United States must -be sold to speculators, who must sell it to other -people to get profit out of it, while anything they send to us only displaces so much of our own product, for which we -are obliged to find a market elsewhere. Everybody knows that the home market is very much better than a foreign market, because somebody has to -pay the mid-dJle-m-an his profit as well -as the freight and other charges on the goods that are shipped abroad. Taft -says: 'We are at the parting -of the .ways.' There are only two ways for Canada-the way to Washington and- the way to the greater empire bey-ond the .sea-s. Is it -any wonder that strong men like Sir Mortimer Clark protest against any such -statement as that? I have greater faith in my fellow-countrymen than to believe that they are at all in favour of dloser political relations with th-e United States. In fact, I think it is a mistake to have very much to do with them, because in other days, when it would have -been to our -advantage to have reciprocity with them, andi to their advantage, too, what did Blaine say? He said: ' If the Canadians want to trade with us -let -them join us; we will not give them the -benefit of our market while they stay apart from us.' That is the spirit in which they received us at all times. In 1898, when representatives of the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier went to Washington, were they treated kindly? Were they met as they expected to be met? In the old days, when the other government was in, power, the present Minister of Agriculture said: 'If you just change the government you will h-av-e no trouble whatever in getting reciprocity with the United States.' We changed the _ government and1 we did not get reciprocity when we w-anted it, and it -seems to -me that the government themselves got so disgusted that they threw up the sponge and said: ' We do not want to have anything more to do with those people.' Sir Mortimer Clark said further: 'The United States have -always been hostile to Canada, I have been 50 years in this country, .and -have never seen -any friendly -act on ' Mr. WILSON (Lennox and Addington.)
the part of our neighbours to the south.' That is a pretty strong ,statement on the part of a leading man in this country, but it is probably true. Mr. Lash and several other gentlemen made speeches on that occasion, but I -do -not purpose to quota them -at the present time. I see that Mr. McKay is very glad to lose millionaires in this country, but I think he is very glad to- get lotjher millionaires from the United States.


Haughton Lennox: He does not object to a dredging contract himself.


Uriah Wilson: Has he got one?


Haughton Lennox: He used to have one.


Uriah Wilson: Well, I do not know anything about Mr. McKay, and therefore, I am not going to say anything about him, because I think a man should be very careful when talking about publi-c men n-ot to malign them in -any way.
Let me now contrast some of tne exports of Canada to the United States with some of our imports from that country. We are told by the Liberal party that the Lnited States is the great market for our products and that if we had access to that market of 90,000,000 people we would get better prices for our goods than we do at home. Let me show the absurdity of that contention by the figures taken from our trade returns. Take the article of butter, we exported to the United States:
1906		$ 36,167
1907		 35,078
1908		 43,015
1909		 54,894
1910		 201,968
Total	$371,152
Or in the whole five years we exported butter to the United States-and I have taken these figures from the return of trade and commerce-$371,152. That is ail we exported to that market of 90,000,000 people.
Take the article -of cheese we exported as follows:
1906		$16,389
1907		 6,918
1908		 27,247
1909		 28,936
1910		 63,309
Total in five years	$142,799
Then take the article of eggs, about which we have heard a goo-d deal of talk from hon. gentlemen opposite. We exported eggs to the United States, as follows: ,
1906		$11,924
1907		 9,047
1908		 9,846
1909		   14,952
1910		 13,896
Total in five years	$59,665
Now let us see what we imported from the United States of the same articles. If we

imported a good deal more than we exported, surely that would indicate that our market is really better than theirs. Our imports of butter from the United States, were as follow.:
1906		$54,126
1907		 87,997
1908		 77,794
1909		 156,443
1910		 18,075
Total..'	$394,937
That is quite a little more than we exported to them. Take the next article of /feheese. We imported cheese from the United States, as follows:
1906		$ 45,904
1907		 84,084
1908		 116,851
1909		 55,030
1910		 48,739
Total	$350,608
As contrasted with $142,799 which was the amount we exported in the same period. Take the next article of eggs. We imported eggs from the United States as follows:
1906		$ 92,172
1907		 142,868
1908		 216,278
1909		 238,842
1910		 179,408

Thus our total imports of eggs in these five years was $869,568 worth, and all we exported to the United States in the same period was $59,665 worth, showing a balance of trade against us in eggs alone of $809,903. It certainly does seem to me that in that case we got decidedly the worst of the bargain.
Let us now look to our exports of cattle. Cattle, over one year old, shipped to the United States:
1906		$ 185,213
1907		 471,620
1908		 532,523
1909		'	 508,416
1910		 619,995
Total	$2,317,767
Contrast that with what we shipped to the old country-that country whose market, if this pact goes through, we will lose to quite an extent, because it looks as though the Americans would do everything they could to break up the connection that now exists between the mother country and Canada. To Britain we exported of cattle over one year old:
1906		$11,074,199
1907		 10,200,137
1908		 8,584,806
1909		 10,115,793
1910		 9,976,918
Total	$49,951,852
Comparing that with our exports of $2,-
317,000	to the United States, we have a difference of over $47,000,000 in favour of the English market and against the United States market-that market which the government are now making such great efforts to get.
Our total imports from the United States in 1910 amounted $239,070,949, and our exports to $106,026,137. These figures are taken from our trade and navigation returns and they show a balance of trade against us of $152,944,412. Of these goods we allowed to come in free of duty from the United States, $79,257,600 as against $23,480,217 allowed to come in free from Great Britain. So that from what I can see our best policy is to stick to what we have and not make this leap in the dark when we are doing very well as it is. Should we go into this reciprocal arangement, we do not know what will become of us. I never yet heard that the Yankees when they wanted to make a bargain, did not do their level best to get the best of it.


An hon. MEMBER.: As they will in this instance.


Uriah Wilson: Yes, but I do not believe that the country will ratify that policy.
I can say with the greatest emphasis that I believe the county I represent will, in the next parliament, be represented by another gentleman who has pronounced himself strongly against reciprocity. If he had not done so I do not think he would have received the nomination in our county.
Canada's exports of wheat for the last five years to Great Britain and to the United States were as follow:
Exports to Exports to Year.	Great Britain. United States.
1906	$30,622,824	$	298,1601907	
20,710,973	630,3491908	
42,911,610	102,8491909	
51,350,211	602,6611910	
58,538,772	1,883,637Total in 5 years. $204,125,390	$6,201,114
According to the Trade and Navigation Returns, we imported from the United States a great deal more wheat than we exported to them. The wheat imported into Canada from the United States for these five years was:



[Stage Direction]
Year.
1906		$	578,622
1907		 1,167,402
1908		 5,138,455
1909		 9,431,346
1910		 12,070,811
Total in five years.. .. $28,387,706 We, a small people of eight millions, took from them $28,000,000, while they, a large people of 90,000,000, took from us $6,200,000. Does that look as though we were getting a great market where we
[Stage Direction]
would be able to sell our surplus at a great profit? When you want to sell goods, you must find the man who wants to buy them for his own use; the speculator always wants a profit.
The American Bureau of Statistics estimates the value of Canadian farm produce for the year 1907 at $532,992,100. That is quite a large amount, and from that amount I wish to pick out some of Canada's specialties.
I do not think any one who has studied the pork business can believe it possible for us to compete with the American corn fed pork, they can outdo us every time if they try, and I think they have been doing it. Our exports of these products to the United States and their exports to Canada, for the same period were: BACON AND HAMS.
Canadian American Year.	Exports to Exports to
United States. Canada.
1906	
$ 59,551	$ 782,3361907	
19,190	650,2351908	
5,211	851,8071909	
208,915	744,6911910	
8,589	829,242Total, 5 yrs. $301,466	$3,858,298
Or, our imports of ham and bacon from the United States exceeded our exports to that country by $3,356,832.
Where do we sell our bacon and hams, for we have quite a surplus of them, and you can see that we do not sell them to the ninety million market? We send them to Great Britain, our best customer. According to the Trade and Navigation Returns, our export of hams and bacons to Great Britain were:

