1914-04-29

[Stage Direction]
PRINTED BY J. de L. TACH^, PRINTER TO THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY.

House of Commons Hebates

[Stage Direction]
Speaker: Hon. Thomas Simpson Sprotile.
Wednesday, April 29, 1914.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. D. HAZEN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 168, to amend part VI of the Canada Shipping Act. He said:
The House will remember that as a result of numerous representations made to me respecting the pilotage matters on the river S.t. Lawrence, more particularly in the district below the city of Quebec, I recommended to my colleagues in January, 1913, the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire fully into the question. This recommendation was approved and a commission was appointed consisting of Captain Lindsay, wreck commissioner for the department, Mr. Thomas Robb, manager and secretary of the Shipping Federation of Canada, and Captain Adjutor Lachance, president of the Corporation of Pilots for Quebec.
The commission commenced the inquiry at Montreal on February 13, 1913, and a series of sittings were continued in that city and in Quebec. A large number of witnesses were examined and nothing was left undone to make the investigation a thorough and comprehensive one. On the 9th of April of the same year, the commission finished its report and a few days later it was submitted to me. Soon after its receipt it was placed before Parliament by me and in that way the members of the House became aware of the nature of the recommendations made. Before I had an opportunity of fully considering the report, the season of navigation was well under way and consequently it was found inexpedient to put all the recommendations into effect last year. All those, however, that were considered material to efficient 193
administration and that could be acted upon without obtaining legislation from this Parliament, were put into effect.
One of the chief recommendations made by the commission was for the abolition of the Corporation of Pilots for and -below Quebec. The object of the present Bill is to give effect to this recommendation so far as it is considered necessary to do so. The Quebec Corporation of Pilots was created by chapter 123 of the Act of 1860. This Act, together with subsequent amendments, conferred upon the corporation certain powers, among others the power to select and appoint pilots and apprentices, to prescribe the qualifications necessary and generally to control and manage the entire pilotage service for the district. Referring to these powers the commissioners in their report say:
The Minister of Marine and Fisheries, as the pilotage authority, has only such powers as may he left to him by the Corporation of Pilots under its charter, and the statutes in amendment thereof. This, we are convinced, is a very unsatisfactory situation, and the commission is of opinion that the time has now arrived for a change to be made, for the minister to be constituted the only pilotage authority in the district. Evidence has been submitted against any change hinged mainly on the idea that It might be as well to leave things alone, in case the change resulted in a worse condition. Such an Idea carried into ordinary everyday life would mean the standing still of business. However necessary the corporation was fifty years ago, it has outlived its usefulness and should give place to a more modem system.
Mr. SPEAKER:: I would call the hon. minister's attention to the fact that if is laid down by Bour-inot that when a motion is made for leave to introduce a Bill if is permissible to explain it clearly and succinctly, hut not to debate it, as it seems to me the hon. gentleman is doing. It seems to me that on one or two occasions before, as well as on this present occasion, the hon. minister has taken the opportunity of dealing with the report of a commission and discussing it in connection with the introduction of a Bill. That



appears to me to be going beyond the usual procedure or proper practise.


Mr. HAZEN:: I was asked by the right hon. leader of the Opposition to explain the Bill, and was endeavouring to do so plainly and succinctly; but in oTder to explain it clearly and succinctly I thought it necessary to make a reference to this report of the commission, because it is on the report of the commission that the Bill is founded. I had almost concluded and shall take but a moment longer.
Captain Adjutor Lachance, President of the Pilots Corporation, who was a member of the commission, submitted a minority report dissenting from the recommendation for the abolition of the corporation.
After having given the above recommendation my very best consideration I have come to the conclusion that it is neither necessary nor desirable to carry it out in its entirety. The Act that is recommended for abolition confers other powers on the corporation than those alluded to, and, having regard to efficient administration and control, there does not appear to be any reason to interfere with them. It is considered sufficient to withdraw from the corporation the power to examine, license and control pilots, and to confer on the minister the power generally to control and manage all pilotage matters in the district to the same extent and in the same manner as obtains in the Montreal-Quebec district. The power to organize for mutual protection and improvement of their conditions^ conferred by the Act of Incorporation, is a very desirable one, and if withdrawn by this Parliament eoulld be obtained from the provincial legislature of Quebec. Equally desirable is the provision made by which a ' pilot fund ' is established for the benefit of retiring members of the corporation. This fund at the present time is invested and managed subject to supervision by my department. No evidence has been adduced to cast even the slightest suspicion on the management by the corporation of this fund in the past. Holding these views I am unable to agree with the recommendation of the commission in this respect; but by the introduction of this measure I am seeking to comply with the substantial part of this report in its entirety. Thus we leave the Pilotage Corporation still in existence to discharge other duties, power to discharge which is conferred on it by the Act of 1860.


Mr. EMMERSON:: The patronage is taken over by the Government.


John Douglas Hazen: The management is taken over by the Government.
Mr..SPEAKER: I would say, with regard to this patricular Bill and the practice introduced in connection with it, that I hope it will not be taken as a precedent to be followed in other cases, because I can only say that it would not be done with the consent of the Speaker, as it is in my judgment irregular. It is not explaining the provisions of the Bill, but debating the need for the Bill -and the conditions which have led to its introduction.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first
time.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 162, respecting Saskatoon and Hudson Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Car-veil.
Bill No. 163, to incorporate the North American Accident Insurance Company.- Mr. Baker.
Bill No. 164, respecting the Berlin, Waterloo, Wellesley and Lake Huron Railway Company.-Mr. Weichel.
Bill No. 165, respecting the Western Dominion Railway Company and the Alberta Pacific Railway Company-Mr. R. B. Bennett.
Bill No. 166, to incorporate the Faroham and Granby Railway Company of Canada. -Mr. Baker.
Bill No. 167, to incorporate the Cornwall and Hawkesbury Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Alguire.

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

Mr. MACDONALD:: Does the Government intend to take any steps at this session to assist in the extension of the advantages of technical education in Canada, or in carrying into effect the recommendations of the report of the Technical Education Commission?


Mr. DOHERTY:: The whole subject has been under careful consideration and has been taken up with the Governments of the different provinces. The House will be duly informed of any legislative action which may be contemplated.


QUEBEC HARBOUR WORKS.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Has the attention of the Government been called to the following item which appeared in the Quebec Telegraph of April 15, in regard to the works in the harbour of Quebec: 'Mr. S. George Boswell, chief engineer of the Quebec Harbour Commission, has just returned from a six weeks' trip to the old country. The object of Mr. Boswell's trip was the inspection of the new apparatus for the Quebec harbour, now under construction on the other side. This includes a crane, a dredge, a floating grain elevator and a service boat. The fifty ton crane is being built by a well known Glasgow firm, and the dredge, which is of the ladder pattern, is being constructed in the same place by Wm. Simons and Company. The service boat, which will be a 125 foot, 1,000 h. p. craft, built on similar lines to the tug Sir Hugh Allan, used by the Montreal Harbour Commission, is being built by the Smith Stock Company, of Middles-boro, as is the floating grain elevator. The grain elevator, when completed, will be capable of taking a load of 35,000 bushels and will be able to load in about four hours. All the new purchases are expected out here in the month of June, and with the exception of the crane, all will cross the Atlantic on their own steam. The crane will probably not be assembled until it arrives in Quebec.'
2.	Has any of that expenditure been authorized by the'Department of Marine and Fisheries ?
3.	(a) Have any tenders Deen asked from any of the Canadian firms for any of the above proposed works? (b) If so, from what firms?
4.	In what papers have such advertisements for tenders been published?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yea.	*
2.	Yes.
3.	(a) Yes. (b) The Poison Iron Works, Toronto; Bosse and Banks, Quebec; Mus-sens, Ltd., Montreal; G. T. Davie, Levis; Allis Chalmers, Toronto; Canadian P. O. Mitchell Company; Collingwood Shipbuilding Company.
4.	Tenders were not invited in the public press.


ST. LAMBERT RETAINING WALL.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LAiNCTOT:
1.	Is the Government or the Minister of Public Works aware that the late Administration caused stone to the value of $5,000 to be carried on either side of the road between the town of Laprairie to the high lands of St. Lambert?
2.	What part of that stone already paid by the department has been covered by other stone carried there by the present contractors?
3.	Was the retaining wall, for a length of more than 700 feet, built with that stone under the late Government?
4.	Has the minister given orders to the district engineer to charge to the new contractors the cost of said stone, which is there and belongs to the Government?
Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes.	i
2.	All of it is placed in the work.
3.	Partially.
4.	Based on unit prices, the present contractors will only be paid for the portion of the work they do and the material they supply.


INDIAN HARBOUR LAKES POSTMASTER.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Who is the present postmaster at Indian Harbour Lakes, Guysborough county, N.S., and when was he appointed?
2.	What was his remuneration for the year ending December 31,. 1913?
3.	What were his proceeds from postage stamps at that office for 1913?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	William Riley, jr.; appointed 1st June, 1909.
2.	$43.25.
3.	$71.05.


