1911-02-09

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

Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: 1.	What rule or principle will the government adopt in selecting the officers and men of the Canadian contingent to the Coronation?
2.	What will be the probable number of officers and men of said contingent?
3.	What other persons will be selected to represent the Canadian government?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence).: I would like to make an explanation with reference to what took place yesterday. I said to my hon. friend (Mr. Middlebro) who put this question:
My deputy informs me that the answer was sent in last week in the 'regular way.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: I inquired of the clerk, and he cannot find it.
That difficulty occurred in this way: My deputy supposed, and rightly, that the third part of the question did not refer to the Militia Department, and followed the rule of sending the answer of the two first parts to the Secretary of State so that the answer to the third might be got from the proper minister, and the whole answer sent in together. I found the answer, which was sent in on the 23rd January, in the Department of the Secretary of State today. The answer is as follows:
1.	It is proposed to send representatives
of every regiment or independent unit of the permanent force, and active militia, including departmental corps. The numbers to be furnished for the mounted and dismounted portions of the contingent have been arrived at, as far as possible, upon a percentage basis. Preference will be given to those who have not already partaken in former contingents on such great occasions, such as Jubilee of the late Queen Victoria, or the coronation of _ the late King. Preference will also be given to those who have served in the field. With regard to the selection of the more junior officers, it is proposed that their selection shall be made with due regard to efficiency. As regards the qualifications of non-commissioned officers and men, they will be required to fulfil the following conditions:	_
(a) To be at present included in the service roll of a corps of the active militia.
*(b) To have completed the full military training in 1908, 1909 and 1910.
(c)	To be well set up, of suitable height and physique, thoroughly trained, and certified by their commanding officers to be of * exemplary ' character.
(d)	To be examined and passed ' fit ' by the medical officer, subject to confirmation by the principal medical officer before embarkation.
*This rule does not include corps organized since the above mentioned dates.
2.	About 717.


QUEBEC BRIDGE.
Mr. DONNELLY :: 1.	How much has the proposed bridge across the St. Lawrence river for the use of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway cost up to date?
2.	What is the estimated additional cost to complete the bridge?
3.	Did the government ever consider the advisability of tunnelling the river instead of constructing a bridge?
i.	Did the government ever have engineers report upon the feasibility and cost of such a tunnel?


Mr. GRAHAM :: 1.	I presume my bon. friend refers to what is known as the Quebec bridge which has not 'been constructed for the sole use of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway.
2.	As intimated to the leader of the opposition the other day this question cannot be answered at the present time as the tenders are under consideration.
3.	The department does not consider the construction of a tunnel at that point in the realm of practicability.
4.	No.


HOMESTEAD-R. F. RUDDOCK.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster) :
1.	Has the attention of the Interior Department been called to an application by R. F. Ruddock for a homestead in Chilliwack district, said to have been made on or about 11th May, 1908?
2.	Has the applicant been residing on and improving the land applied for?
3.	Is it the intention to grant this application befove proclamation of the new regulations?
Mr. OLIVER :: 1.	The first intimation of record here that R. F. Ruddock claimed to be squatting on south-east i 22, 2, 29 west 6th meridian, was by letter dated 13th. October, 1910, from Mr. J. D. Taylor, M.P., to this department.
2.	The agent of Dominion lands at New Westminster was asked to report on the case. His report has not yet been received and the department does not know whether or not R. F. Ruddock has been residing on and improving the said land. The agent has been requested to expedite the report.
3.	Until the agent's report is received, and the nature of the claim is before the department, a decision cannot be reached in reference to the case.


IMPORTATION OF IMPURE CANNED PEAS.
Mr. ARMSTRONG :: 1.	Is the government aware that canned peas are being imported into Canada containing colouring matter, contrary to the Pure Food Act? If so, what action has been taken to stop the importation of same?
2.	How many cases of canned peas have been inspected at the ports of entry, and how many have been condemned as not complying with our food regulations?


Mr. MURPHY :: 1.	The government is not aware that canned peas containing colouring matter are being imported into Canada, contrary to the Adulteration Act.
2.	There is no information available respecting canned peas at the ports of entry


Mr. DONNELLY.: nor concerning the number of cases that may have been condemned.


GAS METERS IN TORONTO.
Mr. MACDONELL :: 1.	Has the attention of the Minister of Inland Revenue been called to what appears to be the excessive reading of the gas meters in use in the city of Toronto?
2.	Is the minister aware that it is alleged by the users of gas in Toronto that the meters register from J to J more gas than they did at the same period in any previous year?
3.	Is the minister aware that such complaints have arisen since the new gas main was recently laid across the city?
4.	If the minister is not cognizant of the position of matters as above indicated, will he ask for a report from the proper government officer or officers at Toronto, with special reference to the gas pressure prior to and since the new gas main was recently laid across the city?


Mr. TEMPLEMAN :: 1.	No complaint has been received at the Inland Revenue Department, from Toronto, since May, 1908, relative to the excessive reading of gas meters.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	The department will send an expert official to Toronto to ascertain the exact condition of affairs.


HOURS OF LABOUR ON PUBLIC WORKS.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster) :
1.	How many copies were printed of the proceedings of the special committee on the hours of labour on public works?
2.	How many copies have been distributed, and, in general terms, to whom have they been distributed ?
3.	What disposition is intended to be made of the volumes remaining on hand?
4.	What was the total cost of this committee, under each head of expenditure, including the volume of proceedings?	<
Mr. KING :: 1.	2,275 copies for general distribution, as per list at Printing Bureau ; 800 copies for journals of the House of Commons, and 5,000 for extra distribution.
2.	2,275 copies distributed from the Printing Bureau to (1) the High Commissioner in London, (2) senators, (3) members of parliament (4) members of the provincial legislatures (5) judges (6) boards of trade (7) public libraries (8) mechanics' institutes, and (9) newspapers.
The following copies have also been distributed by the clerk of the Eight Hour Bill Committee : To Department of Labour, 30 ; to members and senators, 731 ; Builders' Exchange, 15 ; the press, 40 ; ' Hansard,' 14 ; officials of departments, 12 ; to various persons on request, 22.
3.	It is intended to distribute the balance to trades and labour unions, to farmers' in-

stitutes, to the Dominion Grange, and to boards of trade, also to manufacturers from whom the committee have received communications, and to such other persons or organizations as may make application therefor.
4.	$3,042.76 for printing report ; $503.70 for witnesses ; and $517.56 for stenographic assistance, in addition to the services of members of the staff of the House of Commons.


GOVERNMENT LOANS.
Mr. SHARPE (Ontario):: What was the total cost in dollars and cents of the loan of 1909 at 3j per cent, under the heads, respectively, of commission to financial agents, commission to underwriters, commission for arranging for underwriting, brokerage, advertising, printing, and other charges?	.


Mr. FIELDING:: Commission to financial agents..$ 73,000 00
Commission to underwriters.. .. 292,000 00 Commission for arranging for underwriting	
73,000	00Brokerage	
67,119	16
Advertising, printing, freight and
other such charges	
12,567	99Other charges	
93,762	35


$611,449 50 REGINA AND MOOSEJAW TOWN SITES.
Mr. McCRANEY:: 1.	Was the government jointly interested with the Canadian Pacific railway in certain lots in the townsites of Regina and Moose-jaw?
2.	If so, was a division of interests made and when?
3.	How many of such lots became the sole property of the government in Regina, what disposal was made of same and on what terms ?
4.	How many of such lots became the sole property of the government in Moosejaw, what disposal was made of same, and on what terms?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Yes, the disposal of such lots being administered bv joint trustees.
2.	Yes, on March 27, 1902.
3.	4,863; patented as a free grant to the city of Regina under the authority of an order in council dated April 6, 1903. In addition to these lots 285-55 acres of the unsubdivided portion of the townsite of Regina was revested in the Crown and subsequently patented to the city of Regina, as follows: 89-60 acres for cemetery purposes and 195:95 acres for public park and recreation ground purposes.
4.	2,152; patented as a free grant to the city of Moosejaw under the authority of an order in council dated the 6th April, 1903.


TIMBER BERTHS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA.
Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster):: 1.	Has the Minister of the Interior received any requests lately for the removal of timber cases from lands at Hall's Prairie, B.C., or reports upon such applications not yet granted or dealt with?
2.	In how many years have applications been pending for removal of these cases?
3.	What is the situation at present?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	No requests have been received lately for the removal of timber leases from lands in timber berths B. L, Q, 176, 234, 293 and 450 near Hall's Prairie, B.C., but there are many illegal squatters in these berths who have from time to time communicated with the department for the purpose of getting the right to enter when the lands were made available.
2.	The first request on file here from a squatter for the right of entry in these berths is dated March 5, 1902; one was received from another squatter, dated 23rd January, 1904; several were received in 1906 and others since then.
A petition signed by a number of residents in Surrey municipality was received dated at Hall's Prairie, April 18, 1908, asking withdrawal of lands in that municipality under timber lease to the British Columbia Mills Timber and Trading Company.
3.	An inspection of these timber berths was made last summer by an officer of the department for the purpose of considering the question of possible withdrawals from timber license. Pursuant to the reports made, the licensees of timber berth B were notified to clear off part of the berth by the 1st May, 1911, and the balance by the 1st May, 1912. The licensees of timber berth Q were notified that part of that berth would be withdrawn 1st May,
1911,	and the balance on the 1st May,
1912.	In the case of the other timber berths above mentioned, the licensees were given till the 1st May, 1911, to clear off the remainder of the timber.
Protests have been received from the licensees in connection with these proposed withdrawals. The protest is now under consideration.


DAM ACROSS THE ST. LAWRENCE.
Mr. REID (Grenville).: I have to-day received word from Washington that the Bill to authorize the damming of the St. Lawrence is now before the United States Senate and they are changing it so as to give them power to dam the St. Lawrence south of the international boundary line which practically means damming the whole river. I am requested to ask the government that they should telegraph to Am-



bassador Bryce to protest against damming any part of the St. Lawrence without the consent of Canada, as asked for by the Bill. I wish the Prime Minister could see his way clear to inform Ambassador Bryce, if such legislation is being proceeded with in the United States Senate, that he should enter a protest on behalf of Canada.


Sir WILFRID LAURIEE.: I have to say to my hon. friend (Mr. Reid), without telling him the nature of the correspondence, that we are at this moment in correspondence with Ambassador Bryce.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: I wish to .give the House information which was asked for by the member for Grenville yesterday. The hon gentleman stated that in a conversation which took place upon a train between him and Mr. Cote, the secretary of the International Waterways Commission, Mr. Cote had informed him that a plan for the construction of a canal from the Long Sault to Lake Champlain had been before the Waterways Commission, that the commission had made a report on it, and that that report was in the Department of Public Works. I stated then that I had received no notice of any such report and on inquiry from Mr. Cote, he tells me he did have a conversation with the hon. gentleman and that what he referred to in that conversation was the work of improving the navigable channel afforded by the Richelieu river and which connects the River St. Lawrence with Lake Champlain. Mr. Cote says he told the hon. gentleman that the report in regard to that had been made by the Waterways Commission, and if my hon. friend will turn to the report of the International Waterways Commission, page 239, he will find there the report which Mr. Cote referred to. Mr. Cote states he never heard of any report or any plan for the construction of a canal from the Long Sault to Lake Champlain, and he informs me that no such work was referred to in the conversation between him and the hon. gentleman.


THE DUTY ON FRUIT.
Mr. BURRELL.: I wish to call the attention of the government to the following item which appears in this morning's ' Citizen
South Haven, Mich., Feb. 8.-P. H. T. Carpenter, of Niagara, Ont., and H. H. Griffith, of Grimsby, Ont., representatives of the Agricultural Department of the Canadian government, here conferring with fruit growers concerning their stand on the fruit clause of the reciprocity treaty, both declared to-day that they favour the placing of fruit on the free list, and say that the prominent fruit growers of'the Ontario district are in accord with the provision. Both men stated that the majority of the Canadian fruit growers with whom they have talked believe the treaty will be Mr. REID.
ratified by both governments provided the amendments are few.
In view of the fact that I regard that statement as absolutely unauthorized and unrepresentative I would ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) whether .these are officials of his department.


Mr. FISHER.: I do not remember these names as the names of any of my officials. I do not think they are, but I will look into it and see. If they are, they must be men who are just temporarily employed in some way as institute workers, but I do not think they belong to my department at all. I imagine they are officers of the Ontario government.


RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES.
[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Fielding for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means.
Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair I desire, on behalf of a large number of interests concerned with the object which we are about to discuss, to lodge an earnest protest against, the undue and unseemly haste with which the House is asked to consider this very important agreement. I am aware that the rules of international courtesy oblige us to- speak with caution even upon the subject of delay, but at the same time it is proper that i should point out that what we seek here is merely the necessary time to become fully acquainted with the details of this very important agreement, and to enable us, as in duty bound, to take counsel with those we represent here. There is no desire, as the House will see by the motion expressive of regret which I intend placing in your hands, to avoid that discussion, nor unduly to delay, nor to put any obstacle in the way of a proper discussion of that agreement. But since it has become apparent that the decision of the government is to rush this matter through without members having proper time to consider it, it seems entirely within our right, and no violation of that community of nations to which I have alluded, that we should put on record, those of us who are of that opinion, the fact that we have not had the proper time to consider all the details which it is the business of this committee to look into immediately.
Just one word to accentuate the fact, which has been pointed out by many people outside of this House, that this agreement is absolutely new. We had expected some thing less considerable, but it is of the most sweeping character. In the first place, the Minister of Finance has admitted, in making his recent announcement to the House, that it covers the whole field of

agriculture. That is at the present moment in this country a matter of supreme interest. .It tends to invade our forest wealth and other natural resources. We have seen within a short time how backward we have been with respect to those resources. We have constituted a Commission of Conservation, we have spent a year in the study of those resources and of the m^ans of conserving, them, and we have just had a meeting at which it has been made apparent that we must change our course, and in the future bring to the conservation of those great natural resources all that care which lias been found wanting in other countries and which is necessary, to prevent the waste of what constitutes the real strength of a nation.
Another motive for this demand for delay is. the fact that the tendency of this agreement is admittedly to make our trade move north and south. I need not take up the time of the House in emphasizing, what everybody knows, that for years our efforts have been in an entirely different direction. Therefore, this question affects primarily the great question of transportation, and has to do with the immense sacrifices which we have made within the last 20 years to give to our trade that direction east and west which we deem absolutely necessary to the best interests of the country. This agreement, presented to us in this unexpected manner, which has not been discussed by us and our electors, comes to us with startling suddenness, after 40 years of complete isolation from our great neighbour -40 years of separation, not surely attributable to us, since we all know that during those 40 years in the wilderness we, on our side, have time and again sought to obtain better relations with our neighbour. But, Sir, during that long period the circumstances have changed. That is a point which all people admit. We have federated our entire country-joined together all its parts from one end to the other, at the cost of many negotiations and at vast expense, an expense which would not, perhaps, have been so readily undergone had those obstacles for which I lay no blame upon our neighbour, but which they themselves maintained during that long period, not existed. We have, as a necessity, created new markets; we have had to find those markets Our hon. friends on the other side of the House have tinje and again claimed the credit of having sought and found those markets for us. I do not wish to enter on that controversy. There is no doubt that we have been obliged to find new markets, and under a fiscal system established by us long ago, and maintained by this government, largely brought about by the isolation to which I have referred, we have created considerable industries, and upon the principles which lie at the basis of that fiscal policy those 1044	'
industries have grown, until large and practically vested interests have been created.
In support of this demand for delay, what do we find? It would be idle to take up the time of the House in indicating the circumstances under which this proposal has been brought about. We do not live on this continent without seeing and realizing what goes on around us. not only here, but all over the world. Members of this House know full well that there has been a very strong movement in the political life of our estimable neighbours for the lowering of their tariff. This has become their great party question, which they have discussed from each and every point of view during the last decade, and the upshot of that discussion, which has enabled them to familiarize themselves" with the conditions of their own trade, is that those among them who are in favour of a reduction of the tariff have obtained the ascendency and: will, in a few days, be in a position to deal effectively with the matter with which we are now concerned.
That is a condition which is far more favourable than our own. I speak in the judgment of the House when I say that the question of our tariff, the question of our fiscal policy, has not been a prominent one, and consequently has not been discussed in our country. In debating a proposal such as the one before the House, it is not for us to discuss the political situation in the United States, but we cannot help considering it. We cannot fail to realize that we do not stand here, with respect to the question of our trade relations, possessed of that information which our neighbours enjoy. When we see this strange and sudden change in the feelings of our neighbours towards us, which we welcome-for there is no man, I hope, in this country, who does not desire not only the most pleasant but the most favourable relations in business and otherwise with the neighbouring republic-in the face of that situation we may ask what position with respect to these negotiations has been taken by the imperial government? I think that is a fair question. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance has assured us that during the negotiations he received the warmest support from His Majesty's ambassador at Washington. Did the British ambassador receive instructions in this regard from his government? Unquestionably he must have. There can be no doubt in the mind of any one who knows anything of diplomacy that in a matter of this importance, no ambassador would take up such a position unless under instructions. Well, if political considerations of paramount importance entered into the negotiations which have culminated in this agreement with our neighbours, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the-

British government, which has just come out of the throes of the warmest political contest known in that country for a long time, sees some advantage in the carrying through of this agreement. Do the despatches which have come to us from the other side cast any doubt upon that very reasonable supposition? I submit not. From the manner in which this question has been discussed on the other side, we see that it assumes there, as elsewhere, a political aspect, and that those who are in power in England at present expect considerable political advantage to accrue from the carrying through of this agreement. I appeal to the government and this House whether, if there be no doubt on the facts which I have just given, there is not great uncertainty as to the value of the different elements of this agreement upon which we are called upon to enter immediately. I speak of the schedules. Open the newspapers and you find in them interviews with competent men on matters which concern them and which are referred to in these schedules and you find contradictory opinions among them, but you also find this careful reserve invariably expressed that we will require to look further into this proposed arrangement in order to be able to appreciate and measure its consequences. Under these circumstances, is it not advisable that we, who are but mandatories, should not now go into the discussion of the details of this arrangement when we have absolutely not had the time to confer with our con-1 stituencies not even those of us whose constituencies are closest to the Capital. It is a principle admitted in the law of every nation that a mandatory cannot conclude important matters or matters other than-routine without consulting his principal. Well, what are we here after all but mandatories of the people? 1 myself live quite near Ottawa. With some of the industries in my constituency, which is not far distant, I am quite well acquainted, with others much less so, but there is not one of them affected by this proposed treaty, on behalf of which I would venture to speak with absolute certainty unless I had further information from them. I believe we should meet this proposal in a or oner spirit, give it the attention due to its importance, but not greet it with those shrieks of approval with which my hon. friends on the other side hailed the announcement of the hon. Minister of Finance after his return. These things are quoted abroad. The next day throughout the newspapers in the neighbouring republic it was stated-and stated certainly with some grounds of truth-that this whole House, after this long period of forty years waiting for reciprocity, had greeted with acclamation the whole arrangement. I be-Mr. MONK.
lieve that we should be ready to conclude treaties -with all nations where our interests are concerned; but under the circumstances it must be apparent to every member of this House that, whatever may be the circumstances under which these proposals for a trade arrangement are made, we must first consider Canadian interests. They should be first of all.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is not that the true test, the proper criterion? Must we not view this proposed arrangement from the standpoint of what interests the future of -Canada? Let me remark to my hon. friends that it is unusual in the highest degree for a nation to assent with such brief delay to an arrangement of this kind with its far-reaching consequences upon commercial treaties with other nations. They are concluded every day amongst European countries. You will find the usual clause that ratifications may be exchanged in six months, after the parliaments, the deliberative assemblies of those nations, have had an opportunity to look into them.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My right hon. friend says hear, hear. That is an approval, I suppose, of the statement.


Wilfrid Laurier: Quite the reverse.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My right hon. friend probably refers to the ratifications, to the ordinary sealing of the agreement, but will he show us a single case of an agreement of this kind, surrounded by the circumstances that surround this one, in which a parliament has been asked to approve with such a short delay. I do not think so. I defy my hon. friend to give us such an example.
Now, I conclude. The United States in making trade arrangements with other nations, consider only their own interests. I do not, in any sense, blame our neighbours for that. I approve of this course, but this trait has characterized their trade arrangements for all time. They awakened to the utility of this agreement at a moment when they realized that it was in their interest. That is right, that is proper. They have discussed those interests a long time, and they have come to the conclusion that while their rejection, time and again of our own approaches and proposals, was probably justified at the time, from their own point of view, the time has come to change their attitude and they come to us. We receive them in a proper spirit, and are considering their proposals but is there anything unfair in saying that vre, the parliament which is going to lay

its seal on, and give its approval to this agreement, wish to consider it, to think it over, to weigh it, because it requires to he weighed and considered, and that we wish to consult those who have sent us here, to know what their opinions are, to understand fully how their interests are affected. I can see that it is probable that the demand I have made on the government will not be acceded to by my hon. friends, but I think it is important that we should put it on record. I know the feeling in my province is that this requires to be looked into, and we should put on record an expression of our regret that the government has not given us a further opportunitv for consideration. I therefore, beg to move:
To add to the main motion the following words:-
But the House regrets that, before considering, on its merits and in its details, the arrangement concluded between the government of Canada and the President of the United States, it has not been given the necessary time and occasion to ascertain the opinion of the people of Canada in that regard and to study more carefully the effect the new fiscal regime may have upon the various interests thereby affected.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention at this stage of the proceedings to enter into any discussion of the merits of the reciprocity agreement. I have already had the opportunity of addressing the House at some length concerning it, and possibly before the matter is finally disposed of, some other opportunity may properly arise at which, if I so desire, I can again express my views. I confine myself at the moment entirely to the position taken by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), as to a delay of proceedings. I am not able to agree with my hon. friend that there is any good reason why this House should not now proceed to deal>
not hastily, not rashly, but soberly and in the ordinary way of public business, with the important matter which the government have submitted. I cannot agree with my hon. friend that there has been anything rash or anything unseemly in asking the House to deal with the matter in the manner I have suggested. The question of reciprocity is not a new one. My hon. friend (Mr. Monk), himself, has said that in one form or another, we have had this matter before us for 40 years, and new he says he is very much surprised. But first he is surprised that this government have been able to obtain an agreement upon that question between the United States and Canada, an agreement which gives hope and faith and confidence to the people in nearly every industry in this country, and gives assurance that the great prosperity that Canada has enjoyed
now for many years, will continue and increase. There is nothing new of importance in this agreement. It is, to a large extent, the old reciprocity treaty of 1854 over again. In some respects it is different, there are some things here that are not in the old treaty, but speaking generally, there is nothing in this reciprocity agreement that any intelligent and thoughtful man cannot comprehend with a very short study. It has been in our hands for a fortnight. We are not proceeding hastily ; the proceedings of parliament are a protection against hasty legislation. We first give notice of resolutions, and we invite the attention of the House in Committee of the Whole to these resolutions. There may be a debate, as there is now, at the first stage. There is a further debate in Committee of the Whole. After the resolutions have passed, if they shall pass through the Committee of the Whole, and after they are reported to the House, they are crystallized into the form of a Bill, and at every stage of that Bill there may be further consideration and further debate. There will be a first reading of the Bill, and we can talk on it as long as we like, and so with the second and third readings; and then, if it shall have passed through these various stages, it goes to another place and the same procedure largely happens there, and if it is capable of being discussed, and in some respects a measure of that kind may be discussed in another place, although it is a Bill that, principally belongs to this House, there is an opportunity, in a general way. for discussion even there. So, Sir, there will be abundant opportunity for the members of this House and the people of this country to carefully consider the arrangement to which the government asks them to give tb'dr approval.
In times past we have endeavoured to make reciprocity arrangements with our friends to the south, but in most cases we have been unsuccessful; for one reason or another nothing has been accomplished. We are to-day in the happy position that we are about, as we believe, to accomplish this great thing for which our people have been seeking for the last forty years. And, Sir, with the prospect of that great boon to the people of Canada so near, it would be a grave mistake and a great wrong for this House to refuse to take advantage of the opportunity which is presented. It is not plain sailing on either side of the boundary line. My hon. friend rather conveyed the impression that there is an intense desire on the otheT side of the line to achieve this arrangement. We who read the public press know that my hon. friend hardly put that matter fairly. He knows that on the other side of the line, as on this side of the line, there are interests which

will oppose this arrangement. He can turn to the Conservative press, and he will find their headlines announcing with triumph that this measure is to be defeated. Where? In the parliament of Canada? No, but in the Congress of the United States. It is to that body they are looking for hope and comfort. The effort that has been made on that side of the line to defeat this measure is exactly of the same nature as the efforts on this side. Perhaps the only thing in which we differ is that on the American side of the line they are fighting this thing bitterly because narrow and selfish interests, opposed to the good of the great multitude, feel that they may be affected. On this side of the line there has been no serious effort to discuss this question from an economic point of view. My hon. friend spoke of the shrieks that were made in support of this measure. I have heard of no shrieks in Canada in support of this measure; but I have heard and read the shrieks of the friends of the hon. gentleman in denouncing this measure, men in the press and men on the platform, who, unable to deal with this measure on its merits, are content to beat the big drum of imperialism. As the Ottawa ' Citizen ' of this morning says, it is an insult to the intelligence of the people to claim that the acceptance of a trade arrangement with the United States interferes with the loyalty of the Canadian people.
Sir, we have come to an agreement with the United States government as to the manner in which this matter shall be dealt with. We are aware of the difficulties in the United States, we are aware that their Congress will cease on the 4th day of March, and we are aware that strenuous efforts are being made to defeat this measure on the other side of the line. If that shall happen, it is not our fault. We know it will give great joy to some hon. gentlemen opposite, who, in this matter, are looking to Washington, and not to Ottawa. We have agreed that the government of the United States and the government of Canada shall use their utmost efforts to recommend and carry this legislation through the Congress of the United States and the parliament of Canada. We believe there is a happy combination of events at Washington.now which is likely to eventuate in success. We know the difficulties, we know there is a tremendous opposition there, as there is opposition here. I have strong hope that the president of the United States will be able to overcome that opposition in the United States, and that this measure will receive the approval of the United States Congress. But whether it shall receive the approval of Congress or not, one thing is clear, we will do our part; and if we pass this measure, and if the United States fail to pass corresponding legislation, then, in any future negotiations, our position will be stronger, we will be able to say: We have kept the faith, we did what we agreed to do, and if you did not do it, that is your fault.
Sir, I am not able to see any reason why we should delay. As I said a moment ago, there is a happy condition at Washington which has not prevailed in the past. We propose to proceed with this measure, not rashly, but in due order. Of course, we will have a suspending clause. Though we ask the parliament of Canada to assent to this measure, the Bill which will be founded on the resolutions now before the House, will contain a clause providing that this arrangement will not go into operation until we are assured that corresponding legislation has been passed by the United States. Therefore, there is no danger such as my hon. friend appears to apprehend. It would seem, from what we have heard in some quarters, that there is an idea abroad that we are going to pass this legislation, and put it into operation,, and that our American friends will never do their part at all. That is not the situation. We shall ask parliament to pass the measure, and we shall ask parliament to adopt a suspending clause which will declare that this measure shall not go into operation until the government of Canada have ob- _ tained satisfactory information that the United States Congress have done their part as well. Believing that this is a good measure, good both for the Dominion of Canada and good for our neighbours to the south, believing that the conditions are particularly favourable for making this arrangement, I respectfully ask the. House not to consent to delay, but to oppose the amendment of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier.
House divided on amendment of (Mr Monk).
YEAS:
Messieurs
Ames,
Armstrong,
Baker,
Barnard,
Beattie,
Best, 1 Blain,
Borden (Halifax), Bradbury,
Broder,
Burrell,
Chisholm (Huron), Cowan,
Crosby,
Crocket,
Crothers,
Currie (Simcoe), Daniel,
Doherty,
Donnelly,
Lortie,
Maodonell, McCall, . McCarthy, Maddin.
Magrath,
Marshall,
Meighen,
Middlebro,
Monk,
Nantel,
Northrup,
Owen,
Paquet,
Perley,
Porter,
Reid (Grenville), Rhodes, . Roche,
SchaSner,