[Stage Direction]
Year.
1906		$12,119,804
1907	  9,196,305
1908		 11,153,749
1909		 8,625,005
I 1910	 6,836,392
Total in 5 years	$17,931,255
These figures, I think, demonstrate that the market which we want is the English market.
The Americans, of course, produce a great deal more of agricultural produce than they know what to do with. For instance, the United States exported in 1909 5,207,151 dozen of eggs valued at $1,199,522; of butter 5,281,261 pounds valued at $1,268,210; of cheese 6,822,842 pounds, valued at $857,091; of condensed milk, $1,375,104; of lard, $52,712,569; of pork, $4,599,431; ham and shoulders, cured, $23,525,307; beef, fresh, $12,698,594; beef, salted and pickled, $3,438,048. The total value of the meat and dairy produce exported, by the United States in 1909 was $166,521,949. It does seem to me that a country with such an abundance of everything that they exported over $166,000,000 worth of goods exactly similar to what we are raising does not afford a market for our surplus products, because the American who buys the surplus from us in this country must be a speculator.
He certainly will not want it for use in his country; he must have a profit, and our people who raise these articles must pay the freight to take the articles to their destination, as well as the middlemen's profit.
Now I want to take up a little more time on the pork question. I have a circular here issued by the lngersoll Packing Company, signed by U. E. L. Wilson, manager and director. I will read what he says before I give the figures:
This is absolutely correct as taken from our books and open to inspection by any government officer for verification.
That seems to me to make it very strong, because the books are open for verification if the government see fit to send any of their officers there to look at them. He gives the prices for ten years:
Memo showing the Total Receipts and Prices of Hogs at Chicago Market and the price paid by Boyd, Lunham & Co., Chicago, and the price paid by the lngersoll Packing Co., Ltd., lngersoll, from 1901-1910
Year.	Chicago. Total Receipts.	Chicago. Average Price. Delivered at . Chicago.	B. L. & Co. Average Price Delivered at Chicago.	I. P. Co. Average Price Delivered at lngersoll.	lngersoll Price above Chicago.	Chicago Price above lngersoll.1301	8,290,494	$ 5.85	$ 5.71	$ 6.70	$ 0.85	S1902	7,895,238	6.85	6.704	6.08	0.171903	7^325,923	6.00	5.88	6.07	0.07	1904	7,238,746	5.15	5.04	5.32	0.17	1905	7,725,738	5.25	5.18	6.41	1.16	1906	7,275,063	6.25	6.23	7.17	0.92	1907	7,201,061	6.10	6.094	6.85	- 0.75	1908	8,131,465	5.70	5.36J	6.87	1.17	1909	6,619,018	7.35	7.534	8.04	0.69	1910	5,586,858	8.90	8.59§	9.11	0.21	
Mr. WILSON (Lennox and Addington.l
[Stage Direction]
Now, I think I have read enough to satisfy most people that the American market is not better than ours for most of our goods. 1 think that our pork is a better pork than the pork they raise, because our pork is fed on barley, pease and other hard feed, while theirs is fed, I believe, on corn; and as a matter of course, their cheap corn-fed pork and beef will come into competition with our business, and interfere seriously with the farmers of our country.
Now, there are some other things this government did not take into onsideration when they made this arrangement. It does not seem possible to me that a government with its eyes open would go to Washington and make a contract to regulate the duty on goods, and have that contract apply to ten or twelve other nations from which we get no compensation whatever. It seems to me absurd, and I am going to read some of the duties. 1 think if we are going to have reciprocity at all, we ought to have it all round. We ought not to he made a dumping ground. In fact, our government has already passed a law some years ago against allowing the Americans to dump cheaply bought goods in our market. But they did not seem to take any notice of these other things. If it is necessary to prevent men who go to the United States^and buy goods at low prices to put them in here at the same price they pay, why should we allow other countries to come into our markets and sell their products without paying any duty, while we have to pay a large duty to get into their markets? Now there is the Argentine Kepublic, Austria-Hungary, Colombia, Denmark, Japan, Norway, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Venezuela and Bolivia. That list does not include the British possessions. As I understand it, this contract applies to all the British possessions as well as those countries I have mentioned that have the favoured-nation clause. If that is the case, let us see what some of these countries do. Take New Zealand. Barley, 48-6 cts per 100 lbs. Butter, 20 per cent, cheese, 20 per cent; eggs, 20 per cent. That is the duty we have to pay to get these articles into their market, while we will allow them to bring their articles of the same character into our market free. Then take Australia. Butter, 6 cents per lb; cheese,. 6 cents per lb; eggs, 12 cents per doz.
We will allow them to bring in their eggs, butter and cheese free under this arrangement.
Austria-Hungary:
Wheat, 58 cents per 100 lbs.
Butter, natural, salted, $3.22 per 100 lbs.
Other fine cheese for the table, $5.52 per 100 lbs.
Denmark:
Butter in hermetically sealed vessels, $4.86 per 100 lbs.
Cheese, $2.43 per 100 lbs
France:
Calves (live weight), $3.51 per 100 lbs.
Pigs (live weight), $2.20 per 100 lbs.
Fresh butter, $2.63 per 100 lbs.
Fine cheese (affine), soft, $1.75 per 100 lbs.
Italy:
Oxen, $7.33 each.
Wheat, 65-8 cents per 100 lbs.
Salted butter, $1.75 per 100 lbs.
Soft cheeses, $1.32 per 100 lbs.
Japan:
Swine, 25 per cent.
Butter, 10-02 per 100 lbs.
Cheese, $6.40 per 100 lbs.
If necessary I can go over this whole list, but I think this will show us what we are doing. Now, I come to the list of exports of farm produce from the United States. United States exports of farm produce have increased from $370,000,000 to $490,000,000 in a year, as follows
Animals from	
23,000,000	to	47,000,000Breadstuffs	
161,000,000	"	216,000,000
Provisions,
including meat	..	..	134,000,000	"	180,000,000Fruits and nuts	
17,000,000	"	18,000,000Hides, about	
1,000,000	"	1,000,000Hops, from	
1.000,000	"	4,000,000Vegetables, about	..	..	3,000,000	"	3,000,000
Tobacco,
unmanufactured	..	..	30,000,000	"	31,000,000
These are the people that we are expected to deal with and it is in their country, that we are asked to find a market for our surplus at a profit. Mr. Taft, that genial gentleman who captured the two ministers who went over to meet him accepted their proposition at once and said:
' Boys, here is more; you can have it all if you want to, but do not take more than you can get through/ Here is something which appeared in the Montreal ' Star ' on the 28th April, 1911, to which I desire to call the attention of the House. It is a comment on the speech made by President Taft in New York on the 27th April, 1911. He met there the American Newspaper Publishers' Association:
In New York last night, speaking before the American Newspaper Publishers' Association whose president, Mr. John Norris says that they would save $6,000,000 a year on their paper mills if they could only secure access to Canadian pulp wood, President Taft again put in a stout denial that reciprocity means annexation. He said that ' the talk of annexation is bosh/ and that to present it as an objection to reciprocity should be treated as ' one of the jokes of the platform/ He denied as well that the Americans desire to annex Canada, giving as proof his belief that they already have all the territory they can possibly govern.	_
A robust denial is a fine thing; but the big President of the United States should take
[Stage Direction]
note of the fact that it is possible for a denial to deny too much.
However, there was the denial, big, bold and all-embracing-almost amounting to a denial that the Americans are human like other people and desire to extend the boundaries of their beloved Republic-but, side by side, with this denial, were such statements as these:
' There are other natural resources which I need not stop to enumerate which will become available to us as if our own if we adopt and maintain commercial union with Canada/
' But there are other-even broader-grounds than this which should lead to the adoption of this agreement. Canada's superficial area is greater than that of the United States between the two oceans. The government is one entirely controlled by the people, and the bond uniting the Dominion with the mother country is light and almost imperceptible.'
I am not going to read the whole of this hut there is a paragraph at the bottom that I would like to have placed on record.
Then, again, the President makes no bones of saying that the timber resources of Canada ' will open themselves to us inevitably under the operation of this agreement.'
How?
The agreement does not open them. It leaves our Crown lands still protected by the provincial governments. What does the President mean? He probably means what Mr. John Norris meant when the latter told the Congressional committee that, once they obtained the leverage of free access to our privately-owned forest lands, ' the pressure will be irresistible ' upon the provincial governments to throw open the rest.
There are other speeches here about annexation and all that, but I am not going to refer to them just now. There is one thing that I particularly would like to call the attention of the House to and that is tnat for every $6 worth we export to the mother country there is $5 worth grown on the farm. That is. well worth considering. If we are going, to try to help our farmers the country that wants the product of our farms is the country that we should deal with.
It is a stale story to tell of the value of the British market to the Canadian farmer. But it may toe as well to remind ourselves of a few facts. First, the British market is largely a farmer's market. Out of every six dollars' worth of Canadian products that we export to Britain, five dollars worth come off the Canadian farm. The figures are these: Total Canadian exports to Great Britain for 1909-$126,384,726.	Food products exported from Canada to Great Britain-$101,992,448.	Our other markets are
not of this character. Out of every six dollars we export to foreign markets, only a little over one dollar comes from the Canadian farm. And out of every six dollars exported to other British possessions, less than three dollars are Canadian farm produce. They may talk just as much as they like about their 90,000,000 market, * Mr. WILSON (Lennox and Addington.)
but they have now a market in England that takes five dollars worth of farm produce of every six dollars we export. It seems to me that is the market we should cultivate. It is easy to see how little of this enormous market Canada has supplied when we remember that the total Canadian exports to Great Britain this same year were $101,992,448 of farm produce-less than half the British imports of wheat alone. Both Argentine and the United States 'beat us. Argentine sold the British people £37,717,295 ($184,900,000) worth of farm products; and the Americans sold them £118,353,893 ($574,000,000) worth.
It seems to me that the Americans would have more difficulty in getting rid of that immense amount of stuff if we had preferential trade as we should have instead of trying to make a reciprocal treaty with the United States. We know that the Americans are very anxious for this arrangement, one reason being that their manufacturers have invested their money on this side, already to the extent of 226,000,000 dollars, and what they want to do is to keep that capital in their own country, give employment to their own people, and sell their goods to us. That's the trick they are up to. There was a considerable amount of evidence taken before the Ways and Means Committee of Congress-although no evidence has been considered necessary by the Canadian government-and Mr. Aaron Jones made the following statement before the Congressional Committee.
The principle on which the protective policy has been defended during the past twenty years (20) is that all classes and interests of the country, should receive equal protection against the competition of foreign products. It was to carry out this principle that the duties on farm products were imposed by the McKinley law, and reimposed by the Dingley and Payne Tariff Act. Had it not been for the tariff on farm products the protective system would long ago have been abolished.
The purpose of the tariff on farm products has been to exclude those of Canada from our markets, and if this Bill becomes law it means the end of protection, so far as the farmers are concerned.
Is it possible that they believe that 6,000,000 farmers will tamely submit to free trade in fiaFm products and high tariff for manufacturers ?
Why are cattle, sheep and swine on the free list, while meats, fresh and cured are taxed li cents per pound? Are not the farmers as much entitled to protection as the millers or great meat packers of Chicago?
Against this proposition we earnestly protest, and we insist that there shall be no free trade for farmers and high tariff for manufacturers, but that if farm products go on the free list, manufactured articles must also be made free, and they will inside a very short time.
Now, Mr. Speaker. I have spoken longer than I ought, and in conclusion I will say
[Stage Direction]
that I am fully persuaded in my own mind that this trade arrangement made by two cabinet ministers with the United States government is not in the best interests of *Canada. I am strongly opposed to it, and what little I am able to do in my constituency and elsewhere I shall willingly do to defeat this pact. I believe with Sir Mortimer Clark, ex-governor of Ontario, that we should put country before party, and that if we are loyal Canadians desirous of building up an empire on this northern half of the .North American continent, it becomes us to stick close to the mother country because we need her protection and her capital, and we need her markets in which to sell our goods at remunerative prices.
Mr. E. GUSS EORTER (West Hastings).: At this late stage of the debate upon this very important question misnamed reciprocity, the members of the government seem to be exhibiting an insatiable desire for information, and an undying interest in their country, by, with the exception of three ministers out of fourteen, all being absent from the House and these three ministers being supported by the presence now of fourteen Liberal members out of a total of 135, the remainder of the government members being represented by empty chairs. That is not a very inspiring thing for the member who is addressing the House, and I am sure if the people of the country knew of the lack of interest the government is exhibiting in this important question it would not inspire confidence in 1he government or faith in it. Why this government should with such undue haste endeavour to force this measure through parliament at this- unseasonable time of the year, and, to use a crude expression, cram it down the throats of the people of this country, one is at a loss to understand. It suggests, to put it in the mildest form, that there must be some sinister motive behind the whole thing; something more than an interest in the welfare of the country that is actuating the government to press this measure with such undue haste now.
The opposition, have taken occasion as it was offered, to criticise, as appeared to them to be just and warranted, this measure when it has come before the Chair; and because they have had the boldness to express their condemnation of it, hon. members of the government and the press supporting the government have seen fit to apply to us the name of obstructionists. Well, Sir, if the fair discussion of this measure, and the offering to,the people of this country of the honest conviction of the opposition in this House, and pointing out in their judgment the disastrous effects which the passing of this measure through parliament will inflict on this country, entitles the opposition to the appellation of obstructionists, then, Sir, I for one am perfectly willing to be called an obstructionist. I think, Sir, it is preferable to be called an obstructionist under these circumstances than to be called by a name that would fittingly characterize the conduct of any government that would try,, as this government is now trying, to force such a measure through parliament and upon the people of this country, against their wish, and without affording them an opportunity of expressing their opinion upon it. I have had the privilege of occupying a seat in this House for a period of upwards of ten years, representing during that time a constituencv containing a population of upwards of 40,000 people. I have always believed it to be the privilege of those 40,000 people, in common with ail other loyal citizens of Canada, to express through their representatives in parliament their opinion upon any legislation that might be introduced here. I do not mean simply that the voice of the representatives of the people should be heard, but that it should be effectively heard, accordingly as: the arguments adduced by that hon. member, the reasons given by him for his opinion, might meet with favour from the hon. members of this House and the country as a whole. I have always understood-that to be one of the first principles, the main spring as it were, of representative and responsible government. But, Sir, when this trade agreement was introduced' jin this parliament, ih 'the manner in which it was, the opinion which I had held for so many years received a very rude shock, and I was almost inclined to ask myself, are we living to-day in the dark ages,, when responsible and representative .government was unknown, or are we living in the twentieth century, which has been said to belong to Canada? If one would yield to the feeling imposed upon him by the action of this government in relation to this matter, I venture to say that he would feel that we were living in the dark ages. It has been the proud boast of the Canadian people, it is the proud boast of the Canadian people to-dav. that we have the freest form of responsible government -y and. Sir, when without warning and in a single instant almost, there is forced upon this parliament and upon the country a bargain, an agreement, a pact, or what ever it may be called, made by two hon. members of the government, without a mandate from the people, without a war-rent from this parliament, then I say that our proud boast of responsible government has just about diminished to the vanishing point. A great deal of time has been taken up by hon. members of the government, and particularly by the hon. Minister of Agriculture, in the speech which he addressed to this House some time ago, in