SPANISH SHIP BAY WHARF.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	On what date was work started on the public wharf at Spanish Ship Bay, N.S. ?
2.	Is the wharf completed?
3.	What is the value of the material at present on hand?
4.	If the work is being done by day work, who is foreman?
5.	What remuneration has been paid to the
foreman?	[DOT]
6.	If there were other foremen employed, what is the name and remuneration of each?
7.	How much has been spent on the wharf up to this date?
8.	On what date does the department estimate this wharf will be completed?
9.	Who is the inspector and what remuneration has he received?
10.	If the wharf has not been completed, why not?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Only materials purchased, 1913.
2.	No.
3.	$625.
4.	Arthur McKinlay.
5.	$80 per month, amounting to $115.38.
6.	None other.
7.	$300 spent in fiscal year 1913-14.
8.	This depends on when appropriations are available.
9.	None. '
10.	Could not be completed last year, because timber could not be delivered in time and vote available then was not sufficient.


GOVERNMENT STEAMERS WINTER SERVICE.
William John Macdonald: How many tons of coal were supplied to the Dominion Government steamers Earl Grey and

Minto, respectively, at Pictou, during the past season while on the winter service?


John Douglas Hazen: The quantity of coal supplied the Earl Grey and Minto, from the 28th November to the 28th February, is as follows: Earl Grey, 2,947j tons; Minto, 947| tons. No accounts have yet been received for March.


Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	How many tons of freight were loaded on hoard the Dominion Government steamers Earl Grey and Minto, respectively, at Pictou during the past winter service season?
2.	How many tons of freight were delivered at Pictou hy the Dominion Government steamers Earl Grey and Minto during the past winter service season?
3.	What was the amount paid at Pictou for labour in connection with the said boats during months of February and March last?


John Douglas Hazen: 1 and 2. Earl Grey: Loading coal, 3,934| tons, loading and discharging freight, 7,137 631/2000 tons. Minto: Loading coal, 1,909 tons; loading and discharging freight, 2,649 461/2000 tons.
3.	$4,386.25.


THE CANADIAN MENACE.
*Mr. PROULX:: 1.	Have the Prime Minister and the Postmaster General received a copy of the following resolutions which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of the 25th April, 1914, as having been adopted at a recent meeting of the County Lodge of Montreal Loyal Orange Association:-
'Resolved,-That this Montreal County Lodge of the Loyal Orange Association, having learned of the action of Hon. Mr. Pelletier, Postmaster General, in prohibiting the Canadian Menace being sent through the mails, views such action with alarm and feels that if such action is allowed to pass, other periodicals may also be banned; be it resolved, therefore, that this County Lodge protests against the action of the Postmaster General as encroaching upon the liberty of the subject as well as the press, and calls upon all Orange lodges in the Dominion to pass similar resolutions.
'Further resolved, that copies of this resolution be sent to the Right Hon. Mr. Borden, Prime Minister; Hon. L. P. Pelletier, Postmaster General, and the local members of the federal Parliament.'
2.	Has the Canadian Menace been granted the use of the mails? If so, since when?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Yes, and it has beeh answered as follows:
Postmaster General, Canada.
Ottawa, April 27, 1914.
Sir,-
I have duly received your letter of the 25th instant, with reference to the privileges of the mails having been withdrawn from The Menace.
In reply, I beg to give you the departmental reasons for the action taken in regard to this publication.

The transmission by mail of letters, newspapers, etc., is authorized and permitted under a law which is known as the Post Office Act. A special department has been created over which the Postmaster General presides, and its duties and business are clearly defined.
Under that law, which is equally binding on both you and me, as Canadian citizens, the Post Office Department becomes the carrier for the transmission of correspondence and for all matter defined as mailable, but for nothing else.
That law gives to the citizens the right to use this mode of transmission for their correspondence and newspapers, provided they pay the statutory postal rates, but this statute imposes upon the Postmaster General a clear and well defined duty.
This duty is to follow and obey the law which has created the Post Office Department and the regulations which are based On the law.
What do we find in the law and in the regulations? In clear and unequivocal terms, they oblige the Postmaster General to consider as non-mailable matter and consequently to exclude from the mails:
1.	Explosives and dangerous substances.
2.	Letters upon the outside or upon the envelope of which there are words, devices,, etc., tending to injuriously affect the social or commercial standing of the persons addressed.
3.	Letters and circulars concerning illegal lotteries or other similar enterprises.
4.	Communications concerning schemes and devices, intended to deceive and defraud the public.
5.	Pamphlets containing recipes or prescriptions with the pretended object of procuring abortion, etc.
6.	Publications! matters or things of an indecent, immoral, seditious, disloyal or scurrilous character.
These duties are imposed upon me. Can I shirk them for the reason of free speech which you allege?
I am sometimes told (because we often exclude some of these prohibited things, most of them being French publications of an obscene character) that I should allow such matters to pass through our mails and then bring criminal action.
In the first place, I have nothing to do with criminal proceedings. This is another remedy placed in other hands. This other remedy is cure. The one imposed upon me is prevention, and we all know that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
At all events, the law and the regulations do not tell me that I should institute criminal proceedings after the fact. It enjoins upon me the obligation to act before the fault is committed, in order to prevent these things from passing through our mails.
You have a right to say that the law and regulations are bad. They may be good or they may be bad; but they have existed for many years. They have been applied very often and have always been considered very good and proper. So long as they exist they must be obeyed. Am I right or wrong in this?
Public censors are by law authorized to prevent immoral and indecent plays from being put before the public. In this case, the Post Office Act makes of the Postmaster General a

censor of what will or will not go through the mails.
When I decided, under the Parcel Post Act, that intoxicating liquors should not be allowed transmission through the post offices, I received many congratulations, but some dealers told me I was interfering with the liberty of commerce. To-day I stop dirt and filth from being disseminated in Canadian homes. Shall I be told that the principle of alleged free speech should in this case supersede the law of the land?
As I have no doubt that you will agree with me on the above, let us come now to the question as to whether I have used my powers at a fair and legitimate moment.
There are two papers called The Menace. One is sent to Canada from Aurora, Missouri, and it requested the privileges of the mails for a Canadian edition to be published at Aurora, Ontario. This application was made in the usual course to my deputy minister, Doctor Coulter, who requested that the publication should be submitted to him, as is usual in such cases. He came to the conclusion, without the least hesitation, that this paper published immoral, indecent and scurrilous things and he refused it the privileges of the mails. The Menace came out with flaming head-lines denouncing this and declaring-Doctor Coulter is a Protestant-that his action has been dictated to him by the 'hierarchy' and 'the Pope of Rome.' The matter was then brought to my attention. I looked through the paper and came to the conclusion that Doctor Coulter's action was right and proper, and I upheld it.
The question was put in Parliament as to the reasons for the action taken. I answered the question on the 2nd April by putting on 'Hansard' a memorandum prepared by Dr. Coulter, a copy of which I beg to enclose for your perusal. The newspaper men being anxious to see the text of this memorandum, I supplied them with as many copies as they required. I took care not to exclude the quotations made by the deputy minister to justify his action. Most of the newspapers on both sides of politics published the memorandum but every one of them, if I mistake not, omitted the quotations, and they informed me that they did so out of respect for their readers.
Members of Parliament, after reading those quotations in 'Hansard,' suggested that it would be more proper to have them expunged. This is the kind of thing I am now told should .be distributed in the Canadian homes in the name of free speech. Some of the communications which I have received in_ that respect are accompanied by several kinds of threats. My answer is that I will obey the law and fmfli) my duty whatever the consequences may be.
So much for the American Menace.
As to the Canadian Menace, the proprietor was told that the same rule would apply. The publishers came out with a leading article in large type acknowledging that we were right and undertaking not to publish this kind of obscene and immoral literature in future. They were told that the ban would be lifted, but, if they did not keep their promise, the privileges of the mails would be withdrawn from them.
Unfortunately, the question of religion and race has again been raised here as is so often done in our country by people who want to appeal to prejudices for their own selfish purposes, but there is no question of race and religion in
this matter. There are several papers enjoying the privileges of the mails which constantly indulge in religious and controversial recriminations, both from a Catholic and Protestant point of view. There are others which are at the same time anti-Catholic and anti-Protestant, and which pretend that Catholics and Protestants are all imposters. I have one of these papers before me at this moment and amongst other things I find the following:
' Of all manner of shameless imposters are the "Christian " priests and preachers who profess Christ and follow Paul, knowing as they must, unless they are ignorant of history, for it is a historical record, that Paul was repudiated by the early Christians.'
I do believe that Protestantism and Catholicism will survive this.
If I were to forget that I am Postmaster General for all Canadians, Protestant and Catholic alike, and if I were so bigoted as to think of excluding Protestant newspapers from the mails, there are others than the Menace which would be much more worthy of my attention in this respect, but the law does not say that a newspaper will be excluded because it is strongly Catholic or strongly Protestant, and consequently, I have no right to bar any of them from the mails for that reason. The law and regulations do say, however, that no newspaper, Protestant or Catholic, will be obscene, immoral or scurrilous, and it does not seem to me possible that you and I, as Christian gentlemen, should disagree in a matter like this.
Hoping that the above will satisfy you that the course taken by this department was the only proper one under the circumstances, I remain, dear Sir,
Yours truly,
(Sgd) Louis P. Pelletier.
C. E. Irwin, Esq.,
Secretary Lome L.O.L.,
155 Rozel Street,
Montreal.
2.	The facts as to the Canadian Menace are fully given in the letter just read.