William Stevens Fielding: PAIRS:
Messieurs
Edwards Elson, |
Foster,
Fraser,
Gilbert,
Goodeve,
Haggart (Lanark), Haggart (Winnipeg), Henderson,
Herron,
Jameson,
Kidd,
Lake,
Lalor,
Lancaster,
Lennox,
Lewis,
Sexsmith,
Sharpe (Lisgar), Sharpe (Ontario), Sproule,
Stanfield,
Staples,
Stewart,
Taylor (Leeds), Taylor (New Westminster),
Thornton,
Wallace,
White (Renfrew), Wilcox (Essex), Wilson (Lennox and Addington) and
Ministerial.
Lemieux,
Templeman,
Stratton,
Emmerson,
Bickerdike,
Geoffrion,
Conmee,
Ecrement,
McLean (Sunbury), Martin (Regina), Smith (Stormont), Tolmie,
Smith (Middlesex), Gervais,
Loggie.
Opposition.
Forget,
Thoburn,
Gordon (Nipissing), Worthington,
Osier,
Arthurs,
Boyce,
Blondin,
Campbell,
Clare,
Hughes,
Price,
Russell,
Smyth,
Bristol.
Wright.-72.
NAYS:
Messieurs


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee on Ways and Means.
Allard,
Allen,
Aylesworth,
Beland,
Black,
Borden
(Sir Frederick), Boyer,
Brodeur,
Brown,
Bureau,
Carrier,
Carvell,
Cash,
Chew,
Chisholm (Antigonish) Chisholm (Inverness), Clark (Red Deer), Clarke (Essex), Congdon,
Currie
(Prince Edward), Delisle,
Demers,
Douglas,
Ethier,
Fielding,
Fisher,
Fortier,
Fowke,
Gauvreau,
German,
Gordon (Kent), Graham,
Guthrie,
Harris,
Harty,
Hodgins,
Hunt,
King,
Knowles,
Kyte,
Lachance,
Lanctot (Laprairie-
Napierville),
Lanctot (Richelieu), Lanrier (Sir Wilfric Law,
LeBlanc,
Lovell,
Low,
Macdonald,
MacNutt,
McCoig,
McColl,
McCraney,
McGiverin,
McIntyre,
McKenzie,
McLean (Huron), Major,
Marcile (Bagot), Martin (Montreal, Ste. Mary's),
Martin (Wellington), Mayrand,
Meigs,
.Michaud,
Miller,
Molioy,
Murphy,
Nesbitt,
Neely,
Oliver,
Pardee.
Paterson,
Pickup,
Proulx,
Prowse,
Pugsley,
Rankin,
Reid (Restigoucke), Richards,
Robb,
Ross (Middlesex), Ross (Rimouski),
Roy (Montmagny), Rutan,
Schell,
Sealey,
Sinclair,
Smith (Nanaimo), Sperry,
Todd,
Turcotte (Nicolet), Turcotte (Quebec County),
Turgeon,
.Turriff,
Verville,
Warburton and White (Victoria, Alta.)-97.
William Stevens Fielding: I beg to move the adoption of the resolution of the 26th January, which is on the Order Paper.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Is it the desire of the committee to take up the resolution as a whole, or item by item?


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: We would like to have, first, a general discussion upon the resolution.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The whole resolution is before the committee.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Chairman, the conditions under which I was called upon to speak on a previous occasion in this House, just two weeks ago, afforded little opportunity for grasping the full import of the proposals which have been submitted to parliament and to the country by the government. Those proposals are of too grave and serious a character to be considered from a purely partisan standpoint. I desire, therefore, to-day to make a reasonable and moderate presentation of the views which I entertain with regard to them without making any attack upon the government or upon any one else. In the first place, I shall direct your attention to the condition to which this country has attained after some forty or fifty years of effort and endeavour, and I shall undertake to demonstrate, in so far as it is within my humble ability, that these are not proposals that should be lightly entered into by the Dominion of Canada at the present time.
I do not agree with my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) when he suggests that there has been ample time for the country to make itself acquainted with the nature of these proposals, and with their probable result, whether that result be considered from the economic standpoint alone, or whether it be

considered from the distinct national standpoint which is involved in these proposals. The motion which my hon. friend the Minister of Finance has moved to-day was presented to this parliament on the 26th January, just two weeks ago. On Tuesday last, twelve days afterwards, my hon. friend the Minister of Finance presented to parliament information which admittedly was necessary in order that parliament should have a real conception of what is involved in these proposals. That information was presented to this parliament about three or four o'clock in the afternoon, and it was proposed by the government to proceed with the discussion of these proposals on the following day at three o'clock in the afternoon. It is quite true that an arrangement was eventually made to postpone the discussion until to-day, but even so we have had in our possession for but forty-eight hours the information upon which these proposals must be considered by parliament and the country.
They- are not proposals to be rushed through parliament. They are not proposals which ought to be forced upon the country without the most ample opportunity of consideration and of suggestion, whether to the government or to parliament. What do these proposals embody? They embody practically a new tariff for this country in so far as its tariff relations with the United States of America are concerned. They are of so sweeping an effect that probably no one man, inside or outside of parliament to-day, can accurately or properly estimate what their future result may be. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance has referred to the reciprocity treaty of 1854. He has referred to that treaty as one which conferred great advantages upon this country. I do not propose this afternoon to enter into a consideration of the advantages which may have come to this country during some part of the operation of the reciprocity treaty of 1854, but I would like to point out that this is 1911, and not 1854, and that it is idle	for	us to attempt
to discuss these proposals from the standpoint of 1854, or even from the standpoint of 1666. It is perfectly true that during the latter part of the reciprocity treaty, which lasted from 1854 to 1866, production was greatly stimulated in this country, and, I believe, we got very high prices for our products, but it is equally true that this resulted from causes which do not prevail to-day. During a portion of that period there was a great civil war raging in the United States, production was checked in the United States, production was stimulated in Canada, and the prices that we obtained for our produce during the last half dozen years of the existence of that treaty were very much Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
higher than could reasonably be expected under other conditions.
I do not propose to waste your time by dealing with the reciprocity treaty of 1854, or with the conditions which prevailed at that time, except to contrast the condition of Canada as it is in 1911 with the condition which. then confronted the scattered provinces, out of which this confederation was formed. What was the condition of this country in 1866? We had not yet formed confederation. There were simply four, or five, or six provinces in eastern Canada, four of which united to form this new, this great confederation. The task which they undertook at that time was, perhaps, as great a task as ever confronted any similar people under anything like the same conditions. What was the task? It was to convert these fringelike communities, scattered along the border land of the United States, into a great and pov/erful nation, which should maintain its place upon the north ern half of this continent under the protecting aegis of the British flag.
The very first of our tasks was to add about 3,000,000 square miles to our territory ; to take in the distant province of British Columbia, and all the great uninhabited territory between ; to build lines of transportation, to develop and utilize our system of waterways ; to bind together into one Dominion the scattered fragments of our country, and last but not least to conserve and to develop the natural resources of untold importance which had come as a priceless heritage to the two great races that had united for the development of this Dominion. Sir, there was something greater than even that: There was the task laid before the people of this country to allay jealousies and prejudices, to create a national spirit, and to bring about that harmony and mutual understanding among the people of these four provinces, and of the other provinces that should be added in the future, which would contribute to the building up of a united and powerful Canada as the greatest of the Dominions which own allegiance to the British Crown. The task before our people was to build up British institutions in this country, to develop them in the spirit in which they had been developed in the mother country, and to do all this under conditions that might well have daunted men of less stout heart, because, it was realized that these fringe-like communities were scattered for 4,000 miles along the territory of a great and powerful nation which must possess a far-reaching influence upon the commercial destiny of this country.
Well, what have we done in that interval of 40 years? Indeed, to mention what we have accomplished it is only necessary to re-echo the statements that have beef! made over and over again by the Minister of Finance in every budget speech for the

last 14 years, and to add to it the record of the advancement in material prosperity of Canada during the past 40 or 50 years, not confining it to 14 years alone. I trust I may be pardoned that remark,
because I do not desire to sound any partisan note in the remarks I shall address to the House. Here are the statistics of Canada's trade comparing 1868 with 1910 :


TRADE STATISTICS.
[Stage Direction]
Total trade ....
Exports	
Imports	
1868.	1910.	Increase.	Per cent.8	$	s	116,000,000	649,000,000	533,000,000	45949,000,000	279,000,000	230,000,000	47067,000,000	370,000,000	303,000,000	450
Between 1868 and 1910 our exports increased as follows :
1868.	1910.
Produce of mine increased from	$ 1,225,000 to	$10,000,000
Produce of fisheries.. 3,000,000	15,000,000
Produce of forest.. .. 19,000,000	47,000,000
Animals and their products	 7,000,000	54.000,000
Agricultural products.. 13,000,000	90,000,000
Manufactures	 2,000,000	31,000,000
Value total field crops last year 533,000,000 Value total manufactures (estimated) last year	 1,000,000,000
It is therefore abundantly evident, looking at trade statistics alone, that we have made not only great but marvellous progress in the last 40 years along the path which the people of Canada have been treading, and from which path I trust they will not see fit lightly to depart. Let us look at some other statistics. Let us look at what these scattered provinces in 1867 had in the way of transportation facilities -and transportation in a great country like Canada with enormous area, with abundant resources and with a small population, is after all, the key of the situation. Look at these figures:
„	1867.	1910.Miles of railway	
2,240	24,731Railway earnings..$12,000,000	$174,000,000
1879.
Tons of freight carried..	8,000,000	74,000,000Passengers carried..	..	6,500,000	36,000,000
1868.	1910.
Bank capital	$30,000,000	$184,000,000
Including reserve fund.
Bank deposits	 33,000,000	925,000,000

[Stage Direction]
_	1868.	1910.
Letters transmitted through the mails.. 41,000,000 414,000,000

[Stage Direction]
1868.	1910.
Square miles.
Area	
337,524	3,315,647Population	
3,371,594	*7,250,000
Estimated.
Look at these evidences of vast progress and prosperity ; look at the advancement we have made in founding universities and schools, look at our progress in education. And, last but not least, look at the standard of comfort in life which prevails in Canada to-day compared with that which prevailed in 1868. I know. Sir, that in my own home in the province of Nova Scotia, when I was a boy 40 years ago the comforts of life as they are enjoyed at the present day were unknown to the people then. Observe the growth of our cities. In 1868 Montreal had a population of 100,000 ; I believe that to-day it has a population of over 500,000. Toronto had a population at that time of 50,000; to-day it is a city of over 400,000. Hamilton had a population of 22,000 ; now I suppose it has over 80,000. Ottawa then was a town which had hardly escaped the name of Bytown ; it had a population of 18,000 ; now it has a population of 85,000 or 90,000. Take the splendid cities of the west-Winnipeg, Calgary, Regina, Edmonton, Vancouver, Victoria. Some of them were mere wilderness in 1868, and for a long time afterwards. Vancouver, which dates from 1885, is today a city of 125,000 or 150,000. Will you tell me that we have not a right to be absolutely satisfied with the material progress, splendid, worldwide in its reputation, which has come to the people of Canada in the last 30 or 40 years?
What has been the line of development which we have undertaken ? We have undertaken to bind the provinces of Canada together. We have undertaken to create a great interprovincial trade. We have undertaken to do that by assuming burdens and making sacrifices, which, I venture to say, are as great as were ever undertaken by any people in the history of the world. What burdens have the people of Canada themselves assumed, that lines of transportation and trade and commerce might flow from east to west, and might bind together these scattered communities into one great nation under the British
[Stage Direction]
flag ? I will tell you what we have done- and I did not realize the extent of the efforts of the people of Canada in that regard until I came to look over the record a little. The federal government has expended in actual cash on railways and canals up to 1910, according to the records of the Department of Railways and Canals, * $-127,000,000; the provincial governments, $36,000,000; the municipalities, $18,000,000; a total of actual cash expended out of the public treasury of this country upon railway development in Canada since 1868 of nearly $500,000,000. But, Sir, that is not all. The federal and provincial governments have guaranteed bonds for railway construction in Canada amounting to $127,000,000 more; and in addition to all that, the various governments of Canada have granted, in aid of railway construction, no less than 55,000,000 acres of the public domain. At the present time, to complete the Transcontinental railway, we are proposing a further expenditure of from $75,000,000 to $100,000,000. We are also proposing to huild the Hudson Bay railway, at a cost of $30,000,000; and that is a work which ought immediately to be undertaken in the interest of our great 'western country. The Georgian Bay canal will cost probably in the vicinity of $100,000,000-a work intended for the further development of that splendid system of waterways which we possess in 'Canada, rivalling, if not ex-ceecling_ in its importance and "value, that which is possessed by any other country in the world. We are also proposing the enlargement of the Welland canal, at a cost, I suppose, of from $30,000,000 to $35,000.000. If, in the future, the trade of this country is to flow north and south, instead of east and west, what is the meaning of all these sacrifices that we have made, of all this treasure that we have poured out? What is the meaning of the Transcontinental railway, as it is being built to-day ? What is the meaning of the Georgian Bay canal, as we propose it to-day ? What is the meaning of the proposed enlargement or the Welland canal ? Have these any real national meaning to the people of Canada if the lines of our trade and commerce are to be diverted so that in the future they will run north and south, instead of east and west as they have been doing ?
My hon. friend the Minister of Finance, has referred to the conditions as they were from 1854 to 1866. As I have said, the conditions are absolutely different to-day. Transportation and cold storage-and we want a better system of cold storage in this country-have brought the British mar ket nearer to us to-day than the United States market was in 1854. In 1910, Great Britain took, of our animals and their products, $42,000,000 out of $54,000,000 which Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
we exported, equal to 77 per cent. Of our agricultural products, she took $71,000,000 out of $90,000,000, equal to nearly 80 per cent. In the same year, the United States took of animals and their products only 20 per cent of our exports, and of agricultural products only 9 per cent. The United States last year took of our agricultural products only $70,000 more than she took 42 years ago. What does that mean? It means that, after the denunciation of the Reciprocity Treaty in 1866, the people of Canada -were confronted with conditions which sorely tried their spirit; that they met those conditions manfully, with a high spirit and a firm purpose; that they have gone into the markets of the world and built up their trade there, and built it up under stable and sure conditions; and that it would not be wise for us to-day to depart from the path upon which we entered some 50 years ago.
My hon. friend the Minister of Finance referred to the fact that there was a standing offer of reciprocity in this country from 1866 for 25 or 30 years. It is perfectly true; but I would like to remind my hon. friend and all hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, of this one circumstance, which is of some importance in this connection, that it was the policy of this government, by their Tariff Act of 1897, as amended by the Tariff Act of 1898, to take off that standing offer of reciprocity, and it has not ibeen on the statute-book since that time-why? Because the people of Canada had entered on a certain path; because they had built up other markets among the nations of the world; because they had been excluded by high tariffs from the United States market; because they had met those conditions as they ought to be met, and they believed the time had come when that standing offer of reciprocity should be taken from the statute-book of Canada, and it was removed from the statute-book by this parliament without any dissent.-
Well, we did ask for reciprocity for many years before that, -and we asked for it on many an occasion. It is perfectly true that Sir John Macdonald, in making his argument for the National Policy in 1878, before conditions had changed as they have in the past 30 years-it is perfectly true that he made the argument hlluded to by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. It is- perfectly true that there was an issue in this country upon that question in 1891 ; and it is also perfectly true that in 1891 the people of Canada declared that they would continue in the path upon which they had entered in 1866, and upon which they had made a distinct advance through the National Policy which was adopted in 1879. The United States, during all these years, refused our proposals for reciprocity. Un-