974S
an attempt to convince parliament and the country that the opposition members of this House were opposed to any negotiations being carried on with the United States with a view to improving the trade relations between Canada and that country. I have listened during the course of this debate to a great many of the speeches that have been made by hon. members on this side of the House, and I have read a great many more, and 1 say without hesitation that I have never heard nor have I read in any of those speeches any expression of opinion or idea to justify that statement. On the contrary, it is not the desire of the opposition as I understand it, speaking for myself at any rate, that negotiations with the United States should not be carried on for the purpose of bettering trade relations between these two countries. That is not what the opposition object to; but what we do object to is the making of a hard and fast agreement with the American people, and that without warrant from parliament, and then bringing that agreement before parliament without affording an opportunity for amendment or for the alteration of a single line, a word, or even a letter; telling the hon. members of this House that that agreement must be given effect to. in every word, every line and every letter, just as these two hon. gentlemen have seen fit in their wisdom to make it with the United States. It is, however, in view of these circumstances, somewhat refreshing to know that all hon. members on the government side have not felt themselves bound to such an extent by party allegiance as to sacrifice what they believe to be in the interests of this country for the sake of advancing the interests of the political party to which they belong.
Those hon. members on the government side who had the courage to stand up in this House, and denounce this pact deserve credit, and the thanks of the people of this country.
Nearly every hon. member who has spoken on this question has referred to the language used by the President of the United States in discussing this matter before his people as regards its relation to Canada. The president, Mr. Taft, said that Canada stood now at the parting of the ways. In view of the history of the last forty-two years, it seems to me that Mr. Taft chose very unhappy language in which to express his ideas. And if I were to compare him to a second Rip Van Winkle, I think I would not be far from the truth because apparently he has been asleep for a very long time if he imagines that Canada is now only at the parting of the ways. Why, Canada was at the parting of the ways some forty-two years ago when the old reciprocity treaty between this country, and Mr. PORTER.
the United States was abrogated. Then was the time when the Canadian people had to make a choice between adopting a policy which would lead them into a stronger, and a firmer alliance wlfli the mother land-a stronger federation with Great Britain-or whether they would choose the opposite course which would lead them into freer trade relations and ultimately into political annexation with the United States. Then was the time when Canada was at the parting of the ways. She then made her choice, and subsequent events during the past forty-two years have fully demonstrated that the choice then made by the Canadian people was a wise and patriotic one. It is true that when that choice was made it did not promise very much for the Canadian people; and perhaps if they had been actuated by the sole desire to benefit from trade relations they might have made a inherent choice, but there was something more in the Canadian mind, and heart, than mere commercial advantage, and a simple desire for pecuniary benefit. Canada, therefore, chose to stand by the mother country. True for a long time the course which Canada then adopted was not an easy one. True it was beset by many obstructions-not only natural obstructions, but artificial ones placed there by the American people in the endeavour if possible to wreck the Canadian confederation, and destroy the connection between Canada and Great Britain. During that forty years Canada has passed many mile-posts, not ordinary mile-posts, but monuments of progress that are bound to last forever to the glory of this Dominion. During ali these years we received no encouragement, not a bit of assistance, from the American people who are now so anxious to bring us into a closer alliance with themselves. Throughout all these years, the Americans, instead of holding out the hand of friendship to us in return for the hand of friendship we offered them, steadily opposed Canadian interests, and endeavoured to force Canada into such a position that we would be obliged sooner or later to join our fortunes with those of the republic. It is certainly something which Canadians may well be proud of that they were able, in spite of all these obstacles, and obstructions placed in their way by the United States, in spite of all these coercive efforts, to steer clear of these obstructions, and go ahead on a firm, and solid foundation with full steam upon the engine of prosperity, and with that engine headed towards the motherland, in the endeavour' to bind still closer the ties that have always existed between us and Great Britain. Canada, at the time of the abrogation of the old reciprocity treaty in 1866, was not in the position she occupies to-day. Con-