THE LIGHTSHIP HALIFAX.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. LEMIEUX:
1.	Where was the steam lightship Halifax 19
built?	'
2.	Have any tenders been called for?
3.	Were any Canadian firms asked to tender?
4.	How many tenders were received, from whom, and what was the amount in each case?
Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	In the yards of Bow, McLachlan & Co., Ltd., Paisley, Scotland.
2.	Yes.
3.	Tenders were publicly invited in the Canadian newspapers.
4.	Four tenders were received as follows: Bow, McLachlan & Co., Ltd., Paisley, $127,384.82; Ferguson Bros., Port Glasgow, $149,649.79; Poison Iron Works, Toronto, Ont., $159,750; Hawthorne & Co., Ltd., Leith, $131,399.99.


CRIMINAL, CODE REVISION.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: Is it the intention of the Government to appoint a commission to revise the Criminal Code? If so, when? _


Charles Joseph Doherty: The matter is under consideration.


CHARLOTTETOWN-CRAPAUD MAILS.
Mr. J. J. HUGHES (Kings):: 1.	Were tenders invited for carrying the mails between Charlottetown, and Crapaud, P.E.I.?
2.	If so, how many tenders were received, and what was the amount of each tender?
3.	Who were the tenderers, and was the lowest tender accepted? If not, why not?


Mr. PELLETIER:: There is no mail courier from Charlottetown who travels as far as Crapaud. Tenders have not been invited for a service between the two places.
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND DREDGES. Mr. J. J. HUGHES:
X. How many tugs are employed in connection with the Government dredges in Prince Edward Island?
2.	What are the names of these tugs, by whom are they owned, and what is the tonnage and horse-power of each?
3.	How much does each receive per day?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	During last season four tugs were rented.
2 and 3. Tug, Wm. Aitken; owner, W. H. Batt; $35 per day; 51 tons; 38 h.-p. Tug, Fred M. Batt; owner, Island Tug Co.; $25 per day; 38 tons; 14 h.-p. Tug, Islander; owner, Island Tug Co.; $25 per day; 37 tons; 16 h.-p. Tug, Victor; owner, J. W. Kinch; $15 per day; not registered.


GASPE AND BALE DES CHALEURS STEAMSHIP COMPANY.
Mr. MARCIL:: Who are the shareholders, directors and officials of the GaspS and Baie des Chaleurs Steamship Company, Limited, the company which is to perform the service between Montreal and Campbellton under contract with the Department of Trade and Commerce?


Mr. G. E. FOSTER:: The Department has no information. The contract is not yet signed.


NEW RICHMOND RURAL MAIL.
Mr. MARCIL:: 
Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The tenders were considered too high and the department is endeavouring to obtain lower offers.


ROBITAILLE POSTMASTER.
Charles Marcil: Who is postmaster at Robitaille, Quebec, and when was he appointed?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Mr. J. T. Dagneau; appointed March 12, 1912.


BAY ST. PAUL MAIL SERVICE.
Rodolphe Lemieux: X. Has the mail contract between Bay St. Paul and Murray Bay, county of Charlevoix, been awarded?
2.	If so, to whom, and at what price?
3.	How many tenders were received?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Yes.	.
2.	To Louis Bouchard at $1,775 per annum.
3.	Eighty-two.


RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called: Mr. BORDEN moved:
That the names of Messrs. Carroll and Sutherland be added to the Special Committee to consider Senate Bill B-2, intituled an Act to consolida<.->
and amend the Railway Act, and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours therewith.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. BURNHAM:: I rise to a question
of privilege. In the Evening Telegram of April 28 it is stated in very large type, accompanied by what purports to be a photograph of my humble self, that I quitted the caucus yesterday because I was not in support of the Government proposal regarding the Canadian Northern railway.
I am in support of the Canadian Northern railway proposal, and there is no warrant whatever for the Telegram's statement.



GOVERNMENT RAILWAY CLAIMS.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. Reid, Bill No. 122, to amend the Government Railways Small Claims Act, was read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Blondin in th© Chair.
On resolution 3, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Loggie:
Mr. J. J. HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.):: Mr. Chairman, I was somewhat surprised last evening when several members on the Government side of the House appeared to treat this resolution with a good deal of levity. I was also a little surprised, I confess, to find that the Minister of Finance, who has always hitherto given a good deal of consideration to any question discussed in this House having reference to his department, and who is generally courteous to members of the House, apparently did not think that the subject was of importance. I therefore think the members and the minister himself are not seized of the merits of the question. It is an important matter for the Maritime provinces generally; for New Brunswick particularly, and still more for Prince Edward Island. The facts are that portions of New Brunswick, portions of Nova Scotia, and the whole of Prince Edward Island are particularly well adapted for the production of potatoes. It is also a fact that in the neighbouring republic there is but a small portion of that immense territory well adapted to such production. There are only ten states, and these lie along the Canadian boundary, that grow potatoes at all as a farm crop. These ten states comprise very much less than a quarter of the total area of that country. And there is only one state and only a portion of that-which seems to be well adapted for the growth of potatoes.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Which one is that?


James Joseph Hughes: The state of Maine. The particular portion of the state of Maine which is well, adapted for the growth of potatoes is Aroostook county. It naturally follows that there is an immense market in that country for potatoes; and if we of the Maritime provinces, especially we of the province of Prince Edward Island, had free access to that market it would be of immense advantage to all of our people. That the cultivation of potatoes is most profitable where the cultivators have access to the markets of the United States can be proven in two or three ways. One way is this: I have already stated that there is but a portion of the state of Maine as well adapted as the Maritime provinces are to the production of potatoes. Farm lands in that particular portion of the state, Aroostook county, sell for from $80 to $100 an acre, while farm lands in other portions of the same state quite as well adapted to the growth of other crops sell
for from $25 to $40 an acre, showing that where natural conditions are 4 p.m. favourable, potatoes are the most profitable crop that the farmers of that state can produce. Further than that-and it naturally follows from it-the farmers in Aroostook county, as a class, are the most prosperous in the United States. The average production of potatoes in the ten states where potatoes can be grown under fairly favourable conditions is only 90 bushels per acre. In the state of Maine, taking the whole state, the average figures are 177 bushels per acre; but in the particular portion of the state that is best adapted to the growth of potatoes, the average production per acre is 275 bushels. Now, we have sometimes been told-I heard it stated last night by hon. members on the other side of the House, who perhaps thought they were making a correct statement-that we do not send our potatoes to the province of Ontario; and we are asked why. For the simple reason that there is no market there for them, no steady market, and the transportation charges are so high that we cannot send them there. The province of Ontario is somewhat similar in climate and in soil to the province of Prince Edward Island, and I think, under ordinary conditions, produces enough potatoes for her own use. The same is true of the other provinces of Canada, but it is not true of the United States. More than thirty states in the American union do not produce anything like enough potatoes for their own use. There is, therefore, in the United States a steady market offering fairly remunerative prices all the time; and a steady market is just as important, if not more so, than a market that offers a high price at one time and a low price at another. In order to carry on his business successfully the farmer must be within reach of a market for his products at a reasonable price; otherwise he does not care to produce anything for export. As I have already pointed out, we can never be assured of that market in Canada. When we in Prince Edward Island have an abundant crop of potatoes, even upon a small acreage, generally they have at the same time a good crop in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia; and, although Nova Scotia does not produce enough potatoes for its own use, if we have an exceptionally large crop we can easily glut the market there, and the price goes so low that it does not pay the farmer to produce the crop.


John Wesley Edwards: What is the annual potato production of the three Maritime provinces?


James Joseph Hughes: Even under present circumstances, when there is no great inducement to the farmer to pay particular attention to the growing of potatoes, we can easily produce 250 bushels to the acre. In Aroostook county, in the state of Maine, where they give special attention to the growing of potatoes, they produce 275 bushels to the acre.


John Wesley Edwards: What is the aggregate production of Prince Edward Island?


James Joseph Hughes: I cannot give the total production, but I think that in 1912 something over 7,000,000 bushels were produced, on about 30,000 acres. That could be easily doubled or trebled. On 70,000 acres in Aroostook county the production was about
18,000,000 bushels. If we had access to a fairly profitable market, we could easily produce 20,000,000 bushels of potatoes in Prince Edward Island.
I want to point out one special advantage the farmer has in producing potatoes. It has been said that the continuous production of wheat exhausts the soil; for that reason the growing of wheat has sometimes been called the mining of the soil. The growing of potatoes or other vegetables can never exhaust the soil, for the reason that the soil must be well cultivated and tilled every year in order to produce a good crop. After a good crop of potatoes has been produced on any soil you can get from, that soil almost any crop you wish to grow, particularly clover, which is a very valuable crop, enabling the farmer to feed his stock and enrich the soil at the same time. No part of Prince Edward Island is far from the sea, and an abundance of sea manure which is especially valuable for the growing of potatoes, can be obtained for nothing. We have the advantage of a friable soil with natural drainage, a cool climate-no great heat and no extreme cold -the very best conditions for the growing of potatoes. But the farmer cannot largely engage in the production of potatoes, for which the soil and climate are specially adapted, because he is shut out of an adequate market for {lis products. The hou member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) suggests that the decrease in our population can be traced to this circumstance. I have no doubt that it can, because the more prosperous the people are, the more inclined they will be to remain on the farm. The hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. 
Loggie) has moved an amendment which is at present before the committee-an amendment which appears to me to be a most reasonable one. It merely asks that the duty on American potatoes coming into this country be taken off when the embargo on Canadian potatoes going into that country is removed. If it is a good thing for us to have a free exchange of potatoes with the United States, then it is surely a good thing for us to try to have the present embargo removed. I say here-and I think I can prove it to the satisfaction of every member of this committee-that the duty on American potatoes entering into this country is not and cannot under existing conditions be of any appreciable advantage to the farmers of Canada.