doubtedly the treaty of 1854 was denounced for more than one reason or rather there was more than one cause which led to its denunciation in 1866. There was no doubt some feeling engendered in the minds of the people of the United States by certain events which had taken place during the war; but I have always thought that the American people ought perhaps to have .borne in mind the fact that some 40,000 or 50,000 Canadians had fought under the United States flag in the civil war from 1860 to 1863 for the maintenance of the union. There were, of course, some annoying incidents ; there was perhaps some lack of good feeling, but there had also been a good deal of friction about duties upon articles which were not em-, braced in the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854, and possibly that was one of the causes which led to the denunciation of that treaty in 1866. The United States did not have very much regard for the Canadian market in those days. They were a great and powerful and a rapidly growing nation, and it was said on the other side of the lime in 1854, and repeated in 1866 and afterwards, that the ultimate destiny of this country w.as not only commercial but political union with the United States. There were no doubt many in the United States who thought that the denunciation of this treaty of 1854 would oblige Canada to seek for commercial and political union with that country.
Let us for one moment consider why it is that the great nation to the south, having refused our suggestions of reciprocity for 25 or 30 years, has at last come to the conclusion that at present reciprocal trade with Canada is desirable. Let us consider for a moment on what that present desire is based. In the first place let me say, lest I should be misunderstood, that no one realizes more than I the absolute importance of our having the best and most friendly relations with that great nation, whose boundary adjoins ours for nearly 4,000 miles. That is eminently desirable, and no one will work or co-operate for that purpose more thoroughly and sincerely than I; but the United States have framed their policy at all times in their own interests, and the people and the statesmen of that country are too broadminded and generous to think for one moment of denying to this country the equal right of framing its fiscal policy as may seem best to its people. I would say this further. I would say that the United States, in many respects, give us a lesson which we would do well to consider and often to follow; as for example in their policy for the conservation of their natural resources, in the earnest attempts by their public men and men of great eminence, not in public life, to elevate the standard and ideals of public life in that country and to
make the people more thoroughly cognizant of their responsibility as citizens of one of the greatest countries in the world. In these respects, as well as in others, I believe we might well take an example and a lesson from the people of the United States to-day. But on what is the present desire of the United States for reciprocal relations founded? We know that fiscal changes in that country are impending. They have had an enormously high tariff as compared with ours. Their tariff is almost double what ours has been during the past 25 or 30 years, and during that period the United States have afforded the most wonderful example the world has ever known both of protection and of free trade. They have a great tariff wall around their country and free trade among 90,000,000 of people within their own borders. They are thus a most remarkable example of protection on the one hand and of absolute unrestricted free trade on the other. And they have made marvellous progress in many respects. The United States today is the greatest manufacturing country in the world. It is probably the greatest agricultural country. I do not know what the figures are to-dav, but I remember that some eight years ago I examined the statistics of the United States with regard to their manufacturing industries, and I found that the total manufactured product in that country amounted to $13,000,000,000 annually, and that of that amount they exported only 3J per cent, so that out of that enormous manufactured product of $13,000,000,000 they consumed nearly 97 per cent within their own territory. But there has been and there still is a powerful demand and persistent outcry for substantial reductions in theirvery high tariff. May we not, therefore find in the impending fiscal changes in that country one reason why its government is disposed to make a treaty of reciprocity' with Canada?
The high cost of living in the United States is put forward by the President in his message to Congress. The exhaustion of the natural resources of the United States is also dwelt upon by the President over and over again in his message to Congress, and I shall trespass for a moment on the patience of the House to quote four or five very strong utterances in that regard which may be found in his message. At page 5, Mr. Taft said :
If we can enlarge our supply of natural resources and especially of food products and the necessities of life without substantial injury to any of our producing and manufacturing classes, we should take steps to do so now.
On page 6 he says:
Should we not, therefore, before their policy has become too crystallized and fixed for change, meet them in a spirit of real concession, facilitate commerce between the two
[Stage Direction]
countries, and time greatly increase the natural resources available to our people.
And further at page 7:
By giving our people access to Canadian forests we shall reduce the consumption of our own, which, in the hands of comparatively few owners, now have a value that requires the enlargement of our available timber resources.
And it is perfectly true that the timber resources of the United States at the present time are not only very considerably depleted, but have passed into the control of comparatively a very few men who are holding them not only for their value in the immediate present, but for that enormously increased value which will come in the early future as the price of timbe r rises and increases in the United States. I shall give some figures and statistics in regard to that a little later on. Then at page 8 :
The opening of the timber resources of the Dominion to our needs will be limited to no particular section.
I think then it is abundantly apparent to every hon. gentleman in this House that one of the impelling causes which have constrained the government of the United States to seek these reciprocal relations which they denied to us for so many years is the desire that they may have access to the abundant natural resources of Canada which ought to be kept and developed for the benefit of our own people.
Let us look for one moment at the condition of the United States to-day in respect of the natural resources which providence bestowed on them so freely. An authority in the United States, Mr. Gannett, says that the valuable and accessible coal in the United States will be exhausted in about 100 years. Mr. Van Hise, who has written a very exhaustive book upon the conservation of natural resources in the United States, thinks that estimate is perhaps too conservative and he believes that their coal will last for a longer period. The same gentleman whose work I cite because I believe him to be an author of repute and who seems to have examined the question very thoroughly, speaking of the wasteful use of coal in the United States, says :
In the last decade of the nineteenth century, more coal was mined in the United States than ill all the previous decades of that century.
And further:
In the first decade of the 20th century more coal was mined in the United States than in all previous years in the history of that country.
They are already speaking in the United States of prohibiting the exportation Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
of coal. The same authority says that the natural gas of the United States will be exhausted in twenty-five years.
Look at their iron supplies. In the first decade of the 20th century they mined 53 per cent of all the iron ore that has been extracted, they mined more in that decade than had been extracted from iron mines in the United States in all previous years. In thirty years more, according to this authority, the high grade ores of the United States, so far as they are known at present, will be exhausted.
Take their abundant supply of copper. In the first decade of the 20th century 57 per cent of all the ore extracted has been miined. The process of using up their natural resources is proceeding in that country at an enormous rate.
More than half of their timber is gone, they are using it according to this same authority, three times as fast as it is being reproduced.
Many hon. members in this House heard Mr. Gifford Pinchot address the Canadian Club of Ottawa upon the conservation of natural resources about a year or eighteen months ago. He has recently published a book from which I shall give an extract :
The five indispensably essential materials in our civilization are wood, water, coal, iron and agricultural products.
We have timber for less than thirty years at the present rate of cutting. The figures indicate that our demands upon the forest have increased twice as fast as our population.
We have anthracite coal for but fifty years, and bituminous coal for less than two hundred.
Our supplies of iron ore, mineral oil, and natural gas are being rapidly depleted, and many of the great fields are already exhausted. Mineral resources such as these when once gone are gone for ever.
Page 125:
The diversion of great areas of our public lands from the homemaker to the landlords and the speculator; the national neglect of great water-powers, which might well relieve, being perennially renewed, the drain upon our non-renewable coal; the fact that but half the coal has been taken from the mines which have already been abandoned as worked out and by caving-in have made the rest for ever inaccessible; the disuse of the cheaper transportation of our waterways, which involves comparatively slight demand upon our nonrenewable supplies of iron ores, and the use of the rail instead-these are other items in the huge bill of particulars of national waste.
We undoubtedly have in Canada very great natural resources. The government of this country, with the hearty support of members on this side of the House, have taken steps along the line of the conservation of those resources. We know how immensely important forests are to-

this country, important not only in respect of their value as material, but in their relation to the great waterways system of this country, and to the preservation of our water-powers, important to the people of this country in every sense. Thus when we observe that the President of the United States, over and over again, directs the attention of Congress to the importance of giving to the people of the United States direct access to the forests of Canada, in order that their own may be preserved, surely that suggestion and that argument afford ample room for thought to the people of this country as to whether or not they should accept these proposals.
Why did Canada want reciprocity in 1866 and for many years afterwards and why ought we to hesitate before embarking upon any proposal of that kind to-day? In the first place, we are not helpless to-day as we were in 1866. We have built up a great interprovincial trade, we have found stable and sure markets in Great Britain where the producers of the United States are our competitors. Transportation and cold storage have changed the whole situation from what it was in 1866, from what it was in 1878, from what it was even in 1891. The British markets are nearer to-day than the United States markets were fifty years ago. These proposals, in short, change the whole current of our industries and are likely to dislocate our national development. Further than that the now proposed markets will, according to the proposals of the government, be so entirely unstable and insecure that after having had the benefit of them for five years or even less, we may be obliged at the end of that period to go back just where we were, twenty-five years ago, to build up our industries again, to make a reputation for our bacon, our chee:se, our butter in the markets of the old country, and surely no one of us believes that these markets which we may abandon for the moment will be left unoccupied by the people of Argentina, and other countries which have been competing with us in the past in those very markets.
We want to conserve our natural resources as I have said. We do not desire that they should remain undeveloped, but we want to develop them ourselves, not for the benefit of the few, but for the benefit of the whole people of Canada, and to develop them in such a way that not only the national wealth, but the individual wealth of the entire people of Canada will be increased by these resources.
Now in view of the statistics which I have given, are we not moving along the line of material progress and development about as fast as we could expect to go, and about as fast as it is desirable to gor Are we not at the present time following
a perfectly sure and safe path? Have we not markets on the stability of which we can depend at all times in the future, as we have been able to depend upon them at all times during the past thirty or forty years? Is there not reason to believe, with increasing facilities of transportation, with the cheaper rates, which I hope will be secured, writ,h better cold storage, is there not every reason to believe that the markets of the British islands will in the future ibe even more open to the people of Canada, than they have been in the past? Are not these very good reasons why we should be satisfied with the position we now hold. To use a well-known expression, ' What we have we will hold,' in that regard. But the proposals of this government, if they mean anything at all, seem to me to mean a complete, an unnecessary, an unwise departure from that path which we have pursued with so much success.
Then there is another consideration, and that is the delicate character of the agreement which has been entered into by this government. It is not a treaty, says my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. In the letters which constitute the result of the negotiations it is alleged that both parties expect and hope that this arrangement will continue for a considerable time. What is our position in regard to those items of the tariff which we may desire to change? If we desire to put a duty on any article, that is upon the free list under these proposals, are we at liberty to do so? Yes. says the Minister of Finance, you will be at absolute liberty to do so, and the proposals say so in distinct terms. What will be the result of that? He told us the other day that it "was everything or nothing. Will not that condition bind us after we have once assented to these proposals, and will not our tariff have to remain fixed? Will it not still be our everything or nothing then? I see no reason wlhy that condition, with which the Minister of Finance says we are confronted to-day, will not continue at all times in the future. If we alter one single item in that tariff the United States will have the right to say : The whole arrangement is off ; in the words of your own Fi nance Minister, it is everything or nothing. Is that a desirble condition for this country to enter into for the purpose of finding a new market? Is it for this that we are to abandon the stable and sure markets we have at the present time? A treaty stating a definite period during which a certain condition shall continue, is one thing ; it must be interpreted according to the usage of nations. But this arrangement which will leave it entirely open to either side to make any alteration, but which penalizes the slightest alteration by a complete
[Stage Direction]
abrogation of the arrangement, creates a much more delicate and difficult situation, in my humble apprehension.
I do not propose this afternoon to deal at any length with the economic side of the situation. It is perfectly obvious that certain classes in the community may see in these proposals some immediate future advantage which will be of exceedingly doubtful permanence; it is perfectly obvious on the other side that very great disaster and ever ruin will be wrought to some industries in this country if these proposals are carried into effect. No one can doubt that they will produce a far-reaching effect on our trade as a whole. What their exact economic effect may be, I do not think any man in this House is wise enough to predict with accuracy.' They do, however, seem tb be a reversal of our policy as it has continued for more than forty years. Looking at them from a purely common sense standpoint, if the fruit men and the market gardeners of this country see their industry injured or ruined by the operation of these proposals, are they likely to assent to a policy which will give them absolutely no protection whatever in this country, while they pay duties and endure taxation for the benefit of other industries? It seems idle to imagine that any such result as that can obtain.
Then look at the effects on our trade with Great Britain. I take the past six years by way of illustration, and I find that we imported from the United States during that period $581,000,000 of dutiable goods, and $502,000,000 of free goods, or a total of $1,083,000,000. The rate of duty on dutiable goods was 24-26 per cent, and the rate on total importations was 13-4. We imported from Great Britain during the same period, of dutiable goods, $542,000,000, and of free goods, $113,000,000, or a total of $455,000,000. The rate on dutiable goods from Great Britain was 24-78 per cent, as compared with 24-26 per cent upon goods imported from the United States. The rate on the total imports from Great Britain was 18-64 per cent, as compared with 13-4 per cent upon total imports from the United States. Now we talk about a preference in our markets to the -producers of Great Britain. As a matter of fact, taking the duitable goods alone, the British importer into Canada is paying higher duties to the revenues of this country than the United States importer. I remember well that the present Minister of Trade and Commerce, in years gone by, declared when he was in opposition that a condition of that kind amounted virtually to a discrimination against Great Britain. What are the figures respecting exports? Our exports to the United States during the six Mr. BURDEN (Halifax).
years to which I have alluded, amounted to $506,000,000, and our exports to Great Britain during the same period amounted to $726,000,000. If you look through the returns of the Department of Trade and Commerce you will find staring you in the face the fact that dutiable goods from Great Britain are paying a higher rate of duty to the revenues of Canada than goods from the United States. What then becomes of the argument for a British preference? Can it be reasonably said that there is any real British preference? Then add to the conditions which have brought about that result, this dree list which it is proposed to create (between Canada and the United States, and the reduced list which is also provided for in these proposals, and what kind of trade conditions will you have in the future as between Canada and the United States on the one hand, and Canada and Great Britain on the other hand?
During the past six years Great Britain has bought from us nearly $300,000,000 worth more than we have bought from her. We have bought from the United States between ,$500,000,000 and $600,000,000 worth more than the United States have bought from us. Well, if you alter these proposals along the lines suggested by the government to-day, what condition as between Canada and the United States on the one hand and as between Canada and Great Britain on the other are you to apprehend in the near future?
The Minister of Finance has spoken of the influence of the United States upon . the destinies of this country. No one realizes that more fully than I do. A nation of 100,000,000, the greatest manufacturing nation in the world, the greatest agricub tural nation in the world, with its boundaries extending along ours for 4,000 miles -why, of course, it must exercise a most profound influence upon the future commercial destiny of this country. I might characterize it even more strongly than I have done. It has been said that they can lcwer their tariff and change our trade routes. Perhaps they can accomplish something of that kind, but I want to ask you, Mr. Chairman, whether or not it is wise for us to combine with them for that purpose? Are we wise to make concessions to them for that purpose ? Wider markets is the cry of the Minister of Finance. If the national issue is to be absolutely disregarded and you are to push the argument of wider markets to its logical, and, I believe, its inevitable conclusion, what will it lead you to? It will lead you to complete free trade and absolute commercial union with the United States. Mv hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) smiles at that suggestion. I do not know whether he smiles at the argument or in approval of the suggest-