ditions then, were very different from what they are now. At that time we were not a united Dominion as we are to-day, and had not then the vast extent of productions from the farm which we now have. We had not then the means of transportation we now enjoy nor had we the population or the wealth. In fact our position was such that the total revenues of this country were insufficient to meet its wants.
When the reciprocity treaty first came into force there were special reasons why the United States desired a closer trade relationship with Canada. The fast approaching civil war in that country made it most "desirable that it should have a friend close at hand, and a source of supply. Canada then offered the greatest inducements in this respect. At that time also was effected the change of policy in Great Britain, under which the corn laws were repealed, and free trade inaugurated. All the advantages that previously existed in favour of the British colonies were practically wiped away, and Canada was not in a position to compete w'ith otheT countries in the markets of the world through her lack of transportation facilities. The conditions then were such that reciprocity with the United States was about the only thing that could help Canada.
Although the conditions were such as I have described, yet it took eight years of constant negotiations between these two countries to bring about the treaty of reciprocity that went into effect at that time.
A great deal has been said in this debate of the advantages that Canada derived from that reciprocity treaty. There were special reasons for that. Prices during a part of that period were inflated. Prices in the United States were better than could be obtained in Canada, but that was owing to the civil war in the United States. The effect of that struggle was to take from the fields of agriculture and production, a very large portion of the workers and to put them into the field of battle with the result that production in the United States fell off so that the wants of the people could not be supplied and the products of the Canadian people were at a premium in the United States. But it was not a continuous period of prosperity by any means. During the time that that reciprocity treaty was in force, the first bank failure in Canada, that of the old band of Upper Canada occurred, That was not due to the prosperity brought to Canada by the United States, it was owing to the circumstances in which Canada found herself at that time. But the moment it appeared to be necessary to the Canadian people and they undertook to exercise their undoubted right of putting on a duty and raising a revenue, just that moment, when it ceased to be to the interest of the United States to have that1
treaty continued with Canada, they repealed it. It did not take eight years to repeal it as it did to introduce it; notice was given just as soon as their interest in reciprocity and in Canada ceased. Sir, history is about to repeat itself, in my judgment, if this treaty comes into force it will be taken advantage of by the American people, just as they took advantage of the old reciprocity treaty it will be continued only so long as it is to the advantage of the American people alone. The moment it is perceived that the American people cannot derive from it the benefit that they anticipated, we may rest assured that the Americans will serve notice that this agreement shall no longer be continued in force between these two countries.
It appears to me, after giving this question considerable consideration, that the government of the day in introducing this agreement is reversing not only its well known and adopted policy of protection, but is also reversing its dften declared policy upon this very question of reciprocity. It will be remembered that only a few years ago the Liberal party in presenting this policy of reciprocity began by introducing it at the big end, under the title of unrestricted reciprocity. In 1887 the gentlemen composing this government were' advocating as strongly as they possibly could and asking the people to approve of a policy then known not as unrestricted reciprocity, but as commercial union, another attempt to introduce the same principle by the big end. The dangers to Canadian nationality, the danger of destroying British connection, the danger of injury to the trade of Canada was then made too apparent to the people for them to be induced by the arguments of the Liberal party of that time to adopt either of these principles, in 1887, when the policy of commercial union was urged upon the people, or in 1891 when it was urged under the title of unrestricted reciprocity. It is to be noticed that in the endeavour of the Liberal party to force those policies upon the country that party was not in a position to have such a policy forced upon the people, by reason of the fact that they were in opposition, and they were obliged, owing to these conditions, to submit the matter to the will and opinion of the people. At that time the expression of opinion was not at all uncertain, the sentiment of the Canadian people was clearly and without hesitation or doubt expressed and both times the Liberal party, forced to appeal to the people of Canada, were defeated. I venture to think that the right hon. gentleman who leads the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has profited by the experience of those two efforts.
He must be convinced that any policy which has a tendency to lead to annexation with the United States, or to weaken

the bonds existing between Canada and Great Britain, is not a safe policy in the hands of the Canadian people. I am persuaded, too, that with the right hon. leader of the government taking advantage of the position which he holds to-day, and recognizing how futile it would be to submit such a policy as this to the electorate of Canada, is now trying to force this resolution through parliament land denying to the people the right to pronounce their opinion upon it. At the time whjen those two policies of commercial union and unrestricted reciprocity were being advocated by the Liberal party in this country, some very interesting literature was circulated by them amongst the electors. I have in my hand one of the pamphlets issued at that time entitled 'facts and figures for farmers' and I propose to read from that campaign literature a few extracts to show the feeling of the Liberal party at that time upon this question. At page 12 of 'facts and figures for farmers', they say:
The growth of manufacturers in the states as the result of protection makes it absolutely necessary that goods must be sent outside instead of money in exchange for natural products.
That expression shows, I think, the drift of this agreement as respects the interests of the American people is to get the natural products of Canada into the United States for manufacturing purposes and for the employment of American laborers, and send into Canada their manufactured goods />in exchange, instead of money, to the ruin of the manufacturing industries of Canada. It proceeds:
These goods cannot be sent freely so long as the tariff wall shuts them out. The growth of the agricultural areas in the United States would also oppose the introduction of free agricultural products unless the manufactures were admitted free into Canada also, for in the creation of these latter a home market is maintained for the American farmer.
The Americans are always anxious to preserve the home markets for the American people, but just as anxious to destroy the Canadian market for the Canadian people.
The stimulus to manufactures as the result pf protection in the United States has resulted in the creation of many lines of cheap goods, cheaper than elsewhere can be had in the world.
Then, discussing the question of annexation, this pamphlet proceeds to say:
But supposing that a better relation with the United States did contribute towards a growth in the annexation sentiment, suppose that England, denying the right of Canada to trade with whom she chose, hesitated to grant the privileges sought and thus gave a check to the relations that exist between them. Sup-Mr. POINTER.
pose if, on the one hand, she consented to a commercial union between her children on this side of the ocean and the result was an enlarged emigration from the United States, and a changed political condition in parliament by which an annexation resolution should pass-what is there to be horrified at in that prospect ? . . If in the future the people of Canada desire to join the great constellation of commonwealths that so illustrate the greatness of this continent, what possible objection could there be? Annexation is a bugbear which a weak sentimentality has clothed with features that are repulsive, but which, upon examination, might be found to be the most attractive and most winning of events.


An hon. MEMBER.: What is that ?


Edward Guss Porter: This is the campaign literature of the Liberal party at that time.
This we certainly can do by breaking down the commercial barrier be! ween the two countries, learn to understand each other better, and if the winning forces of commerce and their attractive institutions make the great continent of North America one nation, then God will bless the union. . . To achieve a commercial relation with the American people is an object therefore, of the highest duty, worthy of the noblest efforts of the best men of the country.
Note this particularly:
The great Liberal party which to-day represents a majority of the voters of the Dominion in parliament, but which is in opposition to the existing government, has adopted as the main plank in its platform this question of unrestricted reciprocity, and it will go to the polls within eighteen months with that cause inscribed upon its banner.
Now I do not think it would be possible to find anywhere a better expression of the policy advocated by the Liberal party at that time and now than, can be found in the extracts I have read from the campaign literature they used. In endeavouring to discover the true object and scope of this proposed agreement, one must remember, in addition to the language contained in the agreement itself, the surrounding conditions and the surrounding circumstances. One must take into account the conditions of the United States in regard to her raw materials, her manufacturing interests, her natural products, her facilities for transportation, her population, and also her aspirations; and one must also consider the same elements from the_ Canadian point of view if he would arrive at what I conceive to be the real scope of the agreement now under discussion. It is only upon a proper comparison of the conditions existing in the two countries and the surrounding circumstances, that you can arrive at a fair conclusion as to whether this trade agreement will be in the interests of Canada or not. These considerations cannot be dealt