Mr. SEXSMITH:: Then why did the Liberal Government raise the duty from 15 cents to 20 cents?


James Joseph Hughes: The reason was, I presume, that at that time the United States bad a duty of 25 cents a bushel against Canadian potatoes, practically a prohibitive duty; and if we could not have reciprocity in trade we could at least have reciprocity of tariffs. Now the conditions are entirely changed. The United States now has a duty of 10 per cent against Canadian potatoes, a very small duty indeed. Under the reciprocity agreement we were offered free potatoes. Canadian growers of potatoes will never again have such an offer made to them.


John Albert Sexsmith: You admit that the
duty was beneficial to the farmer at that time.


James Joseph Hughes: No, I do not.


John Albert Sexsmith: Then, why did you
raise it?


James Joseph Hughes: Because, if the hon. member has followed my argument and if there is anything in it, I have proved that the price of potatoes in the United States must, generally speaking, be higher than in Canada, except perhaps during June, July and August, when we have not potatoes to supply our own needs.


Mr. BEST:: Why is it that in a country where so many potatoes are produced there is not an abundance of potatoes in July, when they command a good price?


James Joseph Hughes: Is the hon. gentleman a farmer?


John Best: Yes, sir, I am a farmer who grows potatoes.


James Joseph Hughes: If the hon. gentleman is a farmer he will know that, except under extraordinary conditions, potatoes will not keep the yeaT round, and that at the time I have mentioned they are hardly fit for use. The removal of the duty would not hurt the farmer, but would be of considerable advantage to the city dwellers- artisans, mechanics and others-who want potatoes at that particular season of the year. I do not suppose that the adoption of this amendment by itself would lead to the removal of the embargo placed upon our potatoes entering the United States; but it could possibly do no harm, and it might have this effect, that by it we would at least show our willingness to trade with the American people in this product upon equal terms. It might be construed as a friendly Act. The very fact that we keep a duty of 20 cents a bushel against American potatoes, while they are ready to take off entirely the duty upon our potatoes entering their market might, on the other hand, be considered an unfriendly Act.


John Albert Sexsmith: Are they ready to take off the embargo?


James Joseph Hughes: The embargo was placed upon our potatoes because it was shown to the American authorities that Canadian potatoes were diseased.


Mr. HENDERSON:: Do you believe that was correct?


James Joseph Hughes: I do not know whether it is correct or not. This I do know, that an official of this Government went to Washington last year in the month of December and told the authorities that our potatoes were diseased.


Mr. WRIGHT:: Will the hon. gentleman give the name?


James Joseph Hughes: Dr. Gussow.


William Wright: After the embargo went on?


James Joseph Hughes: That was at the very time that the American authorities were considering the subject-on the 17th or 18th of December last. Dr. Gussow, an official of the Canadian Department of Agriculture, went to Washington and told the people there that Canadian potatoes were diseased. I think it was an unnecessary and unfortunate statement. There may have been disease, but surely it was not part of our duty to tell the American people so. I do not think there is any disease that would warrant the United States in placing an embargo upon
potatoes grown in Prince Edward Island, but I suppose they could not discriminate between the provinces. My reason for holding that opinion is that I find this article in one of our local papers, which shows that the American Consul at Charlottetown took steps to show to his Government that there was no disease except the ordinary rot in Prince Edward Island potatoes. The statement is as follows:
In regard to the potato embargo which is receiving so much attention at present it will he interesting to our people to know that Mr. Wesley Frost, American Consul, a few days ago, sent a report on conditions here to his government at Washington. He had made a careful study of the situation and informed the department in his report that the Island potatoes were affected only by dry rot and wet rot, and that they were free from the diseases specified in the Department of Agriculture's report. This favourable statement regarding the Island potatoes by Mr. Frost should certainly have an effect with the authorities.


John Hampden Burnham: How would it be if
they quarantined New Brunswick potatoes?


James Joseph Hughes: I do not think the question is at all pertinent; I do not understand the hon. gentleman. In view of what Mr. Frost, the American consul at Charlottetown, is doing and has done, according to this report, I am surprised to find that the leg; si a? me of the province, which prj-rogued a few days ago, did not do anything to second Mr. Frost's efforts or to help him show that the potatoes grown in Prince Edward Island were free from disease. I think that was a great oversight, and the local Government could not have been engaged in a more .important work.
The hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell) being present, I wish to say to him that if there be disease in our potatoes in the Maritime provinces, and particularly in Prince Edward Island, he would be justified, if it were necessary in devoting the whole attention of his department to the eradication of that disease. He could not be engaged in a better or more profitable work. But it is not necessary for him to devote all his attention to that. I would like to know if the hon. Minister of Agriculture is seized with the importance of the subject and intends to put forth every effort he can, if disease there be, to stamp it out and to show the American people that we have no diseased potatoes in this country. It is most important to us in many ways. We send potatoes in fairly large quantities from Prince Edward Island to the Cuban market, and if the idea went

abroad that our potatoes were diseased, there is a possibility that we would be shut out from the Cuban and West Indian markets as well. It is very important that this matter be taken hold of with energy and determination. If disease there be, it surely cannot be of such a character that it cannot be stamped out.
I see some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House who want to treat this subject with levity. We cannot raise a question in- this House, I am sorry to say, in which the farmers are deeply, interested but hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House endeavour to treat it with levity and ridicule. If the manufacturers and the special interests came here, they would not be treated in that way; those who undertook to speak for them would not be so treated. These hon. gentlemen send over a picture which they think contains something that is funny. The little finger of the manufacturers appears to be thicker than the loins of the farmers in Canada, particularly with hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House who laugh so heartily. It is one of the British poets who says that it is the loud laugh that speaks the vacant mind.
This amendment appears to me to be reasonable. It is surely one that will commend itself to the favourable consideration of the Minister of Finance. I cannot for the life of me see any argument against it. The minister did not offer any argument against it last night. He stated that he did not, and I think it was because he had not given the subject any consideration. The amendment merely asks that we take the duty off American potatoes when the United States take the embargo off Canadian potatoes. If they do not take the embargo off, conditions remain as they are, and if they do take it off and allow us to-t-rade with them freely in this article, are we prepared to reciprocate? -Surely we are.
If the Minister of Finance refuses to accept this amendment, the only conclusion! is that this Government is unwilling to, allow the farmers the advantage of the United States market for their potatoes. They have set up the fetish of protection, the golden calf, and they are afraid to touch it lest the whole fabric tumble. The Minister of Finance said something to that effect last night. He made this statement:
Mr. Chairman, X take the position that we must negative this resolution as being incon-
sistent with the fiscal policy which I have announced in the Budget.
No matter what the merits of the particular question may be, no matter what advantage it may give to the farmers of the Maritime provinces, particularly to the farmers of Prince Edward Island, no matter what advantage it may give at certain seasons of the year to the city dwellers in Canada, if it touches the citadel of protection in any way it cannot be accepted by this Government. That is pra-ctieaJlly what the Minister of Finance said last night. If that is the attitude of the Government it is as well for the farmers of my province at least to know it, and I intend that they shall know it. I see my colleagues from Prince Edward Island here. I would like to know what these gentlemen think upon this subject. They know the advantage of the American market to the farmers of Prince Edward Island if we had a free exchange of potatoes, and I would like to hear them. I presume I shall. I trust that the Minister of Finance will reconsider the subject and will not dismiss it as lightly as he did last night. It ought to receive more consideration than he has given to it.
Mr. JOHN A. BEST (Duffer in):	Mr. Chairman, I was delighted to hear the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. J. J. Hughes) speaking so strongly in favour of the farmers, who, no -doubt, constitute the ga-eat majority of the people of the Dominion of Canada. But it is very strange that the business men and lawyers are so much interested in the farmers when the farmers say that these are the men who are raising the price of the produce to the consumer. Yet these middlemen stand up in this House and tell us what they are going to do for the farmers.
There seems to be a combine on the other side of the House to try to catch the farmer and the consumer at the same time. Last night these gentlemen opposite were talking, not in the interests of the farmer but in the interests of the consumer, and they deplored how the consumer had to pay $5 a barrel for potatoes in the summer, and they declared that if the duty were taken off, he would get them cheaper. But if the consumer gets cheaper potatoes, with the duty off, I would like these gentlemen opposite to tell me how that would affect the price of Canadian potatoes. The hon. gentleman (Mr. J. J. Hughes) seemed to know all about the time that potatoes came