ed ultimate destiny. But I would like to say to him that if it is good to seek wider markets, from which the rest of the empire is excluded, in the United States of America, why not have still wider and wider markets in the United States of America from v/hich the rest of the empire v ill be excluded? That path has only one termination, -and that is absolute commercial union with the United States of America. There cannot be much doubt, I think, about what that would mean. The President of the United States, in his message, on page 6. used very significant words. Speaking of the people of the Dominion, he said: ' They are at the parting of the ways.' Thev are at the parting of the ways! I think the people of Canada have indeed,	come to	the
parting of the ways, and that the issue of infinite gravity which is presented to them at the present time is whether they will continue in the work of nation building, in which they have been engaged during the past forty years, whether they will maintain their own markets as they have maintained them during the past forty years, whether they will preserve the autonomy of this country as they have preserved it during the past forty years, or whether they will undo the work v/hich the fathers of confederation began, and which their sons have been carrying out. Whether our provinces will continue to trade with each other and with the mother country as in the past; or whether we will impel British Columbia to trade with the state of Washington, the prairie provinces to trade with the middle west, Ontario to trade with Ohio, New York and Pennsylvania, and Quebec and the maritime provinces to trade with the New England states. If that issue is not presented to the parliament of Canada by these proposals then I certainly have utterly mistaken their purport and meaning. A book came into my hands only a few years age. It is written by a gentleman who visited Canada about seven years ago-Mr. Geoffrey Drage. I quote the opinion of a German authority and publicist from page 68 of this book. Mr. Drage refers to the opinion of Professor von Schulze-Gaevernitz, contained in a work which he has written on British imperialism ani English free trade, and the quotation from this German professor is in these words:
As Professor von Schulze-Gaevernitz has pointed out, a zollverein between the United States and Canada would be both commercially and politically the death of British dominion in North America. Political union must follow commercial union.
Then Mr. Drage goes on to speak of commercial union in these words:
Such a union would also he the political
suicide of Canada, who would lose the political identity which she has developed and of which she is so jealously proud.
I could give very many extracts, indeed, from the opinions of men in the United States. Mr. Beveridge, a very notable public man in the west, has given utterance to ideas, which, I am sure, have come to the attention of every hon. member of this House. Perhaps it might be well that I should quote one or two words from his opinion in this connection:
There must he reciprocity with Canada. Our tariff with the rest of the world does not apply to our northern neighbour. That policy already has driven American manufacturers across the Candian borders, built vast plants with American capital on Canadian soil, employing Canadian workmen to supply trade.
That capital should be kept at home to employ American workingmen to supply Canadian demand. We should admit Canadian wood pulp and Canadian paper free in return for Canada's admitting our agricultural implements, our engines, pumps and other machinery free. We should freely admit Canadian lumber to American planing mills in return for Canada freely admitting other American manufacturing products to Canadian markets.
And so on. The argument there is, and indeed, the scope of many of the schedules brought down to this parliament is, to hand Canadian natural products over to the United States producers with a minimum of labour employed upon them in Canada. Mr. Henry M. Whitney, of Boston, has written a notable article upon reciprocity with Canada, which was published in the Atlantic Monthly of October last. He says:
If we were to admit Canadian grain free of tariff charges, much of it would stay with us for home consumption; a portion would go through our ports to foreign lands.
Then, a little farther on:
New York and Boston and Portland are the natural outlets for the foreign trade of eastern Canada. St. John and Halifax are twice as far from Montreal as New York, or Boston or Portland. The Canadian Atlantic ports are not to be mentioned in competition with the American Atlantic ports for passenger business.
Further on:
The elevators for storing and handling Canadian grain should he located on this side of the line, and the steamers of the Canadian Pacific and the Grand Trunk Pacific should, in the winter time at least, find their home port in New York, or Boston, or Portland. And if under a reciprocity arrangement or otherwise, the farm products of Canada were admitted free of duty, the Canadian government would be friendly, instead of hostile, to the use of American ports for Canadian business.
Then, in a previous part of the article he says:
[Stage Direction]
What might ultimately be the political effect of the establishment of friendly trade and social relations between the United States and Canada, is a problem that had best be left to work itself ont in the years to come. It is quite possible, indeed I think it quite likely, considering the number of questions of domestic and foreign policy which might arise under such a condition, that the two nations would in the end become politically one.
And he adds:
But that would be a long way in the future, if it ever came to pass at all.
Mr. FOSTER.: He thought he was too strong.


Robert Laird Borden: Now, what about the fiscal policy which we are to pursue in this country? We should have regard to Canadian interests in the framing of the tariff. If our tariff needs any revision to-day, let us sit down and get at it and revise it for ourselves, and let us do it without the assistance of the United States of America, much as we respect that great nation, and much as we desire to be on the most friendly and intimate terms with her. When we desired reciprocity, the United States did not spring into our arms, and there can be no offence surely in the assertion of Canada that she proposes to keep her commercial and fiscal , freedom absolutely intact, and to proceed along the path on which she entered so many years ago. Sir, we should have a fiscal policy that aims at the development of our own country, at the employment of our own labour, at the increase of our own population, at the utilization of our resources. We ought to aim at giving the producers in Canada a reasonable opportunity of carrying on their business by equalizing the cost of production where they might suffer from competition under unfair conditions. We have natural resources in Canada which afford a foundation for many splendid industries. We have carried out such a policy as I have referred to for the last thirty years at least, and why should we abandon it now? Upon what should our policy be based? Should it be based upon an attempt to create millionaires in this country or to impose unfair conditions upon any portion of the community? Not by any means. I believe that we in Canada, in the future still more than in the past, should attempt to shape our tariff upon scientific consideration of known facts. 1 believe it would be well that we should have exact information as to these matters laid before parliament. I believe it would be well if we established a permanent tariff commission in Canada so that our tariff should not be made by rule of thumb. An agitation arises in some part of the country against a duty of 25 per cent, and it is said it Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
should be reduced to 15 per cent. The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Customs get together and conclude that it ought to be reduced to 15 per cent. Then the. industries affected declare in strident tones that a reduction of 15 per cent would absolutely wipe them out and throw thousands of men out of employment. Thereupon the Minister of Customs and the Minister of Finance say: We will compromise, and we will make it 20 per cent. I do not think that is the manner in which onr tariff should be framed; I think it should aim at equalization of cost of production so far as that can reasonably be accomplished. We ought to give the people of this country a fair opportunity to create industries and to give employment, but we ought not to give it under conditions which would impose unjust burdens upon a portion of our people. My idea of a tariff is one which would give the industries of this country a fair chance, and more than a fair chance perhaps, to stand up against competition of countries where, it may be, the standard of living among the labouring people is lower than in Canada, and lower than it ought to be any where. That I think is a reasonable proposition. A permanent tariff commission if established would be the most fitting authority to decide as to these points. I understand, of course, that there are complexities. I understand that the problem of transportation must come in; I understand that the problem of great combinations of capital in other countries must be considered; I understand that a great factory which has an annual output of $20,000,000 can sell its products at a much lower price than a factory the annual output of which is only $1,000,000, but I would insist that we should have reasonable and accurate information as to all this. We can guard against our own trusts and combines by appropriate legislation passed by the parliament of Canada, but we have no means, except our tariff, to guard against the trusts and combines of other countries. I would like to tell hon. gentlemen that there are some curious positions which we do not all appreciate, connected with tariff questions. I remember that some years ago I was talking to a big manufacturer and I said to him: There is an outcry from men in your industry for an increase in the tariff, and he said:	I am
not joining in it, I am opposed to it. I told him I was surprised at that, and he said: You will not be surprised when you learn the reason, and I will tell it to you: A great many factories in this industry have gone out of business during the past few years, there are only a few left now beside myself, I am strong enough to keep on under this tariff although I will not make any money at present, but my com-

petitors in Canada are not as strong as I, and they are hound to go to the wail, and I want them to go to the wall. It is for that reason I am opposing any change in the tariff upon my line of industry at the present time. Remember that after all there is something in competition, under a reasonable tariff, which makes for reduction in the price of products. The hon. gentleman from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen), presented a very forceful argument to this House with respect to the duties on agricultural implements, and I say that the government of Canada ought to be in a position now to lay before the House information which would either corroborate or displace the facts presented by my hon. friend^ (Mr. Meighen). So far as agricultural implements are concerned the proposals submitted by the government are not along the line of the facts which my hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) presented. They deal in exactly the same way with some articles upon which he admitted he could not base a very strong argument and with other articles upon which he made a very strong argument indeed. Before the end of the session the government should bring down, with regard to that particular industry, information absolutely accurate and definite with respect to the cost of production, and having that information it would be in order for parliament to deal with the question according to the light which would be shed by that information upon the very important subject which that hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen) brought before this House. The statements of my hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) have not up to the present date been controverted by any member of the government, and if not controverted I think all must admit that they call for some action by the government and by parliament.
Earlier in the session my hon. friend the Prime Minister has .spoken, and I have spoken, of a certain feeling among the people in the western part of Canada that fiscal conditions in this country at the present time are not perfectly fair to them.
I feel that after all the question of trans. portation is the question which, coupled with that of terminal elevators, most intimately affects the west. Some years ago when I was in western Canada a great many farmers spoke to me on matters directly affecting the people of that part of the country. One big farmer who sought an interview with me dwelt most vigorously upon the needs of the west in respect to transportation, and I was very much impressed by his observations. He said:
' There is a good deal of outcry in this part of the country about the duties on agri-105
cultural implements and the duties on other articles, but I am not very much disposed to join in that outcry. We deepthinking men are more concerned with the question of cheap transportation of our products than we are with the question of paying $25 or $30 a year on our agricultural implements/ And, so I believe that the question of transportation is the most vital question with the people of the west. The government should deal promptly and effectively with that question, and with the grievances which have arisen in the west in that connection, and they would find the people of the west disposed to treat the fiscal question in a broad-minded and generous spirit; after all, the day will come when the people of western Canada will see tall smoke stacks, and great and important manufacturing industries in all our western cities.
The west is very much concerned at the present time about the building of the Hudson Bay railway. There is not absolute unanimity of opinion in this country as to the relief that will be brought to the people of the west by the construction of that road. I hope it may bring to them all the relief they expect, but beyond question, in justice to the west it ought to be pushed to completion without any delay. Further than that, I think the government ought to have regard to the wishes of the west as to the operation of that road. It should not be placed under the absolute and sole control of any one transportation line, but it ought to be operated by means of a commission so as to give to every one of the great railways of the west equal rights over it, and to give to the people of this country complete control of. rates. If the government are prepared to deal with the construction of the Hudson Bay railway along these lines, they will fin'd the members on this side of the House prepared to give their proposals a warm support.
Then, there was the question of terminal elevators which the right hon. gentleman found confronting him when he went west last year. I have spoken of that already during this session. I believe the government ought to take steps to operate these terminal elevators, and I see no reason why that could not be done by a commission. It may be said that is a great undertaking ; but is it a greater or more important undertaking than the establishment of the Railway Commission of Canada, with all the enormous powers devolving upon that body? Suppose we had a commission to take charge' of these elevators, to lease them, and to operate them, so that there would be absolutely no question of the grading of the wheat that went through them, and no injustice done to western producers of grain, I venture to say that the people of eastern Canada