with alone, but one must also consider the national or patriotic view of the question. There are two points of view; one the material or commercial view, the other the sentimental or national. I do not believe it possible, under the adoption of this trade agreement, for the Canadian people to preserve either their commercial interests or their national status.
I do believe that by following the policy and the principles that have been followed during the last number of years in this country it would be possible at the same time to preserve and strengthen our nationality and our empire connections and to increase and stimulate the trade of Canada. I have already made reference to the conditions existing in Canada at the time when the old reciprocity treaty came into force, and I have also stated that the conditions to-day are very different from what they were at that time. I think that difference will be apparent to any hon. member of this House, or to any Canadian citizen who will give a moment's reflection to the question. Instead of Canada occupying the position of a few scattered provinces, as it did then, Canada presents to the world to-day a bold and united front extending from ocean to ocean. Canada exhibits to the world to-day a production per head of population that is unexcelled by any other country in the world. Canada offers to the world to-day a position in regard to her transportation facilities, both by land and by water., that is a marvel to the world when the population of Canada is taken into consideration. Instead of the ocean ports of Canada as they were in 1854, being unequipped and unable to handle the trade going out from Canada or the trade from any part of the world coming into Canada, we find these seaports fully equipped and able to handle the trade that may be offered by or to Canada. We find here transportation facilities overland by railway to be equal to the increased production of Canada from year to year, and rapid progress and extension being made along these lines as the prosperity and production of Canada increase. We have to-day a revenue more than sufficient to meet all the requirements of the country and tp enable the government to carry out these improvements in transportation and other facilities that tend so greatly to increase the trade of the country. All this Ts' a decided change from the condition of the Canadian people at that time. Instead of a population of 2,000,000 odd people we have now, it is estimated, about 8,000,000 people. All these things combine to place Canada in a position where instead of the United States, as in 1854, being the market by necessity of the Canadian people, Canada has, by the progress she has made along the lines I have indicated, converted
the world to her markets and it- may be truly said to-day that the wide world is the market and the natural market for Canada rather than is the market of the United States alone. A very good illustration of the effects of reciprocity is contained in a statement issued by the provincial treasurer of Ontario for the year 1910. At page 8 of his financial statement he makes reference to the effect of reciprocity upon Canada when it was in force, and says:
Now, what was the result of the reciprocity treaty in 1854? What happened then is likely to happen again, because the conditions are similar. Quebec at that time lost most disastrously, Montreal lost heavily, the bulk of Toronto's traffic came in through New York, and so, in the same way our Northwest traffic will go by Minneapolis and Chicago, and I am doubtful about the result.
Here are the figures as to the effect of that treaty at that time. The treaty was formed in 1854 and adopted in Canada towards the end of 1854, after navigation closed. The exports from Quebec in 1854 were $10,047,068; in 1855, $6,234,808; the decrease in exports being $3,812,260. The imports in 1854 at Quebec were $7,017,316, and in 1855, $2,930,224, a decrease of $4,089,092 in the first year of reciprocity. Quebeo suffered most disastrously by that treaty for Toronto and the west brought in their goods through New York instead of through Quebec.
The shipping outwards at Quebec in 1854 was 1,558 vessels, carrying 693,588 tons; in 1855, 877 vessels carrying 408,994 tons; a decrease in one year of 681 vessels and 284,594
tons.	,
At Montreal the exports in 1854-these are entirely different from those of Quebec- were $2,290,058; and in 1855, $1,914,412; a decrease of exports of $375,645. The imports at Montreal in 1854 were $15,264,3281; in 1855 they were $12,256,245; a decrease of $3,008,083 The exports in 1866, that is the last T^ar ot the treaty ending 30th June, 1866, were $6,331,635, that is from Montreal. In 186;, the year after the treaty expired, the exports were $8,104,622, an increase of $1,272,987. Imports in 1866 at Montreal were $24,241,21/. After the treaty expired, in 1867, the imports were $28,139,283, an increase at Montreal alter the treaty expired of $3,898,066. At Quebec in 1867 the exports were $167,000 less than in 1866, and the imports $186,586 larger.
At Quebec, in 1867, our total foreign trade was $2,750,000 less than in 1854, and although the foreign trade of Canada in 1867 was only $60,000 more than 'in 1186B, the trade via Montreal was $5,000,000 more in 1867 than in 1866, so rapidly was the direction changed, both on the coming into force of the reciprocity treaty and again on its termination, the decrease of exports and imports at Quebec in 1855 being nearly eight millions out_ ot a total of seventeen millions, and of shipping from 1.588 vessels in 1854 to 877 in 1855.
If, under the conditions existing when the former reciprocity treaty was in effect, such results were produced, what may


Mr.  C. A.@: Burns, of the firm of Burns & Sheppard, and the writer, figured out that hot less than ten million dollars worth of horses are handled in eastern Canada every year.
So brisk has been the demand for horses all through Canada during the past few years that prices for blocky and heavy horses and good express horses are higher in Canada today than they have been in the past forty years, and so keen has the market been in Mr. PORTER.
the west that it has not been unusual for a single horse to sell for $350 and teams for $650 and $700. One buyer paying the sum of one thousand dollars, the other day, for three heavy horses in Toronto, while ordinary horses run $200 and $250 a piece.
These prices are far in excess of the prices in Chicago, St. Louis, Buffalo or New York markets.
Buffalo is the best horse market in the United States at the present time, hut even in the Buffalo horse market neither the quality nor the price is at all equal to the Toronto horse market.
In the Chicago horse market, the class of horses is inferior and the prices are not at all to be compared with the Canadian prices.
In St. Louis the principal run of horses is the range raised horses, bronchos and mules and the prices are more than twenty-five per cent lower than in Toronto.
The reciprocity agreement would injure the horse business of Canada in two ways; first, it would reduce the price; second, it would lower the quality.
If the duty was taken off horses coming into Canada, the west would soon be flooded with inferior range horses from Chicago and St. Louis markets and the western farmers, while getting horses cheaper, would be supplied with horses far inferior in quality to the Ontario horses.
To allow cheap, mongrel-bred and inferior horses from the United States to he shipped into Canada free of duty would be nothing short of ruin to the horse breeding industry and ruin to the horse handling business of both east and west.
Now, I will submit to the House a few illustrations of the benefits that the boasted big market of ninety millions of people offers to the Canadian producer. It must be apparent to any one that if the ninety-million market of the United States is to be such a boon to the Canadian people as to afford then an opportunity of all becoming rich, then by parity of reasoning it ought to be just as apparent that the farmers of the United States, who have had every advantage of that market during many years, ought at the present time to be rich enough themselves, or at least to be in as good or a more favourable condition than the farmers of Canada. They are nearer to the market, it costs them much less for transportation, and before a single Canadian can get into the American market with the products of his farm, or at the same time, 90 of the United States producers will be coming into the Canadian market to destroy the home market that he has here. Let me make a comparison of the production and the profit per acre of different classes of grains of the American farmer as against the Canadian farmer. I do that for this reason. It is almost impossible to find in any state in the Union an acreage exactly as near the exact number of acres of the different classes of grain under crop that I can find to be

under crop the same in Canada, and I have therefore been obliged to take the production per acre in the respective countries for this purpose. Let me compare the production of one acre in the banner state of New York with the production of one acre in the banner province of Ontario. In wheat, in Ontario the average production was 24.1 bushels per acre and the average price per bushel 88.2c, so that the value of an acre of wheat to the Ontario farmer was $21.15. In New York State the average production of wheat was 21 bushels per acre and the average price 94.3 cents per bushel, yielding to the New York farmer $19.74 per acre, or a difference in favour of the Ontario farmer of $1.41 per acre. In oats the average production of the Ontario farmer was 23.5 bushels per acre and the average price 37 cents per bushel, realizing to the Ontario farmer $12.21 per acre. In New York State the average production per acre was 28.2 bushels and the average price 41 cents per bushel, giving a total of $11.48 per acre, a difference in favour of the Ontario' farmer of 73 cents. In barley, the average production per acre in Ontario was 27 bushels and the average price 54 cents per bushel, making the value per acre $14.58. In New York State the average production per acre was 24.8 bushels and the average price 60 cents per bushel, making a total value per acre of $14.40, again in favour of the Ontario farmer to the extent of 18 cents per acre. Take potatoes: in Ontario the average production per acre was 149 bushels and the average price 40 cents per bushel, or a total value per acre of $68.54. In New York State the average production per acre was 102 bushels and the average price 48 cents per bushel, or a total value per acre of $48.96, showing a balance in favour of the Ontario farmer of $19.58 per acre. According to the latest statistics that I have been able to have access to, I find that New York state produced of wheat and corn in the last 8 years for which statistics are given, from 1900 to 1908,	1,224,000 bushels at a
value of $26,510,000. Ontario produced during the same time 1,028,240 bushels valued at $27,769,000. So that it will be seen that although in wheat and corn Ontario produced 96,000 bushels less than was produced in New York state, yet the Ontario farmer received for his product $1,259,000 more than the New York farmer. Let me offer another comparison, one between the state of Michigan and the province of Ontario, in regard to farms themselves, the value of and the encumbrances upon the farms and the value of and encumbrances on the live stock of the farms. In 1898 there were in the province of Ontario 177,000 farms valued at $556,246,569, exclusive of buildings; and in 1908 there rvere 183,000 farms, an increase of 6,000, valued at $671,431,018, an increase in value in ten years of $115,285,449.
Let us look at the records of the state of Michigan, which is the nearest approach to the province of Ontario in the number, and value of its farms. I find that in Michigan in 1898 there were 175,000 farms, and 177,000 in Ontario. Ten years later, in 1908, the number of farms in the state of Michigan had increased from 175,000 to 178,000, whereas in Ontario in the same period, the number had increased from 177,000 farms to 183,000. In other words there was an increase of 6,000 in Ontario as compared with an increase of 3,000 in the state of Michigan, and both are about the same area. In 1898, the value of the Michigan farms was $623,911,200, and in 1908, their value was only $621,297,000, showing an actual decrease in the value of farms in Michigan in these ten years of $2,614,000. Whije there was an increase in the province of Ontario during the same period of $115,285,-
000.	In 1898, the value in Ontario was-$556,246,569, and in 1908 it was. $671,531,018.
If the market of 90,000,000 people is going to make the farmers rich, why has it not increased the number of farms in the state of Michigan and their value?
Lest that one test be not considered conclusive, let me call attention to another comparison-a comparison in respect of the live stock. In Ontario, the live stock in 1898 was valued at $103,744,223; and in 1908, ten years later that value had increased to $186,014,756. Thus in the ten years there was an increase in Ontario in the value of live Stock alone of $82,270,433.
Now let us look at the mortgage debt upon that live stock in the province of Ontario. In 1898, the mortgage debt upon the live stock of Ontario was $3,110,543, and in 1908, it was only $2,730,119. In other words there was a decrease in the mortgage debt upon the live stock in the province of Ontario of $280,424.
Let us make a similar investigation into the figures of the live stock in the state of Michigan. The live stock in that state in-1898 was valued at $97,042,380, and in. 1908, at $123,265,031, so that in ten years the increase in value was only $26,022,651, as compared with an increase in Ontario of $82,270,803.
Then take up the mortgage debt on this live stock. The mortgage debt in the state of Michigan in 1898 was $4,626,211, and in 1908 it was $6,922,210. In other words, while there was during the same period a decrease in the mortgage debt in Ontario, of $280,424, there was an increase in the state of Michigan upon the live stock of' that state of $2,295,999. Yet during all this time the farmers of Michigan had been enjoying the benefit of the market of 90,000,000 people.