in and Row long they would keep, but I want to tell him that he did not know what he is talking about, when he made the statement he did. I live in Ontario where we produce as good, if not better, potatoes than are produced on the American continent. We have new potatoes on the 1st of July, pretty well north in the province of Ontario, and we have the potatoes of the previous year up to the 1st of August. These are facts that every farmer knows. There are many farmers in that province who plant from half air acre to two acres with early potatoes, which they are able to send to the market when potatoes aTe a little scarce, and there are people in the towns and cities who are willing to give a good price for a fancy article, which they like, when it first comes in season. If the duty were taken off at the very time hon. gentlemen opposite speak about, it would reduce the price, and then these farmers would not get for their potatoes anything like the price they do at the present time. There is no use in hon. gentlemen opposite trying to make the farmers of this Dominion believe that they are sincere, when they advocate taking the duty off farm products. I frankly admit that there are times in the year when the consumer would benefit by it, and every man who understands farming will be willing to admit that, hut I do not believe that the workingmen and the mechanics in the towns and cities will take a chance of getting their potatoes a little cheaper, if they have in prospect the probability of losing their jobs, because if the duties were taken off all around they certainly would not get work as easily as they do at tne present time. These gentlemen opposite might as well face the situation once for all, that they cannot talk about benefiting the producer and the consumer at the same time. There are times when probably both are benefited by protection, but not all the time. There is no county in Ontario more rural than the county of Dufferin, which I have the honour to represent, and I firmly believe that 98 per cent of the farmers of that county would advocate that the duty should be increased on farm produce coming from the United States into Canada. If the manufacturers of this Dominion want a duty on what they produce, why should not the farmers of Canada have protection on their products?
The hon. gentleman (.Mr. J. J. Hughes) told us that the people of Canada made a mistake when they did not accept reciprocity, but my reply to him is, that there never was a greater insult thrown in the face of any people than was thrown into the face of the farmers of Ontario in respect to that reciprocity treaty. The truth is, that that treaty would have taken everything away from the farmer. If the farmer sent a load of wheat to the market he would have no' protection, and he would have to sell it in competition with the wheat of the world, but if he took that load of wheat down to the mill, one mile out of the town, and had it turned into flour, and took that flour back home with him, made as it was from his own wheat, he would find there was a duty on flour and he would have to pay it. If he took a load of hogs, or of sheep, or of cattle, to the market, he had to sell them in competition with all the world, there being no duty on them while the farmer held them, but as soon as he went to the butcher shop to get meat, he had to pay a duty on it. Again, the vegetable grower would have no protection while he held the farm produce, but as soon as the canner got hold of it there was a duty on canned fruits and vegetables, and the consumer had to pay it. The facts are that the farmers stood to lose by it and the consumer gained nothing. The consumer does not want raw wheat, oi live stock on the hoof, and there are more vegetables used canned than fresh, and while the farmer had to contend with a free market and sell bis products in competition with all the world, the consumer did not get the benefit of what the farmer lost in the transaction. I am glad that the hon. gentleman who now presides over the financial affairs of this country has seen fit to protect the farmer, and I say that there never was a Budget brought down in Canada under which the farmers got a squarer deal than in the Budget submitted to this House this year by the Hon. Mr. White.
Mr. WM. WRIGHT (Muskoka): It is not my intention to deal with this matter at any great length, but I want to give a few figures. It would appear as if we were to have a re-hash of the old argument in favour of reciprocity from hon. gentlemen opposite. I, for one, would naturally have thought that it was so thoroughly discussed in this House and in the country in 1911 that we had heard the last of reciprocity for a long time to come. It appears, however, that we are to be afflicted with the same old arguments, which in my opinion

will be about as effective as they were in 1911. Touching the question of potatoes, it was represented to us during the reciprocity discussion in 1911 that the American market, with its ninety millions or a hundred millions of consumers, was a great market for our potatoes. During the discussion on that . question, early in April, 1911, I took occasion, together with the hon. member for East Peterborough (Mr. Sexsmith) to visit the United States and to investigate for ourselves the actual conditions there, to find out whether that great market existed, and to what extent. Two of the agricultural products of Canada were specially dwelt upon by hon. gentlemen opposite as being fit subjects to find a market in the United States, namely, potatoes and hay. I went into the state of New York, where they told us hay was put upon the market at $22 per ton, and from watching the farmer -sell the hay right off their wagons we found it sold in even large cities at $10 per long ton of 2,240 pounds. We were told at that time that potatoes were bringing one dollar and more per bushel in the United States, and we actually saw them with our own eyes sold out of the stores in the city of Watertown and other cities in the United States at forty cents a bushel. The same condition of affairs prevailed over a large part of the United States at that time, and it prevails over a considerable portion of the United States to-day.
The great fact remains that the United States is an agricultural country, that they produce in abundance all kinds of agricultural products that we produce in Canada, that they can supply all their needs, potatoes and wheat included, with the products we raise in this country and that they have abundance for export. One of the best authorities in the United States made the statement during the reciprocity agitation that the agricultural land of the United States was capable of producing a sufficient amount of agricultural products, potatoes and wheat again included, to feed a population of 311,000,000 people.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: They are not
doing it.


William Wright: They are producing all
they need at present and exporting large quantities, and if the hon, gentleman can name something they are not exporting I will be very pleased to hear from him.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That would not prove anything; they might be large importers at the same time.


William Wright: The facts are that while they do import certain tropical and semitropical products, which they do not produce in abundance in the United States, to the extent of about $500,000,000 annually, they are sending out of the United States over one billion dollars worth of agricultural products, and the products included in that vast export are of the quality and kind that we produce in Canada.
With regard to potatoes, it may not be out of the way to call the attention of the House to a few figures which I have taken from the trade and navigation returns for the year 1913. We made some exports, among other things potatoes. We managed to sell to that great American market, to those ninety million people, the grand total of 152,557 bushels.


Mr. CARVELL:: What year was that ?


William Wright: 1913.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: New Brunswick sold 50,000 bushels in three months last year.


William Wright: I am giving the figures from the Trade and Navigation returns.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It was stated last night that the province of New Brunswick exported 50,000 bushels into the United States in October, November and December of last year.


William Wright: I cannot help what the hon. gentleman says; I am giving the figures from the Trade and Navigation returns. The hon. gentleman will find them on page 457.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I realize that the hon. gentleman wants to be fair about this matter. He is quoting the returns down to the 31st of March, 1913, and the duty was not taken off until the 3rd day of October, 1913. The potatoes to which my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) refers, were shipped after the duty was removed.


William Wright: On the 1st of April, 1915, we shall be able to give official figures in regard to that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have a return here which I am willing to show to my hon. friend.


William Wright: As I said before, the grand total export of potatoes to the United

States in 1913 was 152,557 bushels. To Cuba, which is only a dot on the map, we sold 567,105 bushels, or nearly four times as much as we sold to the whole of the United States during that year. To Bermuda we sold 50,862 bushels; to British Guiana, 58,145 bushels, and to the British West Indies, 49,907 bushels.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Does the hon. gentleman admit that the situation is entirely different now, and that he is not discussing the matter on the proper premises ?


William Wright: I am discussing it on
conditions that have prevailed for years, during which time the hon. gentleman was representing that market as the great market for the people of Canada. Conditions were not different in 1913 from what they were in the previous years.
In 1913, we bought from the United States -and hon. gentlemen opposite will admit that the fact of their lowering the duty cannot have any effect upon the quantity of goods they send into this country-$441,142,593 worth of goods last year, and we managed to sell to them $167,110,382 worth. When we are asked to make free goods coming from the United States, we should consider the whole proposition as to our trade with that country, and we ought not to forget that we are buying from the United States three times as much as we are selling to them. Before we consider enlarging the free list of Canada, we ought to take cognizance of the fact that we are making free to the people of the United States a class of goods that enables them _ to sell as large a quantity of goods free of duty to Canada as we selling to them all told. Surely we ought not to be asked to enlarge our free list.	If the Americans really need the goods that are produced in Canada, they know how to get them: all they have to do is to remove the duty. It is a remarkable thing that, whenever we commence to sell any very considerable quantity of goods to the United States, something happens. Our potatoes became infected with scab or canker. We sold to them a large number of cattle last fall, and the Americans discovered that there was grave danger of disease. There is a Bill before Congress now, which will undoubtedly become law, providing that no further importations of cattle will be allowed into the United States without having them undergo the tuberculin test and also remain in quarantine for a certain length of time. That will have a nice effect upon the big steers that are going over to the
United States from Alberta. Just imagine lassoing those wild steers belonging to our hon. friend the member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), and getting them into that calm and quiet condition that will enable the tuberculin test to be applied. After you have spent some weeks in getting that accomplished satisfactorily, the cattle will have to stay in quarantine on the other side of the line for many weeks.


Mr. WARNOCK:: What authority has my hon. friend for saying that there is such a Bill before Congress?


William Wright: The notice in regard to the Bill before the Congress of the United States is seit forth in the Congressional Record.


David Warnock: I have the authority of the Veterinary Director General of Canada for saying that he has received no notice of any such legislation.


William Wright: It has not passed Congress yet.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Will the hon.
gentleman say if that is an administration Bill or a Bill introduced merely by some member of Congress?


William Wright: It is a Bill which the Government of the United States is fathering if I understand the matter correctly, and a Bill that will in all probability pass in the very near future.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: Is my hon.
friend a prophet?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Will the hon.
gentleman tell me what percentage of Bills pass in any one year in the United States Congress?


Mr. BLAIN:: They put an embargo on potatoes, did they not?