*would support the government in a proposal of that kind. I advocated in this House in 1903 the equipment of every one of our gre-at ports in Canada as a national port.
I helieve that was a wise policy, and I believe it would be one step along that line for the government to take charge of these terminal elevators and operate them under such conditions as would satisfy the farmers of the west.
Then, Sir, as to cold storage and refrigeration and the establishment of abattoirs in the west, we on this side of the House have already stated our position. Considering that we have this great gap of 800 miles of uninhabited country between the east and west of Canada, I think it is worth while for the east to make every reasonable concession to the west in order that there may be no apparent divergence of interest between the east and the west, but that east and west, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, may join together in the upbuilding of our great federation.
I trust that the Prime Minister will not proceed hastily with these reciprocity proposals. The country has had very little time to consider them. As far as I am concerned, my opinion with respect to them has, I trust, been made fairly clear to this House this *afternoon. I think the Prime Minister would do well to withdraw them from the consideration of the House at the present time, and to await some further developments. We have .begun a great work in this country. Two great races whose mother tongues are spoken in this parliament came into the inheritance of this great country under the providence of God. Our fathers endured many hardships and made wonderful sacrifices in planting their homes in this then western wilderness. In times of peril both races have poured out their blood without stint in defence of their common country. In the work of upbuilding a strong nation and a great civilization under the British flag, on the northern half of this continent, they have laboured side by side with mutual sympathy and with high purpose. The heaviest burdens have been lifted, the greatest obstacles have been overcome, the most difficult part of the task has been accomplished. I trust that the Canadian people will not lightly relinquish the task to which their energies and the energies of their fathers have been consecrated for so many years. I trust that the standard will not be thrown aside and the retreat sounded when the battle is more than half won. The self-denials, the sacrifices, the patriotism, demanded of us today in order that this nation may maintain and carry out the ideals and the purposes for which it was called into existence are as nothing to those which were required of our fathers who founded this confederation. Loyalty to their memory and to the ideals Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
which they consecrated demands that we should continue with firm heart and unabated hope upon the path on which we entered nearly fifty years ago.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs).: In rising to address you, Mr. Speaker, in reply to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, I must say that I fail to quite understand the position he has taken on this question. That mav be due wholly to my fault or partly, perhaps, to his. True, he said he did not wish to discuss the economical aspects of the question, and therefore postponed any remarks he might have to make on the several items in the agreement before us. My hon. friend contented himself with a review of the past history of this country and its progress. He did not intend, he said, to go back and discuss the old Reciprocity Treaty of 1854, because that would be ancient history; but he did go back to 1866 and spent a large portion of his time in depicting the progress which Canada has made from that day to this. That progress was, of course, very gratifying to every member of this House; but my hon. friend failed to observe-perhaps it was by mistake-that the most notable progress which this country has made, has been made during the last 15 years during which, the Liberal party has administered its affairs. Any one who will look at the records of our trade cannot fail to be struck by that fact very forcibly. And no doubt the greatest factor in this progress, has been the carrying out by this government of a platforrn laid down 'by the Liberal convention in 1893.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Paterson: I repeat that the change of element in that progress, has been the policy of this government, in carrying out that convention and making trade freer with the whole world, more particularly with Great Britain and the United States.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Paterson: The Liberal party, in convention, assembled in this city in 1893, promised that should the people elect it to office, it would carry out the platform then laid down. Shortly after assuming office, steps were taken in the direction of making trade freer between Canada and Great Britain. The British preference was granted which gave a strong impetus to the trade of this country. At one bound our trade exceeded what it had ever reach-

ed before, under previous administrations. Our exports to Britain were, of course, admitted free into the English market, but we made trade between the two countries freer still, 'by reducing the duties on British goods, thus inducing a greater flow of British goods into this country and augmenting very materially the total trade between the two. We also made an honest effort to promote freer trade with our friends to the south. My hon. colleague and leader, the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), and another member of the cabinet early took action to see if anything could be done in that direction. In this they^ were not successful. The minds of our friends to the south were not then inclined to freer commercial intercourse, and from that day until a very short time ago, although we were ready at any time to listen to any proposal that might be for the benefit of both countries, we were unable to accomplish anything. However, to-day our friends to the south, are viewing things in a somewhat different light and are showing a disposition to have freer trade relations with us, and did make overtures to us to that effect. We met their approaches in the spirit in which they were made, with the result that my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), and myself have been able to effect an arrangement which we consider mutually advantageous, with reference to a large list of articles, under which these articles may enter each country absolutely free of duties, and with reference to ahother list of articles, on which the duties between the two countries have been made uniform. That arrangement was made, subject of course, to endorsation by this parliament. ^ My colleague, the Minister of Finance, is now affording this House an opportunity of pronouncing upon this arrangement, and that is the question we are at present discussing.
The agreement arrived at is a mutual one,_ subject entirely to the approval of parliament, both as to its acceptance today and as to its continuance. The fiscal independence of Canada remains to-day with this parliament and will continue to remain with it, under this arrangement precisely as it has done during past years. The same condition obtains with our friends in the United States. Their fiscal independence remains unaltered as well, but an understanding has been arrived at, which will take effect upon concurrent legislation being adopted by the people's representatives in both countries. Steps are_ now being taken in the Congress of the Lmted States to ratify that agreement, and that agreement is now before the Canadian parliament for its ratification.
We were told this afternoon that this thing should not be rushed. Well there 105$
is no disposition on the part of the government at all to rush the matter. This parliament will have all the time to consider it that it deems necessary. But it is necessary that we should consider it. It is in the interests of that country that we should do so, and I propose now to give my views of the benefit that will accrue to Canada from this arrangement, and likewise to the United States. But in doing so, I propose to refer to the objections, in the first place, which have appeared throughout the press of the country that is hostile to this understanding. One of these objections made in the press, but which has not been made by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, is that this House should not go into the matter at all until the people have been given an opportunity of pronouncing upon it. But how could you ever initiate any arrangement in such a manner as that ?
The arrangement was made in the only way in which it was possible to make it, and made on the responsibility of the ministry. They are responsible to parliament who are free to reject this arrangement if they choose to do so. The arrangement was made with the full knowledge on the part of the government, as there should be on the part of every member of this House, that the people themselves will have an opportunity of pronouncing upon it, and that at a not very distant date; and! I venture to say that when an election is held this will be a live question with the people of Canada, that they will pronounce-their judgment upon it-and I expect that that judgment will be favourable. If it Is not, and if the feeling should prevail that they want our friends on the opposition side who may be opposed to this to take the reins of government, these hon. gentlemen will have perfect freedom to submit a measure to this House to repeal this arrangement. I do not look for any such result as that.
We are said to be engaged in an entangling alliance. Nothing of the kind, there is no entanglement about it at all. 'it has been said that it will tend to do away with the British preference. There is nothing in these resolutions that points in that direction. The British preference remains-as my right hon. friend the leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) told the people of this country, whatever changes might be effected or negotiations entered into there is one cardinal principle that will be maintained, the British preference, and it is maintained. The argument is made that by what we have done we will weaken the tie that binds us to the empire as one of its members. What force, I will not say what sense, is there in that statement? The British preference remains, goods -will go to Great Britain as they have

gone before, goods will come from Great Britain as they have come before, and they will come with a preference over the goods that come from the United States in so far as there are duties upon these goods coming into this country under the general tariff. Therefore, I dismiss it at once, without offence I would say the statement is not worthy of intelligent men.


William Sora Middlebro: Under the present arrangement, typesetting machines come in from the United States free. How does the minister propose to give Great Britain a preference in that respect?


William Paterson: There are a great many things that come in free, agricultural products, for instance, all come in free. I do not know that we can do any more in the way of a preference for our British friends than to give them a bounty if they want to send us some of these things, but certainly if they come in free from the United States they will come in free from Great Britain too, and that is about as low as we can go for any country. Not only does it seem to me to be a remark not freighted heavily with common sense, but rather freighted with an imputation that is an insult in its nature, that is that because we have entered into an arrangement of this kind with our American friends, the tie of loyalty between this people and the British people will be in any way weakened. The loyalty of the Canadian people lies not in that direction, at least it does not on this side of the House.
Another objection that has been argued, and it was argued at length by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), this afternoon, is that this change of mind on the part of our American brethren is due in a large measure to their desire to reach and secure some of the natural resources of Canada. I do not know that I am concerned to deny that if anybody wishes to affirm it, but what did he specify as the natural resources of Canada? In one of the passages which he read, food products was said to be one of the most vital. If the people of the United States want to get some of our food products, that is not an unnatural thing on their part, nor do I think it is a very great disaster to the people of this country. If we have wheat and other grains more than we consume ourselves we will have to sell them to some one else, and the man who produces them, I think, will not be very careful or anxious as to the nationality of the man who buys them, he will be more concerned about the man who will give him the highest price. But they say:	You
should conserve your natural resources, and keep them for the people of this country. All right, do not let us ship away any more of these breadstuffs, do not let us sell ourselves out so we will be in danger Mr. PATERSON.
of want. But I can see no force in the argument that we should keep the whole of the crops of this Canada of ours stored up because, perchance, by and by, we will have great, great grandchildren enough to consume them all. They say the Americans want our natural resources that are buried in the hills, our ores. Well they do, I believe, in a measure, but we want to sell these ores. Do the men of Frontenac and Hastings want the iron ore that for centuries has lain in their hills undeveloped, giving no profit to the people of this country, to remain there because perhaps sometime in the future our great, great grandchildren may establish a smelting furnace? If they do there will be enough of those ores left there to establish all the furnaces they want. Meanwhile are you to keep them locked up there? The men of Frontenac will not tell you so. The Kingston Board of Trade asked my colleague and myself, instead of placing impediments in the way of the export of these ores, to endeavour to have the Americans take the duty off them, and we tried our best to get them to do it. They met us partially, but they could not, in their own interests as they saw it, place these ores absolutely on the free list. But iron ore is reduced from 15 cents as it was, to 10 cents. From conversation I have had with parties interested. I believe that as a result there will be a fine industry created in the county of Frontenac, giving employment to hundreds of men, and yet hon. members opposite say:	Lock it up, lock it up, do not
have these men employed.
Representations were made to us by the proprietors of talc mines in the county of Hastings. They said there was a duty of 25 per cent upon that article. They said to us:	There is a duty of 35 per cent
on that article, we have immense stores of it, there is no market for it here, there will be no market for it here for years and years to come. By a ruling they made it more than 25 per cent, they made it equal to from 50 to 60 per cent, and they have shut us out of their market. And that would suit my hon. friends opposite, the Americans shutting themselves out from getting this article. But it did not answer our purpose, at least we thought not, and what is the result? We prevailed upon the United States, not only to reduce it to the old rate of 20 or 25 per cent to which it had been raised by a ruling of a treasury board, but we got them to put it on the free list.


Mr. SPROULE.: What was the article?


William Paterson: Talc.


George Eulas Foster: Is that something used in place of soft soap?


William Paterson: No, it is not used for that, I think that in its finer preparation

it is not used in particularly large quantities. It goes finally, I think, into .the adornment of the person. Well, then, they say: You do not preserve our forests, you are going to allow them to be depleted. I have great sympathy with the preservation of our forests, I think reforestration and efforts in that direction are highly important. I am much pleased to know that a lively interest is being taken in that subject, and that steps will be taken towards reproducing the timber as it may be used. But let me point out to the leader of the opposition that these forests are not the possession of the Dominion government, they are the possession of the local legislature.


Mr. LENNOX.: Not all of them.


William Paterson: 
Mr. CURRIE (Simcoe).: I would like the hon. gentleman,to explain to the House that one clause about pulp. Is pulp going to be admitted into the United States generally, or is it going to be admitted only from such provinces as do not put an export or stumpage duty upon it? That question is now engaging the attention of the people of the United States, and they do not seem to understand it. The hon. gentleman has not explained the question to the House at all. He says it is free or it is not free.	,


William Paterson: I explained it as it is in the resolutions. The hon. gentleman can read them for himself.


Morley Currie: There seems to be a difference of opinion in the United States, even in Congress, over the meaning of that clause. It is construed by some to mean that pulp and paper are to be admitted free forthwith; by others it is understood they will only be admitted from such provinces as do not put an export duty upon those articles in some form. Will the hon. gentleman explain that clause clearly to the House, and tell us what it means?


William Paterson: Well, I will leave the United States to settle their own matters.


Morley Currie: I do not think that is right.


William Paterson: As far as we are concerned, that is the position we are in.


Morley Currie: Evidently the hon. gentleman does not understand his own clause.


William Paterson: Oh, yes, the hon. gentleman understands it himself, but it may be impossible for me to make the hon. gentleman (Mr. Currie, Simcoe) understand it.


Morley Currie: I confess I do not.


William Stevens Fielding: The leader of the opposition was not once interrupted.


William Paterson: Oh, well, that does not bother me at all. I was saying that the point which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) laboured most, and where you could judge, perhaps, better from his utterances than from any other that he was opposed to this agreement, for I frankly confess that I was not quite sure, when he got through, whether he would vote for this
COMMON*!
proposition, or whether he would not, but the argument that he seemed to lay most stress upon was that we had spent millions and millions of money in developing our transportation system, and that it was largely in a line from west to east. He wanted to know why we should disturb this and expressed a fear that has been_ expressed in stronger terms than he did it in the newspapers opposed to this agreement, that our transcontinental roads would be interfered with, that the money that we had spent would have been, in a measure, wasted, that we were going to divert the traffic and have our grain carried through the United States, and that, therefore, it would be a very serious matter for us. Is the hon. gentleman aware that the United States roads south of Canada carry a large quantity of Canada's wheat to Great Britain and Europe now, with a duty on?


George Eulas Foster: Carried in bond.


William Paterson: Carried in bond, without any cost as far as the bond is concerned. The hon. gentleman knows that. Well, if that be the case when the duty is on, as it is on now, and if that has been going on for years and years, w'hat harm has resulted from it in Canada? I read some remarks in a paper-I forget the gentleman's name, but I think he was the local member for Fort William, or Port Arthur, or something like that, and here is the wail that came from him. It was sad. He said: If you make wheat free it will go through American channels. Well, I had the curiosity to look up the figures in reference to that matter. He said: Our elevators that we have at Fort William and Port Arthur can be thrown into the bay if there is to be free wheat, because it will all go south. He seemed to be in blissful ignorance of the fact that out of that very Fort William elevator 12,292,771 bushels of grain went this year through the United States to England and Europe, and that out of the elevator at Port Arthur there went 7,186,142 bushels. This was wheat carried by our transcontinental railways, placed in the'elevators there, carried from thence through American channels to Great Britain and Europe. That has been going on for years, and yet you talk nonsense about diverting the traffic and ruining the railways when wheat can go as freely through American channels with 20 cents a bushel against it in the United States for home consumption, as it will go under this arrangement. These are samples of the arguments that we hear from hon. gentlemen opposite.


Morley Currie: I wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Order.


William Paterson: 


Morley Currie: If he has the figures


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: An hon. member has the. right to ask a question and to interrupt with the permission of the hon. gentleman who has the floor, and until there is some intimation from the hon. gentleman who has the floor that he objects to the interruption I must allow the question to be asked.


William Paterson: Well, take it this time.


Morley Currie: Will the hon. gentleman state what amount of western Canadian grain during the past year has passed through the Duluth and Superior elevators? He has the figures and he ought to know.