Let me make a still farther comparison with regard to the debt upon the land itself. I find that the Ontario farmers in 1900 had a mortgage debt upon their farms equal to about 29 per cent of their value, or in round numbers $166,800,000. In ten years that mortgage debt had decreased from 29 per cent in 1900 to 17 per cent in 1910. Or the total mortgage debt on the farm lands of Ontario was only $102,000,000 in 1910, as compared with $166,000,000 in 1900, showing a decrease in ten years of $65,000,000.
Contrast that with the condition in the state of Michigan. The mortgage debt in that state in 1900 on the farms was $193,812,241, or an equivalent of 31 per cent on the total value. In 1910, the total debt was $216,209,750. So that while in ten years in the province of Ontario the mortgage debt on the farms had decreased by $65,000,000, in the state of Michigan it had increased by $77,602,491.
I shall not weary the House with further *comparisons although I have them under my hand. But I wish to repeat what has been so well said by my hon. friend from Lennox (Mr. Wilson) to-night, regarding the articles of cheese and butter. In these articles the very same results figure out, if one will take the trouble to ascertain the amount of money'received by the Canadian farmer as compared with that received by the American farmer for these products per pound.
There is still another test which I would apply. I have taken the trouble to look into the statistics of savings bank deposits, and life insurance. Either one of these is a very fair illustration of the progress which the people are making; and I find, comparing the province of Ontario with the state of New York or Michigan or Minnesota, that the life insurance which has gone into force upon the	Ontario	people	per head ofpopulation	within	the last ten	yearsis nearly	twenty	times	greater	thanwhat has been affected upon the American people	in any	one of	those	states.
T find also that the number of lapsed policies-and hon. members will understand that policies taken out upon life are not allowed to lapse unless the insured are not able to pay the premium-I find that in Ontario, the number of lapsed policies is very much less than that in either New York or Michigan.
I find also that the same results with regard to savings bank deposits, and both bank deposits, and! life policies are things which indicate pretty clearly the progress and prosperity of a people. And if, with this boasted market of 90,600,000 people, the American farmer has not been able to pay off the mortgage debts upon his chattel property and land, if he has not been able to increase the value of his lands or the number of his Mr. POUTER.
farms, and if he has not been able to meet his life insurance premiums or make his bank deposits, while at the same time, under the policy pursued in this country the last twenty years, our Canadian farmers have been able to not only to pay off their mortgage debt, but increase the value, and number of their farms and live stock, and pay the premiums on their life insurance, and deposit besides a handsome sum in the bank, it must be evident that we have nothing to gain by this reciprocity pact.
That being so, is it not the height of absurdity to urge upon the Canadian people that they should barter away such a privilege as they now enjoy, the advantages they have been reaping during all these years, and cast in their lot with the American farmer who has not been able to show anything like as great progress as the Canadian farmer?
Coming to the question of our trade relations with Great Britain, it seems to be the reverse of one of the first principles of business policy to adopt this agreement. Great Britain is to-day the best customer the Canadian people have, and it is admitted by every business man that he will give the greatest advantages to the man who is his best customer. As in dealings with individuals so it should be in dealings between nationjs and where Canada finds Great Britain her very best customer, I think that it is up to Canada to show some favour to Great Britain, to increase, if possible, our present favours to Great Britain and enlarge the British market for Canadian products. If we are to pursue the policy laid down by this agreement, if we are to enter into this pact, we will not only be violating that first principle of business, but will be offering to the United States a premium to send their goods into Canada and shut out the goods of our best customer.
During the course of this argument the constant theme of supporters of the government has been the great advantage this agreement is going to bring to the Canadian farmer. When did this government become so solicitous for the interest of the Canadian farmer? It certainly has not been their history in past years that they were looking after the interest of the farmer rather than of any other classes, but they profess to be doing so now. What is the reason for this sudden manifestation of interest in the farmer? Is it. because the farmer is considered by this government to be so mercenary that with the argument that he will make a cent a pound more on cheese or a few cents a bushel on grain he is going to be carried away altogether from his sentimental feeling towards his own country and the mother land? It must either ' be that or the government must think that the farmers of Canada are the

only class of people in this country who can be deceived by such a policy as that. I believe there is a sentiment in the Canadian people far and away above any mercenary interest. There is a sentiment in the breasts of the Canadian people that would actuate them to support a stronger and more binding relationship between Canada and the mother country even if it were at the loss of a few dollars in trade between this country and the United. States. It cannot be possible that the Canadian farmer will in a moment and without sufficient reason forget the action of the two political parties in Canada in regard to the great agricultural interest. I can remember very well speeches 'by members of this government when the want of greater prosperity on the part of the Canadian farmer was attributed by them to his slovenly methods of farming and his want of intelligent 'direction; in fact I recall an expression used by the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he was appealed to upon the question of want of prosperity of the Canadian farmer, he said that if the Canadian farmer wished to be more prosperous than he is to-day, he must work harder and eat less. The Liberal party was not then exercising the same feeling of interest towards the Canadian farmer that they profess to be exercising to-day and surely the Canadian farmer will not forget which political party it was in the past that has been responsible for the greater part of the prosperity with which they have been blessed. Under which party were the [DOT]experimental farms and the dairy schools of Canada established for the benefit of the farmers? Under which government was it that the millions of acres of the great west were opened up for cultivation and for settlement by Canadian farm boys? It was not the Liberal party by any means. It is true the Liberal party have adopted the Conservative party's policy of. protection, and I think I might truthfully say 'that it is the only policy pursued by this government that has brought any advantage to the Canadian farmer. But as against that they have not directed all their interests in that way. I remember an organization known as the Grangers. This government was successful in reducing that society, established for the benefit and advantage of the farmers into a political machine. Then, phoenix-like, there arose from its ashes the Patrons of Industry, and the government succeeded in reducing that organization almost to a political machine.
To-day we have the Grain Growers' As soci.ation which this government is endeavouring in every possible way, and with no little degree of success, to convert into a political machine, too. I have given a brief comparison of what the Conservative government and party have done for the 308	*
Canadian farmer, and also a brief illustration of what the Liberal government and party have not done for the Canadian farmer. It seems to me that the Canadian farmer, in view of these facts which he certainly will not forget, will ponder carefully before accepting this policy, the tendency of which is closer trade relations and closer political relations with the United States, with a weakening of the bonds uniting Canada to the mother land. He will hesitate long before adopting the policy that is now being advocated by the Liberal party, in view of the history of that party, and the way the farmers have been treated by that party. Now, if it is true, and it is true beyond any question, that the policy of protection has been the chief element in the success of the American people while it has been in existence in that country, and if it is true that the same policy has to a still greater degree, during the time it has been in operation, brought prosperity to Canada, if it is true that the adoption and carrying out of that policy has brought prosperity to both countries, why should Canada, in this twentieth century which is said to be hers, hand over to the United States to exploit her natural resources, her national products, to feed the American factories, and furnish labour to American workingmen, to the loss and detriment of Canada?
During the course of this debate hon. members on the government side have told us that we need not be alarmed that the ultimate result of this policy will be to lead to annexation, or the absorption of this country by the United States. They ask what evidence there is that such a result can be brought about. I think it will be admitted that the more dependent one. country is made upon another in regard to its trade relations, the more difficult it will be for that nation to maintain a separate existence, or to resist political absorption. In our case this tendency will be accompanied by a weakening of the sentiments of union with the empire, in consequence of a diversion of our commercial interests. It is the well known desire of the American people, as has been expressed over and over again, both before this pact was proposed qnd since it has been made, to coerce Canada into annexation. They have failed in their efforts, and just as they made a reciprocity treaty in 1854, when the pinch of necessity drove them to it, so in 1911 they have turned their attention to a country to whom they have hitherto refused to extend the hand of friendship. They have turned to Canada at this time because Canada is the only country that offers the United States any opportunity for exploitation. Sir, can any one be so far deceived as to believe that the sentiment in favour of the absorption of Canada, which has hitherto pervaded the people of the United