William Wright: Let me draw the hon.
gentleman's attention to one other feature with regard to our exports to the United States. Two or three years ago it was found that they were running short of raw material for certain kinds of leather, and they thought it wise to take the duty off certain kinds.of hides. We commenced to ship some of those hides to our American friends; and they immediately discovered that there was danger of contamination and made a customs regulation that the hides should be taken out of the cars and fumigated and put in again. Those engaged in the business of exporting hides prayed the American authorities to put them back under the old conditions. The hon. gentleman will also remember a certain treaty

made with our American friends in which certain kinds of fish from the Maritime provinces were allowed to go into the United States free of duty. While they could not break the treaty they discovered that they could put a duty on the cans, and thus they shut out those importations. Certain manufacturers of this country attempted to invade the American market a few years ago and commenced to make a few sales; but they were immediately assailed by the American authorities under some plea or other; they were haled into the courts, and they were glad to get out with their lives at a loss of $20,000. Therefore, they will leave that market severely alone in the future.
The British manufacturer of agricultural machinery made the same mistake. When the American market was made free to them, they thought they would invade that market. Their goods are piled up in one of the coast cities-if they are not there now they were there for a considerable time-and they were forced to get out of that market by very much the same kind of treatment. The fact is, disguise it as we may, that the people of Canada, whether engaged in manufacturing or in agriculture, will not be allowed to get into the American market to any great extent. The Americans will find some means to prevent us from occupying that market, even if we could successfully do so under existing conditions.


Mr. OLIVER:: Is trade between Canada and the United States increasing or decreasing?


William Wright: It may be increasing, but it is increasing'because we are buying goods from them, not because we are selling them goods to any appreciable extent.


Frank Oliver: So my hon. friend wants to continue a condition under which we shall be less able to sell them goods?


William Wright: I say we will not be allowed to sell to any great extent.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The Minister of Finance says that our exports to the United States are increasing.


William Wright: Not to any appreciable extent. Our total sales to the United States hardly equal what we are allowing to come in from the United States duty free, and that is over one-third of our total importations from that country. Of course, where you have countries lying side by side along an imaginary boundary line of . [DOT] 
four thousand miles, there is bound to be a certain quantity of goods cross-even if they are only going through to some other country-hauled by the American railways, financed by their banks and giving employment to their people.


Frank Oliver: Do I understand that the hon. gentleman objects to our goods going across that way?


William Wright: I am not taking objection; the objection comes from our American friends. They say unless they are allowed to be the agents of Canada, unless their financial concerns do the business for us, unless we are willing to become 'adjuncts,' mere hewers of wood and drawers of water, unless we are prepared to take that ignominious position, we shall not be allowed to trade.


Frank Oliver: But the Finance Minister says we are increasing our trade with them.


William Wright: It may please the hon. gentleman to adopt that humble attitude, but some of us do not feel like getting down on our knees. Now, with regard to the question of potatoes, let me point out that there has hardly been a year for many years when if potatoes have not been very plentiful in some sections of Canada, they have been plentiful in other sections. Taking Canada over and the United States over, the prices for potatoes obtained by farmers in Canada have been as good as those obtained by the farmers in the United States. In the town where I live, I had the opportunity a few weeks ago of buying New Brunswick potatoes and paying $1.40 a bag for them. And they were fairly good potatoes,

they grow fairly good potatoes down there; I do not think they are any better than are usually grown in the district I represent. It is a very unusual thing for us to buy anything but local potatoes in the section from which I come; but during the early part of last season we were subject to a very severe drought, and the potato crop last year was very small indeed in our locality. In other parts of Ontario they had a fairly good crop. Prices have ruled high in Toronto, Hamilton, Montreal and other large cities, and I should think that in Montreal and Toronto, where hundreds of thousands of bushels of potatoes have been marketed, our New Brunswick friends and our Prince Edward Island friends would have found a market sufficient to absorb all their surplus crop of potatoes and afford them a fairly good profit upon their product.
I hope we shall not be subject to another

epidemic of talk on this 'ninety-million market.' Rut if our friends opposite desire discussion of that kind, we are prepared to meet them at any time, anywhere and under any circumstances; and the result will be the same as it was in 1911.
I think they would be well advised to take up not more than a reasonable part of the time of this House in a discussion of this nature. For my part, I am quite prepared to support any legislation that will make for a better market for the farmers of Canada. But I want to he shown that it is going to he a better market.
I am reminded of an incident that happened in the early settlement of the province of Ontario. Times were had, and the people were hard pressed to make a living. One farmer who had got in early and had succeeded in getting a little property around him, had, among other things, a number of small pigs, which he kept in a pen not far from his shanty.
5 p.m. Two men who were hard pressed made up their minds that they wo-uld steal one of the pigs. Unfortunately for them, while they were deliberating and making their way to the place, a hear had got ahead of them and had devoured the pig. One of the men went in to secure the pig while the other remained outside to watch. After waiting for a time, the fellow outside said, 'Did you get him?' 'Yes,' answered the other, 'but he has got me and he is hugging me till he makes me squeal.' If our Canadian farmers did succeed in getting into the American market at the cost of throwing open the market of Canada, they would find that instead of getting the American market, the American farmer had got their market, and he would hug them till he made them squeal.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is said that 'fools rush in where angels fear to tread,' and, with the full knowledge of the fearful responsibility that I am taking, and even in the face of the advice, almost threat, of my hon. friend from Muskoka (Mr. Wright), I must have a word or two to say, not on the reciprocity iquestion, not on the tuberculin test on animals going into the United States, but on the question really at issue, the question whether something cannot be done to get access to the American market for the potatoes of the Maritime provinces-even if the people of Ontario do not want it. I congratulate the Minister of Finance- (Mr. White) on
the able defence that has been given him, for apparently he has decided without any further discussion that he will not consent to this resolution. I congratulate him on the defence and the exposition of the possibility of raising and selling potatoes coming from a gentleman representing a constituency that is so rocky, so worthless, that they have to import potatoes 1,500 miles from New Brunswick in order to get a few to eat. That hon. gentleman (Mr. Wright) must know a lot about raising potatoes; his constituents must be vitally interested in whether the people of the Maritime provinces sell their potatoes in the United States or in any other part of -the world. If the gentlemen who defend the attitude of the Minister of Finance are farmers, what kind of people must they represent? What kind of farmers must there be in the constituencies of gentlemen who get up and suggest that the farmers should keep rotten potatoes in their cellars until the middle of June or the last of July? Hon. gentlemen are disposed to treat with levity anything which they realize is against their particular interests, but there is no use in trying to brush aside lightly the great question of a market for potatoes so far as the Maritime provinces are concerned. It is of no use to say that the question was settled by the defeat of reciprocity. It was settled for three or four years, but if hon. gentlemen think this question is settled for all time to come, they still have three or four thinks coming to them. An economic question will never be settled until it is settled right, and so far as potatoes are concerned this question was not settled right in 1911. I do not know whether my hon. friend is a farmer or not; I think he does not represent a farming constituency.


William Wright: I am a farmer and I represent farmers. I produce a great deal more than the average farmer in the province of the hon. gentleman.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Then, my hon. friend
does not produce potatoes. He says we do not want to trade with the United States and the United States do not want to trade with us. I do not deny that they have been unfriendly; we are not all saints in this world and they are not all saints in the United States. They have done many unfriendly things with regard to their tariff, and I dare say they will do more unfriendly things. We have done unfriendly things with regard to our tariff, and probably we will do more unfriendly things; but
*5068

it does not follow that we ought not to trade with the United States if by doing so we can make money. The hon. minister showed in his speech the other day that in the eleven months ended February 28, 1914, we exported $161,000,000 worth of goods to the United States, and that in the whole of the previous year we exported only $150,000,000 worth. There was an increase of $11,000,000 in the eleven months; it would probably be $15,000,000 for the whole year. Yet hon. gentlemen say that we do not want to trade with the United States. The minister admitted that the increase resulted from the putting into force of the Underwood tariff. The very moment the tariff restrictions imposed by the United States were removed, the sale of Canadian goods in the United States markets commenced. There is not a farmer in the western portion of Ontario to-day who has not reaped the benefit of the new American tariff; he would not have sent his goods to the United States if he did not find there a better market. In the months of October, November and December of the year 1911, from the province of New Brunswick we shipped to the United States 2,992 bushels of potatoes, about three or four carloads. In the same months of 1912 we shipped 2,341 bushels; in the same months of 1913 we shipped
650,000	bushels. Why did we ship such an enormous quantity of potatoes from the province of New Brunswick to the United States in those three months ? Simply because the tariff wall was partly taken down. The new American tariff was announced in the month of March, 1913. The potatoes are planted in New Brunswick in the month of May; the people knew that there was going to be a great reduction in the tariff; they doubled their acreage and ultimately exported this large quantity of potatoes.
But the trade returns do not tell the whole story so far as New Brunswick is concerned. My constituency extends fifty miles along the border of the United States. The district of potato production extends twenty-five or thirty miles into the constituency of the hon. member for York, N.B., and fifty or seventy-five miles into the constituency of the hon. member for Victoria. Fifty or seventy-five miles of that territory is a thickly settled portion of the country, the farms extending right up to the boundary line. On the American side of the line there is a railway within two or three miles of the boundary; on the Canadian side there is a railway ten miles to the east. During that period the farmer living two or three miles from the boundary

line, instead of shipping his potatoes in the ordinary way, hauled them across the boundary line, load by load, paid the duty upon them and sold them to American buyers. I have no doubt that 150,000 or
200,000	bushels of potatoes were shipped in this way out of my county in those three months, and do not appear in the trade returns. I could not attempt to picture the prosperity that existed in my county at that time. We doubled our acreage, we had a good crop, we had fairly good weather and we received fairly good prices. The price of potatoes per barrel at that season of the year was from 80 cents to $1.