William Paterson: No, I have not got them. But I have my own figures here, which show that there was a total export of wheat through the United States of 25,950,728 bushels. Twenty-five million bushels lave gone in that direction, 19,000,000 or 20,000,000 of it right through Fort William and Port Arthur, and yet, because wheat is free-and it goes just as free to-day in bond-these elevators are to be taken down and thrown into the bay, if you would listen to the jeremiad of the local member, who spoke in that way. What will prevent wheat moving over our transcontinental roads in the future? If Mr. Hill, as they claim, should try to hold up and frighten the people, if he is going to project roads into the northwest here and there and extend those which he has there, do hon. gentlemen propose to prohibit him from bringing in those roads? Is that their policy? If he brings his roads in there or cieates new roads, if he carries western grain down over his roads and over to England, shipping it by American channels, he will have to do it as cheaply, if not cheaper, than our own roads, and if he does it cheaper, who gets the benefit but the men who grow the wheat? Sir, I say nothing against our great transportation Toads, but I do hope that they will not take up a position antagonistic to this arrangement, which is vital in the interest of the country out of any selfish motive.' We have aided these roads to the extent of millions and tens of millions. They have reached a sound financial position, and if they cannot get the grain at the present prices their self-interest will make* them lower their rates rather than give up the carrying of the grain. It was said-I am sorry to say- by a member of the British Columbia government that Mr. Hill was so anxious for this free wheat that he financed the deputation of farmers which came here. I am not disposed at all to deny that Mr. Hill may have ideas in his mind of reaching the

northwest by his present lines, or by more lines that he may propose. Mr. Hill is in the transportation business. The very papers that state that he finds himself cut off from his trade by other railways in the United States, and that he is casting longing eyes at our northwest in order to get our wheat. It would not be an unnatural thing for a railway man, a transportation man, to look for a source of supply, and Mr. Hill has no doubt come to the conclusion that I have come to, that you have come to, that every man has come to in this House, that there is going to be an enormous production of grain in our northwest, and if he does meditate coming in there to get a share of the carrying trade, and if he comes in there and gives rates to the people as good, if not better, than those that any other transportation road gives them, he will get that grain whether it goes through in bond or whether it be free, as it will be if this agreement passes.
Look at the report of the Department of the Interior and see the homestead entries for just one year, and then you may figure out what would be the effect upon transportation as regard railroads now in existence or which may hereafter be built. In the year 1910 there were 41,568 homestead entries made in the northwest, and of these, 13,566 were taken up by settlers from the United States representing 47 states and territories. From the older provinces of Canada there went 11,470 homesteaders and from the United Kingdom 7,331. These 41,568 homesteaders taken in one year comprise 6,650,880 acres, in addition to the 1,184,790 acres of land sold by the railway companies, the Hudson's Bay Company and other land owners. Just fancy that addition in one year to the land development of the west. The total area under crop, including wheat in 1909 was 11,960,000 acres and in wheat alone 6,778,000 acres and the total yield of wheat that year was 147,000,000 bushels and the average yield to the acre over 21 bushels. Have you figured out what this means ; have you considered, what facilities will be required to transport that enormous quantity of grain from the wheat fields in the west. Put it at only 100,000,000 bushels and to transport it would require 17 trains daily for 300 days, each train having 20 cars with 1,000 bushels of wheat in each car. And, Sir, it is counted upon as a certainty by those who know that within the next five years that production of wheat will be doubled and there will be all the wheat that James J. Hill, the Canadian Pacific railway, the Canadian Northern, and the Grand Trunk Pacific will be able to haul. Mr. Hill, may look forward better than some of you gentlemen opposite ; Mr. Hill may be more farseeing than most of you. To-night we have had the keynote of the Conservative attitude on this question, and
it is : Don't rush, go slow, we are well enough now, let things alone.


An hon. MEMBER.: Hear, hear.


William Paterson: Hear, hear said my hon. friend but my motto is : When you are doing well let things alone unless you can do better. And we can do better. And, men like J. J. Hill can see in the future what hon. gentlemen opposite are blind to, namely, that there will be as great a change in this country and perhaps as great advancement in the next five years as there has been in the past ten. And so we will go on advancing and advancing, and yet, we have the leader of the opposition rising to frighten the people of this country from a trade agreement that will redound to tha wealth and prosperity of our people, because perchance, as he says, it may interfere with the business of our freight transportation lines. Well, Sir, cheaper rates there may be for the man who grows the grain, and he will not be found grumbling very much at that, but more grain there wili be for the railways to haul. I think I can say without egotism that I know a little about trade, and in my judgment the agreement now before you for ratification, if carried into effect, will give a stimulus to the prosperity of this country equal to if not greater than that which ' followed our inauguration of the British preference, against the protest of hon. gentlemen opposite. I should have liked had we unanimity on this question : I should have liked to see hon. members rise above partisan feeling and consider with unbiassed minds what it means to get an open market for our agriculturists, our fishermen, our lumbermen, and our mining interests. Perhaps K may not give us a greater market for our manufactured goods, but will not our manufacturers be in as good a position as they are now, plus the fact that the population of the wheat fields being increased and prosperity being at)road in the land, they will have to produce more manufactured goods to supply the demand within our own border. I regret, Sir, that there is opposition to this proposal ; I regret it for the sake of hon. gentlemen opposite. I should have liked to see them rise to the occasion but if they fail to do so I can tell them this : That in spite .of their opposition, in spite of their cynicism and jeerings at measures which have been propounded by this government, they have had to admit that these measures were fruitful for the advancement of the happiness and prosperity of our country. Their whole argument is : Canada is more prosperous now than any country under the sun, and why meddle with things as they are, and, Sir, in arguing that way they are forced to confess that our measures for the promotion of immigration, the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, the

British preference, and all these policies which the Liberal party carries into effect in spite of the opposition of gentlemen opposite, have made Canada to-day a prosperous and progressive country. Well, I am sorry to say they appear unwilling to join us in this last patriotic movement for the benefit of the people of the country. All I can say, Mr. Chairman, is this, that the Liberal party, having taken these other steps that produced this prosperity, are strong enough and willing enough, if it is left to them alone to have the glory of it, to see that this, like the other measures, is carried to a successful issue.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Chairman, I hope that my hon. friend, who has dispensed so much wisdom in the short time that he has spoken, and has done it with such extreme clearness and distinctness of voice, will pardon me if I do not follow the points one by one, which he has been endeavouring to make. I am not tonight concerned at all in an endeavour to get the best of a man in argument. I am looking rather to getting at the rights of a question, which I think is important enough to engage the attention of Canada, and will be thought by the people of this country important enough to call for calm, sound and deep thinking and reasoning rather than declamation. In the course of my remarks I shall probably touch the points which my hon. friend has made to-night; but what impresses me at the present time, is the situation in which we find ourselves-a position which, in the first place, is unique. Neither in Canada, nor do I think in any other country, has such important fiscal legislation been undertaken in quite the manner in which this has been undertaken by the present government. In the next place, the situation, is one of extreme gravity. I may be wrong, but I have given a great deal of thought to trade matters in the course of my political life, and my conviction is that we have never had in Canada any question quite so important as this present one-any issue upon which hung more far-reaching consequences. The only one that, in my mind, approached it, was the struggle in 1891, when commercial union with the United States and discrimination against Great Britain was the slogan of hon. gentlemen opposite, and the cry around which centred one of the greatest political battles ever fought in Canada. I think it is a situation which involves in a large degree the fiscal freedom and poljtica] independence of Canada. In the fourth place, I think it is a question which is fraught with consequences greater than any of us can now see, but a sense of which comes to me and I believe to every thoughtful man in this country-fraught with grave consequences to the future of that' empire, Mr. PATERSON.
of which, up to the present time, Canada has been a shining and a noble part. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance appealed to history, going into a Tather long disquisition upon the record of reciprocity negotiations. Whether he did that by way of apology or as a defence for the proposal which he has made to us, I do not know. If it was the first, it was as good as any other old thing; if it was intended for the second, it is a defence, which I think, is inadequate, and which will not stand examination. History is very valuable, Mr. Chairman. It is valuable for what it teaches us to imitate; it is equally valuable for what it teaches us to avoid; and, if my reading of the history of reciprocity negotiations with the United States of America is correct, it is one which may well teach us what to avoid in the present and for the future. But, Sir, there is history and history, and you, Mr. Chairman, were no doubt quick to perceive that my hon. friend traced the history of reciprocity negotiations up to the year 1891, and then and there dropped it. Then occurred a long hiatus of twenty years in which he could appeal to no history with relation to negotiations for reciprocity with the United States of America. What did that mean, Sir? It meant that the old volume was then completed, sealed, and laid away, and that at that time a new volume was begun and a new record and a new history was initiated in this country. Am I right or wrong in that ? In 1891 the Liberal-Conservative party made its last endeavour for reciprocity with the United Staffs of America, and after the negotiations were ended and we returned home to Canada, the Liberal-Conservative,, party declared itself as done with reciprocity from the United States, of America, and that henceforth its duty was to develop Canada on the lines of its own self-dependence, and to look to the British market as the great, steady, stable market for our products. The old heresy had not yet been quite purged from the Liberal party, which pursued the quest until 1897. They went to Washington; they tried their efforts; they failed. They came back, and they made declaration in this House of Commons and elsewhere, that as far as they, as a party, were concerned, they were done with reciprocity negotiations with the United States of America. Let us invoke the record. In 1898, the right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, according to ' Hansard,' spoke as follows in this House of Commons, respecting the negotiations and their failure to result in anything:
Canada to-day is not in favour of reciprocity. There was a time when Canadians, beginning with myself, would have given many things to obtain the American market, hut. thank Heaven, these days are passed and over.

That is strong language; and it expresses what I suppose it was meant to say. But after ten years more during which neither Liberal nor Conservative party raised the issue of reciprocity with the United States, my right hon. friend stood in the Imperial Conference in London, and before the assembled delegates of the empire made this statement:
There was a time when we were wanting reciprocity with the United States, but our efforts and our offers were put aside and negatived. We have said good bye to that trade and we now put all our hopes upon the British trade.
Could anything be more explicit as a repudiation, before the assembled delegates of the empire, of any desire for reciprocity, and a declaration that Canada had given up the quest and had put all her hopes in the British market? Later yet, in 1899, in this House of Commons, the same right hon. gentleman said:
Canada has opened her doors to Great Britain in the hope that she would ultimately receive similar preferential treatment from the mother country.
This is my warrant for saying that from 1891 the Liberal-Conservative party and from 1897 the Liberal party-that is both parties in this	country-had closed
the	door	on reciprocal negotiationswith	the	United States	and	hadopened up	a newer, broader	and	morepromising highway for our commerce. But there is corroborative evidence. In a general election, if there be any live issue, it comes out on the hustings. After 1897 had passed and the right hon. gentleman had	made	his repudiations,	we	went
through the elections of 1900, 1904 and 1908, and I challenge him to show that in any one of those three electoral contests, anywhere in this Dominion, he or any of his party advocated reciprocity with the United States as a policy. On the contrary, the ideas which he enunciated in the extracts I have read, were promulgated from platform to platform, and it is not too much to say that we came to the conclusion, and rightfully, that Canada, as a whole, endorsed the action of the two parties and took no stock in reciprocity. I need not elaborate that point any further.
__ It was significant that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance closed his history at 1891, since which time Canada has made great progress, signal progress, despite the burdensome load it has had to carry in the shape of a rather poor administration. We heard this afternoon wha.t was done, what was begun, and what is contemplated by this government. Again I want to ask mv right hon. friend, after this exposition of the situation, why this sudden change, and this renewed quest for reciprocity ? Is not that a pertinent question ?
Why the change ? You had buried reciprocity. You declared that you had buried it The country attended its obsequies and did not mourn nor weep; and after it had been buried for 11 years, by yourselves and for a longer time by the Liberal-Conservative party, what has brought it to life again ? Will some one answer that question. Where was the mandate of this government to take that question up, to go to these conferences, to make this agreement and to bring it to this parliament and demand that this parliament shall pass it as being the best policy for this country ? That you did not get a mandate from the people is plain enough. You had a mandate from the people to let it alone, if ever a mandate was given, after the repudiations of hon. gentlemen opposite and the acquiescence in those repudiations by the people of this country at large. There were no compelling condition to force you on this question. Production was good. Never in the history of Canada has its production, in all its varied interests, been larger or richer. No blight had fallen on the productive powers of Canada, in any respect, owing to conditions which the government might remove. There was no lack of market for everything that Canada produced. There was quick sale, easy sale, no glut ip the markets, no molding in our bins and cellars, no rotting in our fields. Everything that Canada produced, and she produced richly, found a market and a ready market. There was no lack of .transport, everything ready for market had means of transport. The prices too were good, they were never better in Canada. I have just gone through a very important and useful volume which has been issued by the government itself, giving the round of prices for a series of years in this country, and the government themselves being the authority prices in the Dominion of Canada were never so high as they have been during this last five or six years. Where then were the compelling conditions in this country which cried for relief and for which relief could be got only by going to Washington and negotiating for a reciprocity treaty ? There were some few causes of dissatisfaction; we may reduce them to three. There was the demand of the grain growers in the w'est for free agricultural implements, or a reduced duty upon them. There was the fitful cry of the ardent and conscientious free trader, who with all the nower that was in him, cried for free trade, but supported the protectionist government of my right hon. friend, which rose here and there throughout the length and breadth of the country, and there was, in the third place, the wide spread dissatisfaction with the condition of things imposed upon us by the
COMMON d
United States of America in accepting a $104,000,000 free list from us and giving us but a $33,000,000 one in return, in buying from us but $100,000,000 worth, while selling to us $223,000,000 worth; of meeting a Canadian tariff of 26 per cent by a United States tariff of 411 per cent. There was a feeling in the country that that was not a neighbourly thing for them to do, not fair business treatment, not what we would expect from a great and rich and powerful neighbour. These were the three things that were mooted as grievances in the country.
I appeal to you, Mr. Chairman, as a man of common sense, if the grain growers and farmers in Canada believed that agricultural- implements were rated too high and that the government should either reduce the rate or make them free, I ask you, Sir, as a man of common sense what was- the scientific, the common sense, the business thing to do? It was for them to lay their plaint before their own, government and if they made good their case to get the grievance removed by tariff legislation in this House of parliament. That was the straightforward, the common sense, the business method of procedure. If their case was good, the government should have granted them relief; if their case was not good, the government, with equal strength and justice should have said to them: You are treated as well as others and we think you have no cause for complaint. The second one could have been met, was in process of being met, had this government simply remained at home and minded what the people had told them to do and avoided what the people had not given them any mandate for doing. In the United States of America what was the condition of things? A high tariff from time immemorial, growing higher through the Dingley Bill, the McKinley Bill and at last coming to a height of 42 per cent on an average on dutiable goods; against that a revolt broke out, a campaign was waged, and the slogan of the campaign in the Republican party was a downward revision of the tariff of the United States. The Republican party promised it; they were elected, they came into power, they brought dowm their measure and the Payne-Aldrich Bill ended not in any revision downward that was worth mentioning, but, in some things in a revision upwmrds. What happened? The people of the United States have a pretty sterling sense of wdiat is due from them to men who make pledges and then break them and they rose in insurrection. When the Payne-Aldrich Bill was going through Congress some Republicans raised the banner of insurrection in the Congress and in the Senate. They fought the Bill there, thev were defeated there, they carried the fight out into the constitu-Mr. FOSTER.
encies and in the late elections they gained the support of the people and the punishment which ought always to come upon men who make pledges and then cynically break them came to the Republican party. They w^ere defeated in the country and their day is just about over in the Congress of the United States and will soon be over in the Senate of the United States. What was the position? That insurgent force that swept the Republicans out of power was pledged to a diminution of the tariff especially on food stuffs. The Republican party in that position, the Democratic party were pledged to a revision downward of the tariff especially on food stuffs. It was known by all _ men that the new Congress soon -to go into power would deal with that matter and it was known that it would deal with it in the line of taking off and diminishing duties especially upon natural resources and food stuffs. That was the moment when this government should have avoided any meddling in tariff negotiations with the United States of America, but that was the psychological moment, as my hon. friend said, when he took it into his head to butt in and pay the Republican party for what was due and acknowledged to be due to the people of the United States, and what that narty would have to give at the coming session of Congress. That is the way that matter would have been settled and settled with better effect than by the present arrangement and without our having to foot the bills in any way.
That being the case wdiat happened? Just at that psychological moment-I think that is a good word-two men started out of Ottawa, two very estimable men, but not in any way extraordinary. Apart from their being ministers of a government, members of a cabinet, just lay aside their titles, and their positions, and their pov'er of dispensing patronage, and turn them out in the streets of Montreal or Toronto, and you would not find all the captains of industry, and the men of finance, and the great -business men of the country, rushing out and falling down before them, sitting at their feet, and worshipping them ; not at all. They are estimable men. But -does the Minister of Customs mean to tell us to-night in sober earnest that he knows more about the business of this country than the trained business men who have been in it, in one branch or another, from boyhood up, and are to-day the great captains of industry and men famous in their several spheres? Not at all. Neither would my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, though a very good newspaper man in his time, -and though a very good man in business in a limited way-I do not know that he has had any specially large experience, himself sav here in the House to-night that he knows more about these things than the
33X3