States during the last forty years, Joes not still exist? Does any one suppose that it has faded away in a single night? I believe that feeling is just as strong in the United States to-day as it ever was. This reciprocity agreement is only a disguised method of accomplishing their desire, and I am sorry to say that it appears as if this government was willing to_ lend assistance to the American people in achieving their object. It seems to me there never was for the Canadian people such an opportunity of exhibiting their independence, of showing their nationality, ot protecting their country, of protecting their homes, as is offered them on this occasion. The time had arrived when, of necessity, the American people , were bound to lower their tariff wall between Canada and the United States; the time had arrived when they were bound to take down the barriers they themselves had erected; the time had arrived when they became convincd they could not coerce Canada into annexation, or at least into what I was almost going to call a position of slavery which they would have us occupy. And so they have set about making a 'bargain with Cam ada with that object, and I am afraid they have succeeded pretty well in introducing what has been called the thin edge of the wedge. This is not the first dose we have had. We all remember very well when oiily two years ago, the right hon. gentleman who leads this House was appealing to the people of Canada for a renewal of their confidence by asking them to give him an opportunity to finish his work. Well, it appears to me that the greatest unfinished work of the right hon. gentleman is now about to be finished, if this nact goes into force, for by it he will hand over this country into the lap of the United States, and then his work will be accomplished. We have evidence of that all along the line from the expression that has been used by the right hon. gentleman in discussing this question.
We have evidence of it in the selection of the man to form this pact-the most influential man of this Dominion who had the tendency to destroy confederation as he has, a very fitting tool, if I may use the expression not offensively, with which to finish the work which is the sole desire of the premier's heart; that is to see Canadian independence brought about or to see Canada drop into the lap of the United Staes just as the ripe fruit would drop from the parent tree.
In conclusion let me say that I am unalterably opposed to the passage of this trade agreement through parliament. I am unalterably opposed to it because I do not believe it can, in any substantial manner, work out in the interest of the people of Mr. PORTER.
this country. I am satisfied that it will not work out to the advantage of the people of this country but that there is a positive danger in passing this agreement in so far as the people of Canada are concerned. There is the danger that it will hand over to the United States the natural resources of Canada to supply the American factory with material and the American workman, with labour. There is the danger that it will destroy the usefulness of the great transportation lines built east and west throughout Canada at such an enormous cost to this country. There is the positive danger that it will frighten away from Canada the money of foreign countries that is so lavishly being poured into this country at the present time, and upon which so much depends for the future development of Canada. There is the positive danger that so soon as we hand over the natural resources of Canada and tie ourselves up in an alliance with the United States the inducements for that class of immigration, which means the building up of this country, will be removed and the capital which now finds safe investment here will be frightened away or turned into other channels. These and other dangers threaten the Canadian people as a result of the adoption of this agreement and for these, as for other reasons I could give, I again express my unalterable opposition to this agreement, and further express the opinion that if this government will only afford the Canadian people an opportunity of declaring their views with regard to it, they will do so with no uncertain sound, and the government will have an opportunity of regretting that they ever adopted such a high-handed and tyrannical course as that which they have adopted in introducing and supporting this agreement.


Mr. WILLIAM THOBURN (North Lanark).: 
AMERICA AS A PROVIDER OF MEAT FOR THE WORLD.
[Stage Direction]
The United States shows a greater increase in cattle and swine during the past ten years than any other country in the world.
While the number of cattle in all countries has increased faster than the number per thousand inhabitants, this increase is larger
[Stage Direction]
-in the United States than any other, while the number per thousand in Europe, our nearest natural market, has decreased.	.
The interesting feature of these figures is the relation of the increase of live stock to *the increase of population. In this oountiy, 'where the proportionate increase oi cattle and swine has been larger than the increase in population, the result will be large exportations of our surplus to those countries where the facts are exactly the reverse.
The proportionate increase of sheep in America has been less than the increase in population, although the total increase in the number of sheep in this country is greater than any other, and this fact would indicate that the industry is in anything but a hopeless
Another important fact gained from the studv Of these figures is that through improved methods of feeding, the same number of animals now produced will turn into the market a very much larger total number of pounds of meat than the same number produced ten years ago.
The greatest increase in the number of cattle is in the United States. In 1900, tlie total number was 43,901,000, while m 1910, the total number was 69,080,000. This is an increase m round numbers of more than -5.000,000
The greatest increase in the number of swine in the ten-year period is in the United States, the total being 10,732,000.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if it is a fact that the United States produced more of every land of agricultural products than they can possibly consume what can be the advantage of shipping Canadian farm products into that country? Suppose, for the sake of illustration, that the United States grow
250.000.	000 bushels of wheat and that they consume 200,000,000 bushels, they then have 50,000,000 bushels for export. 1 do not think that any gentleman opposite will for the moment contend that the people of the United States do not produce a surplus of every single commodity that the Canadian farmer has to sell.
For these 50,000,000 bushels of wheat for export they buy 50,000,000 bushels of Canadian wheat, which they must also export; so that, instead of 50,000,000, they have
100.000.	000 bushels to export. But I may be asked, why do they buy the 50,000,000 bushels of Canadian wheat? It i*s a well known fact that we grow a better grade of wheat in Canada than is perhaps grown in any other country in 'the world. There is nothing that I know of to equal our Northwest No. 1 hardi wheat. Now, where the trouble comes to the Canadian farmer is this. The Americans import 50,000,000 bushels of Canadian wheat which they mix with 50,000,000 bushels of their own wheat wibich they have to export, and they thus improve the quality of their own wheat at the expense of the Canadian farmer. Then the Canadian farmeT has to compete with that 100,000,000 buslhels of wheat in the Liverpool market. That is as I see the matter. If any hon. gentleman opposite thinks
William Thoburn: I am wrong", I would like him to put me right. Although the United States has a population of ninety millions, it is safe to say that they raise produee of aU kmds
sufficient for 130,000,000 or 13o,000,000 peo-pie. What applies to our grain applies also to our cheese and our bacon. Ihe Americans know that we make a oetter quality of cheese and also of bacon than they do, and their sole object in buying our Canadian product is to take it into the United States and sell it as an American product; so that our Canadian product loses its identity in the Liverpool market.
Now, you will have noticed, in some of the speeches made by hen. gentlemen opposite, that there has been a tendency to array one class of the electors against another class-to array the farmers against the manufacturers. No greater mistake could be made than that. It is well known that there are no better customers of the farmers than the manufacturers and labourers of this country. Do not the labourers create the home market for the farmers which is the beat market they have? I was very much interested in some figures that were given to us by the lion. Minister of Railways in dealing with the question of labour aiid wages. His remarks will be found at page 5142 of 'Hansard,* as fol-
The question of transportation is very important as regards the men who are working with their hands as well as with their heads in this work throughout the Dominion. It is customary, in discussing transportation problems, to refer to them as being the property of capitalists, and dominated by them. I hey are to a certain extent, but the development of our railways, the development of our waterways, is of vital interest to the men who find employment on these railways and on these waterways. Here are the figures: There were in the service of Canadian railways on June 30 last 123,768 employees, whose wage bill amounted to $67,167,703. In addition, there were 16,709 employees engaged in outside operations such as steamers and_ hotels, whose remuneration amounted to $5,169,923. Ihe abrogate would therefore he 140,477 employees, with a total wage bill of $72,337,626.
Now, where does that vast amount of money go to? I think every member of this House will agree with me in saying that a very large proportion of it is spent in Canada in purchasing breadstuffs, the products of the farm. I just give this as an illustration to show what the manufacturers are doing for this country, for it must be remembered that building railroads is manufacturing just as much as any other article. I think it is a mistake for hon. gentlemen opposite to try to array the. manufacturers against the farmers or the farmers against the manufacturers. Remember, I a/m not here as the representative of the manufacturers only; I am here to represent the electors of North Lanark