William Wright: What is the weight of your barrel?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 165 lb. We got from $1.15 to $1.35 per barrel for our potatoes during those months. When the embargo went on, in the latter part of December, 1913, we were getting about $1.35 per barrel for our potatoes, and just across the boundary line they were getting 15 cents a barrel more than that; we were losing just the 10 per cent. But the conditions were simply splendid. Farms were bought and sold that never had been dreamed of before. I was one of the victims myself. I bought a $5,000 farm, believing I was going to be able to make money raising potatoes; but the embargo was put on, and I do not know what I am going to do with my farm. I made a wrong guess. Property appreciated 50 per cent, and in some cases even 100 per cent, in three months. But farmers would not sell their property because they believed that the conditions were such that they could make money by holding it.
I am willing to agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Wright) that there are many people in the United States who are not friendly when it comes to trade matters. I will admit that all the trouble about the embargo came right from our neighbours in Aroostook county. That is the greatest potato producing territory on the continent;
12,000,000 or 13,000,000 barrels of potatoes are produced in that one county, and we could produce exactly the same quantity in the same area of territory in New Brunswick if we had the market for them. As I said, it was not the enormous price, but it was the scope of the market that was such an advantage. Mr. McKane, a very large shipper of potatoes, told me that he had to telegraph and write and look up a chance to sell three or four carloads of

potatoes in Toronto; but the telephone would ring and an order would come from Boston: Can you ship me 25, 30, 40 or 50 cars. There was no limit to the market. It was only a question of getting the potatoes out of the fields, hauling them to the station and loading them on the cars. Had our farmers been able to get cars, instead of sending 600,000 or 800,000 bushels to the United States they would probably have sent twice that amount. Many farmers in Carleton county have in their possession carloads of fertilizers to be used this coming season. Each car means 15 or 20 tons at $40 a ton. Many farmers are spending $1,000 a year in fertilizer alone, and it pays them to do so. There are farmers in my county, who if the duty and embargo were removed, would this year spend $2,000 in fertilizer, and it would pay them. Gentlemen opposite who laugh at this do not know what they are laughing about. I suppose the hon. member for Dufferin (Mr. Best) plants three or four acres of potatoes and would call that a large crop, and I suppose that if the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. Wright) had a patch of half an acre he would consider he was doing wonders. In my county, if we had that American market, each farmer would raise 20 acres. In the state of Maine 25 to 50 acres is quite common, and many farmers raise 100 acres of potatoes a year. If these gentlemen went down there and saw something about this crop, we would not hear the guffaws that we heard from a certain gentleman leaning over here against the wall yesterday and this afternoon. These hon. gentlemen would then know what they are talking about and they would not insult men who come here who do know what they are talking of. A little lesson in manners would do some of these gentlemen good. If they do not want to know the economic conditions of the country, at least they ought to be taught good manners. If they would go to the Maritime provinces and see fields of potatoes of twenty to forty acres grown under the most modern plans and conditions they would be surprised. The seed is cut by machinery, it is planted by machinery, cultivated by machinery, sprayed by machinery, and the potatoes are dug up by machinery.


John Best: Then expounded here by gas.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend is welcome to whatever he can get out of that. I take that from the source it came and it is about equal to the source from which it came. It shows the mental and business 194
calibre of the man who would make a remark like that and only brings it back to my suggestion that it :on*t be a wonderful constituency that will send a man of that character here to represent them. As my hon. friend beside me says that constituency should be embargoed from the House of Commons of Canada.
Here is the position in which we find ourselves. I know of many farmers who have carloads of fertilizers in their buildings today for the purpose of planting potatoes this year on a large scale; but the embargo is on and these men dare not plant their potatoes. It is out of the question. A man dare not plant 25 acres of potatoes in New Brunswick to-day, because he does not know where he will sell them. We can sell a certain amount of potatoes in Quebec and Ontario. Some years it is more, some less. During the last two years we have sold a fairly good quantity. I would say that from my constituency we have sold 250,000 to
300,000	barrels in Quebec and Ontario. The moment the embargo went on the price went down to $1 a barrel or practically 40 cents a bushel, and that price has continued stationary to the present or until two weeks ago when they commenced to go up because large quantities were demanded for seeds. Within the last three or four days I think they are probably worth $1.25 a barrel but nothing like the price in November and December when we were selling to the American market. In Maine to-day you will find that the farmer is getting $1.75 to $1.80 a barrel for potatoes.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN:: What would the duty on a barrel be?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The duty on that barrel to-day if we could get them in at all would be about 12 or 15 cents.


Angus Alexander McLean: The difference
would be moTe than the duty.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, but we are prohibited from sending our potatoes there because there is an embargo. I am only showing the conditions on the other side of the line. Potatoes are worth, say, $1.25 to-day, or they have been for the last week or so, they have been a dollar all winter but on the other side of the line they are worth $1.75 to $1.80.


Mr. MORPHY:: Is the embargo fair?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will discuss that in a few moments. I will not skip the embargo, because that is the real object I had in rising to my feet. In New Brunswick an
;l 4



average farmer can raise five acres of potatoes and get rid of his product at some price in Owyhee or Ontario. We also sell something to Cuba. I have a return which I obtained from the Department of Customs and I will send it over to any of my hon. friends who wish to see it. It will be seen that we have sent a few New Brunswick potatoes to 'Cuba-last year not very many, only about 50,000 or 60,000 bushels, and the year before about the same. Four or five years ago we sent a great many more. The Government of Canada granted a subsidy of $25,000 a year to a line of steamers sailing from St. John to Cuba for the purpose of trying to find an outlet for our potatoes and the Government of New Brunswick did something towards that object also. They established a warehouse in -Cuba and also a warehouse in St. John. Everybody has realized that the great problem in New Brunswick, in so far as agriculture is concerned for the last five or six years, has been to find a market for these potatoes. We realize that once you give us a market there is no end to the production; we could raise ten times the amount we produce today if we could get a market. We tried to find a market in Cuba but this has been somewhat of a failure. We have to send forth the potatoes over a thousand miles by sea to a tropical climate and when we get there we find that there is a potato trust which is big enough to squeeze out every person who does not pay tribute to the trust. The result is that the effort has been almost a total failure. We cannot send potatoes to Europe because they are cheaper there than they are here. Therefore, we are circumscribed down to what we can do in the Dominion of Canada alone and there is just a certain limit beyond which we cannot go. There is no use producing more than, we can find a market for and we cannot find a market unless we can get it in the United States.
During the summer of 1913 it became known that the American duty was going to be greatly reduced, if not entirely removed. The potato-growers of Maine are a very influential body of men and one of the brightest lot of farmers that I suppose exists on the continent of America to-day, men, who I am satisfied, are the richest class of farmers that you can find in America, a class that have grown so wealthy raising potatoes on exactly the same soil as we have that every other farmer in the States rides around in an automobile. It

would do my friends from Ontario good to spend three or four days in Aroostook county in the state of Maine; it would be a revelation that they have never dreamed of. I am not here to praise up the state of Maine; I am only showing what we could have in the province of New Brunswick if we had the market to the south of us.
These people were just as narrow as some of our people were in 1911. They believed that the opening of the market of the United States to our potatoes would in some way affect them. They believed that we would produce potatoes enough to affect the American market. They may be right in that but I do not agree with them myself. I do not think they were as much afraid of the Canadian potatoes as of the European potatoes*. It turned out that, just as soon as the duty was removed, potatoes went in from New Brunswick and also from other portions of Canada, but in certain quantities only as our powers were limited. We only had a certain quantity to sell. Potatoes came into the United States from Germany, Holland, Scotland, and, I think, from England. The growers of Maine organized themselves and determined to prevent potatoes coming in if thev possibly could do so. They did not have to pass any law in the United States; they had a law already. I have forgotten what it is called but they had a law, the same as we have in Canada, which gave to the administration officials the power by regulation, as they call it-we would call it an Order in Council-to prohibit the importation of any diseased products. The potato-growers of Maine asked the United States Government to prohibit the importation of potatoes into the United States from all countries in which disease could be found. They claimed, and I do not think anybody denies it now, that there is an enormous amount of disease among German potatoes and there is also disease amongst the English and Scotch potatoes. They claimed that there was also disease in the Canadian potatoes. We found quite early in the season representatives of big American firms travelling through New Brunswick and examining our fields in order to see if they could find the existence of the disease which they called powdery scab.
Some of my hon. friends sent over here, I think in a jocular manner, a document which I hold in my hand. I will tell these hon. gentlemen that this is not a jocular matter in the province of New Brunswick. It is something which is issued by the Department of Agriculture here and for

which I give them every credit in the world, a publication which, I believe, will mean thousands and tens of thousands of dollars to the people of the Maritime provinces. This is another evidence that if my hon. friends opposite knew what they were talking about we would not have seen the exhibition that we saw here yesterday and that we have seen this afternoon.
They claimed that the potatoes in New Brunswick were affected by disease known as powdery scab. As soon as this was found out-I am only speaking now for myself-I wrote to the department and told them that these agents were travelling through the province of New Brunswick trying to find this disease. I wired them, then I wrote them, then I wired them again and if you go to the Department of Agriculture you will find a great many communications from myself pointing out to the department what was going on. I am not saying that the department did not exercise reasonable precautions but I do not think that they became seized of the importance of this question. I asked the department to send agents all over the province of New Brunswick to investigate our potato fields and see if this disease did exist and, if it did not exist, to be in a position, when the matter came up in Washington, to prove that it did not exist. If I have any fault to find with the Government, or the Department of Agriculture, it is that they did not take the advice which I offered them, advice which was very much in their interest and which dealt with a question of almost life and death to the business interests of my constituents.	It was
announced that a meeting would be held at Washington on the 18th of December to discuss this matter and on that date the discussion took place before the Secretary of Agriculture for the United States. There were representatives from	Germany,
Holland, Belgium, England, Scotland and Canada. It is only with the Canadian side of the matter that I propose to deal.