trained men of business who direct affairs in this Dominion of Canada. Now, Sir, what happened? These two estimable men, without any mandate from the people, without any call from any interest in this country-that is literally true-without any consultation with any interest from British Columbia to Cape Breton, these two men journeyed to Washington, consulting with nobody, except thirteen not more extraordinary men, with whom it is just possible they consulted, though I do not know-men of such eminence in business affairs as the hon. the Minister of Labour (Mr. King), men so versed in financial and high matters of banking and commerce as the hon. the Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden), men so famous in business circles as the hon. the Secretary of State (Mr Murphy), men of such fine financial mind and business acumen as the right hon. gentleman himself who leads the government and the party (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). Now, giving all credit to those men for all that they know-and they know a lot, a lot that they ought never to have known-but gi\ ing them credit for all they know, it was true that in the whole Dominion of Canada no one was consulted but these fifteen men, if even they were all consulted. What did the right hon. gentleman say himself? He passed through the west this year, he was asked for tariff reductions and tariff adjustments. What did he promise to the deputations? That lie would take it into consideration, but there would be no adjustment of the tariff until a tariff comission had examined into the matter, and had heard from the various interests. Did my ngfit hon. friend make that promise in the west? If he did not, will he deny it now? The right hon. gentleman did make that promise, he will not deny it now. Has he carried out his promise?
There is another thing the right hon. gentleman said: To one cardinal principle we adhere, that is that the British preference would not be interfered with. Did the right hon. gentleman make that promise? Did he mean it when he made it? Has he implemented that promise any more than the other? A solemn promise made by a leader.of a government to men who came to him with a tariff grievance that he would not make any adjustment of the tariff until -common sense idea-a tariff commission had been issued, and had found out the facts of the case, and got information upon which to make an adjustment. And yet he has made the most important tariff revision that ever was made in this country, lr. the face of a promise that what-wer vas done the British preference would not be impaired, he comes back with an instrument which, in almost every line of it, impairs, diminishes or completely obliterates the preference which Great Britain has to-day in the markets of Canada.
These two men sit down with three or four other men in a secret chamber in Washington. The receiver is taken off the hook, the telegraph line is cut, and for two weeks those gentlemen are closeted in camera with gentlemen of the United States, and no interest in this Dominion can get a word to them or a word from them. There are rumours, there are grave stories of what is being done, there are fears everywhere, and dislocation and disturbance in, every part of this country. The receiver is still off the hook, the line does not run into the room. No interest in Canada can get the ear of that conclave of four or five men who are dealing with the affairs of this nation. How do they deal with.them? On the line of justice and fair play? No, Sir. It is a strong word, but I ,am going to use it, they dealt with these interests as gamblers, deal. Now that I have used it, I will show you that I am not iar out of the way. If an interest comet to a government which is independent., which rules in Canada, responsible only to parliament, and that interest says : We want more protection; or want less protection upon such and such a line of goods, there is only one way in which the grievance may be removed and justice may be done, that is, to look into each case. try it on its merits, giving to the one or taking from the other because of the intrinsic merits of that interest which has to be taken from or added to. Is there any man in this House, Grit or Tory, who can deny that this is the proper way to do it? Is that the way that these gentlemen in camera in Washington acted? Not at an, Sir. The United States player shoved up his pawn, free fish ; the Canadian player advanced his, free fruit. Before the Canadian player shoved up the pawn of free fruit, did he call before him the representatives. o.f that great and growing industry in this country, and by a .single word ask them what would be the effect of this change upon their great industry? He had to go one better, or one equal to the American player, but he did not do it on any ground of reason or of justice or examination. The American player put up free dairy products to tlie United States. The Canadian player shoved up his free dairy products to the Dominion of Canada. Did he say free dairy products because he had consulted the interests-the wide interests-of the dairymen of this country, and had advised that those interests would not be hurt, and might be advantaged by it? Not at all ; he was asked to play up in the game, he played and so it went from one interest to another until every pawn was moved and the game ended. All that time, the interests that you were playing with were in dense ignorance of what you were doing, and you were in

dense ignorance of how their interests would be affected by your play. That is absolutely the wrong way to deal with the interests of this or any other country in the matter of tariff legislation. Did I use too strong a word? I do not think so. I was not vicious in using the word ; I just meant it, that is all.
And now, Sir, after having played the game they take the receiver off the hook, they connect the telephone with the chamber, and they let this parliament know that they have signed a pact. What kind of a pact? Did you, in Winnipeg, know what it was? Did you in Wentworth, did you in Brantford, did you in Kent, did any of you members of parliament who represent mightly big interests many of you, large interests all of you, know one single thing of what had been done behind your back and behind the back of this country? No, Sir, you did not. Now, Sir, the crime -for it is not much less than that-might have been mitigated if one course had been taken. Having no mandate, having consulted nobody, taking it up off your own bat-the crime would have been mitigated or I could not have called it such if you had brought that pact back to Canada and stood up in parliament and said: This is what we have done; true, we had no mandate; true, we held no consultations, but this is what we have done, and, having done what we thought best for Canada, we present that pact to the electorate of this Dominion and invite them to consider it and to pass their opinion upon it. If they had done that they would have followed the constitutional practice, they would have honoured responsible government, they would have been true to the democracy about which they talk so much, they would have approved themselves as business men and as statesmen, who have confidence in the people and do things above board. But that pact is signed, is brought back to parliament when we are half through this session and parliament is told that it must be passed without the dotting of an ' i ' or the crossing of a ' t.' Take the whole of it or take none of it! The Minister of Finance has the colossal boldness to stand up in this parliament and fling before it that pact gotten up by two men without mandate, consultation, or authority from anybody, or any great interest, and then cooly says that parliament is absolutely free to take it or not, as parliament pleases. No wonder sotne of my friends opposite smile. The Minister of Finance knows that he was stating what theoretically may be true, but is practically absolutely false. This parliament is free! I invite my right hon. friend now to carry out the words, implemented the statement of the Minister of Finance and to-morroiw take the free voice of your party in this parliament, let every Mr. FOSTER.
man vote as he chooses and pleases, and so prove say that this parliament is free. Will he do it? Will he do it? Not for his life will he do it. This parliament is free, but the government has pledged itself as a government to use its utmp.st efforts to pass that measure through parliament. If the government does not pass it through the government dies. If the government dies the party dies, and. therefore, the party is bound to support the government if it fears and flies from death and dissolution. Death is repulsive in every form, none the less so in its political forms, and the amount of freedom we have in this parliament and in this country is measured by the fact that the government has pledged its existence to the passage of this measure, and that if it fails not the government alone, but the party in the House and in the country in all its ramifications goes out of power and another party comes in. When I was listening to the Finance Minister going so glibly over his story, and as the extent and gravity of the measure forced itself to my mind I wondered whether the Finance Minister himself knew in any adequate degree or measured the full import of the agreement. Giving him all credit for far-seeing capability just as freely as I can give it to him, I have no hesitation in saying that he did not then know, he does not know now and I have not yet found a man in Canada who does know just where all this may end.


Wilfrid Laurier: The hon. gentleman had better sit down then.


George Eulas Foster: I had better sit down?


Wilfrid Laurier: If you do not
know.


George Eulas Foster: If the people ever perish it will be because of their lack of knowledge, and I have not the least doubt that if the situation in its entirety can be put before the people of this country my right hon. friend will find that he is in the great minority. My right hon. friend, in that contingency would have to sit down and with emphasis. Now, what does this measure do? In the first place it alters the fiscal conditions of interchange, not for a few unimportant articles, but a long list of most important products. It alters the fiscal conditions of interchange for all our dairy products, all our animals, all our grains, a large nronortion of our lumber, all our natural food products, all our fish products except sardines, all our fresh vegetable products, our mineral products, our wood pulp and paper, by transferring them in one block from the dutiable to the free list. Do we know just what that means and can we sense just exactly how far that reaches? But it goes further than that:	Our meat products, our grain pro-

ducts, our prepared vegetables and food products, a large slice of manufactures, are transferred to a lower reciprocal list, and another fairly large number of important products are transferred to a non-reciprocal but specified list in which the duties are lower. In gross, it takes $95,000,000 of products and at a stroke of the pen transfers them from dutiable to free or from a higher dutiable to a lower dutiable list. Every man knows that if you change the fiscal conditions of interchange of $95,000,000 worth of products in this country you affect in some degree every other of our products or nearly so. As I have shown $47,800,000 of our imports, and $47,300,000 of our exports are affected. Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to labour these different points beyond what is necessary to get them under advisement and thought. Every man in this House must realize the importance of a measure which at one stroke of the pen lifts $95,000,000 of interchangeable products out from old established conditions and makes a different fiscal system for interchanging them. Such a measure must be of a far reaching and wide importance. How far it goes requires business men of the best calibre to figure out adequatelv. But, this arrangement does something even more important: It shifts the base and conditions of production. It is true that production is of greater importance than interchange or trade, because trade is founded upon production and without products you cannot have trade. You must have at least two different productions in order to have a trade; one man raises one thing, another man raises another thing and there you have the basis of interchange and that interchange you nfeasure by your trade figures of the value of each. Therefore, though trade is important, the conditions and the base of production is more important still 'to be considered. And, this agreement if it goes into operation, shifts the base of production and not to the advantage of Canada in my opinion. For example, British Columbia is particularly adapted to the raising of fruits, and British Columbians have invested their capital and risked their future in the business and they have done well and aim to do better. They have accomplished their success so far through being fairly protected from the southern fruit growers who compete in their market. There you have the production of fruit that employs labour and capital and is of great importance to that province. East of the Rockies they produce grain and cattle; British Columbia has to get grain and the prairies have to get fruit, and there you have the basis of interchange between these two parts of our Dominion, and the products are both raised in Canada. Now, what does this measure do? It changes the base of
production; it says to the prairie buyers: Men in the United States will raise fruits and will supply them to you and you need not deal any more with British Columbia: it says to the prairie provinces: You may still raise grain and cattle, but you will send them down to the United States. You have the same grain and cattle raised, you have the same fruit raised, but one of your products has been shifted from its base in Canada and transferred to the United States. That, Sir, is the defect of this instrument which is before us to-night. These gentlemen opposite say: We are in favour of reciprocity? Are you? What would be the best reciprocity?-Reciprocity between the 'different sections in Canada itself that raise different productions and have different capabilities. Why, if you favour reciprocity. should you kill, or deteriorate, or diminish the reciprocity between British Columbia and the prairies? That is but a sample, but there are other instances. Take fish which is a great natural industry and a great business industry as well. Within the last 20 years a fish trade of large dimensions has been built up between the lower provinces and the rest of Canada running as far as the Rockies.
There is a production in Canada. The eastern Canadians want cattle, want grain, or want flour, which is raised in the western provinces. There are the elements of a reciprocity which builds up this country- both productions made in Canada and an interchange between the different sections of Canada. Now, what are. you going to do? You are going to say to the fish industry in the eastern provinces: Go, seek your markets somewhere else. The fishermen of the lakes and the fishermen of the Atlantic shore, because they have shorter routes and cheaper routes, maybe, to the heart of the great west, will get and give the fish that are required in the west. It will no longer be reciprocity between two sections of our own country. It will be reciprocity between the United States in one production and the west in another production. Now, Sir, that runs through the whole of this reciprocity arrangement. You talk about your foreign trade, and you bellow about it as though it were the greatest thing in Canada. I was going to say that it was almost the least thing in Canada. What is the greatest thing in Canada? The interprovincial trade, which is' founded upon the many productions in the east, and the wheat, grain and cattle productions in the west- the two complementing each other. What has made Canada so strong, and so great in her progress is this, that you have filled her veins with the rich blood of interprovincial trade, stimulating productions, in various parts, and then interchanging these productions one part with the other part.

I do not feel like finishing my speech to-night, and with the consent of the House, I would move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the adjournment of the House.


George Eulas Foster: Does this go on to-morrow?
iSir WILFRID LAURIER. No, my hon. friend would have a slim audience to-morrow. We will resume the debate on Tuesday.


George Eulas Foster: What will he taken up to-morrow?


Wilfrid Laurier: Supply. The Minister of Labour will take up his estimates to-morrow.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 10.20 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 10, 1911.