to the best of my ability. But are the manufacturers opposed to this treaty? True enough, a delegation of manufacturers waited upon the government when this question was brought before the House and presented a memorial, a clause .pf which reads as follows:
Although the prospect of reciprocity has already caused some unsettling of business, our confidence is still unshaken. But lest there should be a disposition on the part of our neighbours to stiffen their demands on your government in the expectation of finding on this side of the line any considerable element of our population favourable'to their view, we welcome this opportunity of assuring you that the interests for whom we can fairly claim to speak, representing approximately $1,200,000,000 of invested capital, $1,000,000,000 of annual output, furnishing direct employment to 435,000 artisans and workpeople, and distributing annually $250,000,000 in wages, are opposed at the present juncture to any reciprocal tariff arrangement between the two countries that would necessitate a lowering of the Canadian customs tariff on manufactured products. They are convinced that any reduction would prove injurious to the industry directly affected, and indirectlv detrimental to the interests of Canada and consequently to the empire as a whole.
As Canadians they regard the present an inopportune time for the negotiation of a reciprocity treaty.
They do not say that as manufacturers they regard the present question an inopportune time, but as Canadians.
United States enterprises are developed to the highest state in point of capital, specialization of product and magnitude of operation; Canadian enterprises, because of their restricted markets, ai;e not yet so developed and it will be obviously impossible for them to withstand the competition that would inevitably follow reductions in the present Canadian tariff.
The appendix to that reads as follows;
An examination into the trade statistics of the United States throws an interesting side light upon that country's present overtures for reciprocity with ns. For the nine months ending September, 1910, their exports of domestic merchandise of every 'kind were $1,193,321,512, of which $210,490,966 were manufactures for further use in manufacturing, and $401,684,694 were manufactures ready for consumption. The sum of these two, $612,625,660, accounts for 51 per cent of all their exports put together. But this is not crediting the exports of manufactures with a class known as ' foodstuffs, partly manufactured,' which are valued at $180,159,193. If we regard this also as legitimately forming a part of the exports of manufactured goods, it means that of everything the United States exported for the nine months ending September last, manufactured goods amounted to over 66 per cent.
Applying the average for the nine months to the last three, the figures for which were not available when this statement was prepared, it indicates that the exports tor the year of manufactures ready for consumption
and manufactures for further use in manufacturing will pass the $800,000,000 mark. This is an enormous amount for which to find an outlet, and there can he little doubt that underlying the present agitation in the united States for reciprocity with Canada is an earnest desire to open wider the markets ot this country for exploitation by their manutac-tures, at the same time it enables us to catch a glimpse of what the future may hold in store for us if we continue to work out our own industrial destiny along independent lines.
To further prove that the manufacturers of this country, as a body, are not opposed to that treaty, let me point out-and I suppose there is- as fair a representation according to numbers of the manufacturers in this House as can be found anywhere in Canada-that I have not heard the representatives of the manufacturers in this House stand up in their places and oppose this treaty. For instance there are the hon. the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson), the hon. member for St. Lawrence Division Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike) the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Harty), the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Gordon), the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Fowke) and the hon. member for West Peterboro (Mr. Stratton) besides the hon. member from South Renfrew (Mr. Lowe)-all thpse are manufacturers, and I do not think any hon. gentleman on the government side will say that they have uttered a single word m protest against the treaty now before this House.
Now we come to the other side of the question. Is there not a large number of the farmers of Canada opposed to this pact? True, we had a deputation of farmers from the northwest to ask for free trade in farm products and freer trade m manufactured goods, but we have also had other farmer delegations, and what did they ask for? Some of them asked that the tariff be left as it was, and others that it be increased. Would you believe it, if I were to tell you that there was a deputation of farmers who waited upon the government-to my personal knowledge, and who asked, not that the tariff should remain as it is but that it should be increased bv 25 per cent or 35 per cent or 45 per cent -nothing less than 55 per cent would satisfy that deputation of farmers who waited upon the government. The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) will bear me out in that statement because I happened to be present and I repeat that that deputation asked for a tariff on farm products of 55 per cent.
Then there was a farmer deputation from the counties of Kent and Wentworth who presented a memorial to the Prime Minister which reads as follows:

As there has been recently before you a large deputation of farmers from the west, and also a few from the east, claiming to represent the Canadian farmers' views on the tariff question (or at least that inference is being drawn by the press of the United States and Great Britain), we wish to say here and now publicly and emphatically, that they do not. Having consulted a great many farmers engaged in mixed farming in our different and several localities, both Liberal and Conservative, we find that the great mass of unorganized farmers are well satisfied with the present tariff as it is. At the last general election, stability of the tariff was the principal issue, and we, as farmers, thinlc that no government should enter into such a large measure of reciprocity or free trade with the United States without a mandate from the people.
We also think that such extravagant language as was used by the speakers has a tendency to bring farming into disrepute, and at a very inopportune time when the eyes of the whole world are focused upon this country. At a time when the cost of eatables has been so high and the cry of ' back to the land ' is being sounded, when so much money is being spent to induce immigration to this country, it seems ridiculous to have such sentiments spread broadcast over the land, claiming that such is the farmers' view.
We wish as farmers who are proud of our calling to again say that we deprecate the language of agitators who would stir up strife in this new country by setting up one class against another. Being engaged in mixed farming, we also believe in a mixed community in this country composed of manufacturers; merchants, craftsmen and artisans of all kinds, thus building up an ideal state.
Our opinion is that the great majority of farmers do not think that the manufacturers' heel is upon their neck, that they are ground down by oppression and are a down-trodden class that every body's hand is against them, but are well satisfied with their present condition and are against commercial union in any guise whatever.
Prices for everything we have to sell have been abnormally high, while machinery, implements, tools, vehicles, etc., have never been cheaper. We would, therefore respectfully urge that no radical change in the tariff he effected at the present time. We are pleased to see our cities, towns and villages prosperous, thus creating a convenient home market for what we have to sell, and also for what we have to buy. We are not enamoured with the idea of a strictly agricultural country but wish to see manufacturers attend to manufacturing, hankers to hanking, storekeepers to storekeeping, farmers to farming, and Canadians to building up a strong united Canada Ike memorial further asked that the tariff be raised high enough to shut out American farm products and that employees of Cana-clian factories should be fed by Canadian, farmers.
We believe that the principle expressed in the following motto is a good one; keep your money in circulation at home by having goods made m Canada. When you can't get what you want in Canada buy within the British Lmpire. If American manufacturers wish to


William Thoburn: range from $2 per lieqd in Texas to $5.30 in Illinois and Iowa, while in Canada the range is from $4 in Nova Scotia to $7 in Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
The average price of live stock in these 17 states as compared with the average price in Canada is shown by the following table:


AVERAGE PRICES.
[Stage Direction]
Less in
		U.S.
Horses-Canada		.. $130 00	
Horses-United States		.. 108 19	
		$24 81
Dairy cows-Canada		.. $43 00	
Dairy cows-United States..	.. 35 79	
		7 21
Other cattle-Canada		.. $31 00	
Other cattle-United States..	.. 19 41	
		11 59
Sheep-Canada		.. $6 00	
Sheep-United States		.. 4 08	
		1 92
Hogs-Canada		.. $11 00	
Hogs-United States		.. 9 14	
		1 86
And still in the face of that declaration made by the President of the United States, and. in the face of such figures as I have quoted the government are advising Canadians to seek a market for their products in the United States. I want for a short time to deal with another phase of this question, namely, what has a reasonable tariff done for Canada? Has it not helped to make it one of the most progressive nations on earth, has it not increased our manufacturing industry; has it not compelled large industries to come from other countries, and locate in Canada? On this point I quote from the ' Monetary Times,' one of the leading financial authorities in Canada:
United States Capital in Canadian Industries.
As the result of some investigations conducted by ' The Monetary Times ' (Toronto), and subsequently verified and added to by officers of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, it is known that at the present time at least 200 United States manufacturing companies are operating branch factories in Canada, representing an aggregate investment of $226,000,000. For this influx of capital, with all the benefits accruing to the Dominion therefrom, we must thank a tariff which made it worth while for those who hoped to sell us goods to come to this side of the line to manufacture. Had the tariff not been a protective one, those United States manufacturers would probably have enlarged their home factories to take care of Canadian business instead of building on this side, in which case we would now be using goods made from United States material with United States labour, instead of goods made from Canadian material with Canadian labour.
Hon.   E@: Foss, Governor of Massachusetts stated that the policy which has been in force for many years in the United States ' has resulted in sending approximately


William Thoburn: >
$300,000,000 of American capital to Canada, to build up branch industries which compete with our own in foreign markets. It has also resulted in stifling the growth of Massachusetts and New England industries and kept us out of the business and commerce which belongs to us by every right. It has kept the great Canadian railways from our ports. It has ruined our coastwise shipping interests and made our wharf property of little value.
Now, I want to deal with a phase of this question that has not been dealt with by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, though it has been alluded to several times by hon. gentlemen opposite. It is a delicate subject, and I am asking now, not on behalf of this side of the House, but purely from my own personal standpoint, in regard to the preferential clause in our tariff. But as it is past the hour of 12 o'clock, I would very respectfully beg to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and committee rose and reported progress.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 12.10 a.m., Thursday.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, July 20, 1911.