Richard Blain: Was that before or after the embargo was put on?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That was before. This was a meeting held after the potato-growers of the state of Maine had asked their government to impose the embargo. The Dominion Government was represented by the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Mr. O'Halloran, who, I do not think, pretended to know very much about it. I do not say it offensively because he did not go there professing to know much about the 194J
question. Canada was also represented by Dr. Gussow, the technical gentleman of the department, who may be eminently qualified-I do not know, I am sure. However, he was there. I must say that the report which I got from friends of mine who were present was not altogether complimentary to the doctor. They thought that he knew a great deal more about the technical and scientific side of the question than about the practical side.


Richard Blain: He is the author of the document which my hon. friend has in his hand.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes; I am saying that he spent a long time in giving a very learned discourse upon the technical side of the disease, but I do not think he knew as much about the practical side of it. However, I am not here to throw any mud at anybody; I am trying to give the facts to the House and I want to see if something cannot be done to reinstate us in our former position.


John Hampden Burnham: What effect will the
abolition of the duty have upon European importations?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The resolution of my
hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. Loggie) does not ask for the abolition of the duty.


John Hampden Burnham: That is unfair, that is rank, that is absurd.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend (Mr. Burnham) is entitled to his opinion, but he will have a chance to taix 'later, and he can go over in an aeroplane if he wants to, and bring a cargo of potatoes back to Canada. The province of New Brunswick was represented at that meeting by the provincial Deputy Minister of Agriculture, and the potato dealers were represented 'by Mr. Guy Porter, .of Porter and Manzen, Limited, which I think is the largest potato-jobbing firm in the Maritime provinces. The matter was argued very thoroughly. There were about three hundred representatives from different parts of the United States, all asking the department to prohibit the importation of potatoes on account of the disease, and the information which had been collected by these gentlemen was placed before the Secretary of Agriculture and they established that there was a disease in New Brunswick potatoes. I am not sure, but I think there was also some evidence given, that there was disease in Quebec potatoes, but I do not think there was any evidence given as to disease in Ontario or Prince

Edward Island potatoes. The result was that some six or seven days afterwards an order went forth imposing an embargo on the importation of potatoes from any country in which disease was known to exist, and as they claimed that this disease was known to exist in Canada the importation of potatoes from Canada was prohibited. I understand that the terms of the order were such that the United States could exclude from its operation any province or provinces of Canada in which the disease did not exist, and therefore I believe that the province of Ontario could be excluded from the operation of the order, if the people of Ontario desired it. However, we cannot have New Brunswick or Quebec excluded. It would toe in the interests of ' the producers, at -least in Prince Edward Island, if an attempt were made to have the embargo removed with respect to potatoes from that province. I know that at present New Brunswick cannot get the embargo removed until we can convince the American authorities that our potatoes are free from disease.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Does the hon. member consider that the embargo by the American authorities on New Brunswick potatoes was a fair dealing between the American people and ourselves?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, I do. If the American authorities are honestly convinced of the existence of disease in our potatoes, I think it is a perfectly fair and justifiable proceeding on their part to prohibit their importation. In reference to that, I wish to quote from this morning's Citizen.


William Wright: When the matter was investigated by the United States committee, was it found that American potatoes were diseased?
Mr. CARVEL!,: In the first place, the producers in the state of Maine were responsible for the imposition of this embargo, and they brought it about purely from a selfish motive, believing that if they could prevent the importation of potatoes from any part of the world it would enhance the price of their potatoes, or at least it would prevent the price being reduced. These people sent their agents through our province, and they claimed they found, -and I do not say they did not,-evidence of this powdery scab. I have never yet seen in New Brunswick a potato exactly looking like the not-ato shown

in the document issued by the Department of Agriculture and said to be afflicted with powdery scab. I do not raise potatoes, and the scab may exist in New Brunswick and I might not know it, but I have discussed the matter with potato-growers and potato merchants, and while some believe it does exist, yet nine out of every ten in the province of New Brunswick will contend that it does not exist. It is a moot question. Nobody yet has ever been able to convince me that the scab does exist, and yet if the American authorities say they have evidence of it, I would not feel like saying they have not. However, I have great doubt that this disease exists in New Brunswick. To continue with the history of the matter: other portions of the United States got busy as well as Maine, and their contention is that if the powdery scab existed in New Brunswick, which is right alongside of Maine, it was reasonable to expect that the powdery scab existed in the Maine potatoes as well. As a result of this, some two or three months ago a big delegation went from the county of Aroostook to Washington and they had a pretty bitter fight over it, and in the end a regulation was promulgated by which inspectors were put at every shipping point in Maine. Every carload of potatoes shipped from the county of Aroostook during the last two or three months has been inspected, and the inspector puts his seal upon the car, and if he finds what he thinks is scab or any other disease, he gives a certificate that these potatoes shall be used only for food purposes, because everybody knows that this disease does not render the potato poisonous. But, if the inspector finds that the scab or any other disease exists, he prohibits these potatoes from being used for seed purposes. In explanation of this it is necessary to understand that one-half of the potato output of the northern portion of the State of Maine is used for seed purposes in the south, and not for table use. It is contended that potatoes grown in the south will not reproduce as well as potatoes grown in the north, and the result is that no person will use southern potatoes for seed, if he can get northern grown potatoes. The New Brunswick potatoes would be used for seed purposes in the south, as are the potatoes grown in the state of Maine. I rather felt like chiding the Minister of Agriculture for not trying to have some such regulation as that which prevails in Maine applied in Canada. But even this rigid inspection did not satisfy the potato growers of other portions of the United States.

They claimed that if the disease existed in the state of Maine, that state ought not to toe allowed to disseminate it throughout the rest of the United States. They have been making another move. I find in this morning's Citizen the following despatch from Washington:
Washington, April 28.-Federal quarantine against Maine potatoes, effective August 1, next, has been declared by the Department of Agriculture, it was announced to-day, because of the prevalence of powdery scab. After August 1, no common or Irish potatoes can be shipped out of Maine except under regulations of the Department of Agriculture.
That ought to convince even such a skeptical gentleman as my hon. friend from Muskoka (lMr. Wright) that these people in the United States at least have some belief in the course of action which they are taking, and that it is not all for the purpose of being unfriendly to the potato growers of the Dominion of Canada. It is so easy for a man to twist the tail of the lion when he goes around the lodges in some of the back country districts that, when he comes to the House of Commons, he forgets that he is not on his native heath; he forgets that in the Parliament of Canada his arguments do not altogether fit in with conditions. I think that is the case with my hon. friend from Muskoka. He believes that every man in the United States is born with hoofs and horns, and that his sole object in life is to be unfriendly to the British Empire. We do not believe that; I do not believe it for a moment. In my judgment, the people of the United States are the shrewdest, brightest commercial people in the world; I give-them credit for being the greatest successes in the commercial enterprises of the world, and I am willing to admit that they are probably as selfish a class of people as will be found anywhere. I do not want to paint the picture whiter or blacker than it ought to be. They are shrewd, enterprising people; they are looking to the interest of the American people every time, and they will never allow themselves to come second, if possible. I think I have correctly protrayed the condition of affairs that existed at that time. I see only one ray of hope in this whole question, which is that evidently the United States Department of Agriculture does not intend absolutely to prohibit the export of potatoes from the state of Maine into the rest of the United States, if we believe this despatch to be correct,
because they cannot be shipped except under certain regulations of the Department of Agriculture. I want to know why our Minister of Agriculture cannot take advantage of that olive branch, and see if he can not in some way have those regulations applied to Canada. I do not believe there is any disease in the potatoes from Prince Edward Island. Do not be afraid -to approach the United States Government; they will not bite, nor kick, nor do anything like that. They may not give you the best end of the trade; but I think we have long since fought out all this nonsense about the ' two flags,' ' under which flag,' and all that sort of rubbish. Let us get down to business. The people of the United States have shown that they are not half as bad as my hon. friend from Muskoka thinks they are. They have taken the duty off our cattle, our hogs, our sheep, our lambs; they have cut in half the duty on our hay, and they have reduced the duty on our barley. They say: The moment you take the duty off your wheat, we will take it off ours, and they say the same thing with regard to potatoes. They have held out the olive branch to us in a greater degree than has ever happened before in the memory of any hon. member. They want to trade with us. I admit that the people of the state of Maine do not want to trade with us in so far as potatoes are concerned; but I believe that the President, the Government and the great majority of the people of the United States want to trade with us in so far as potatoes are concerned. I believe, however, that they have an honest intention of trying to prevent the spreading of disease throughout their country. If they believe that this disease exists, how can we find fault with them for trying to prevent it from spreading? Believing that the people of the United States want to trade with us, I cannot see anything derogatory to the dignity of the Minister of Agriculture, or of his Government, or of any government, or of any official of any Government of Canada in going to the United States and seeing if some arrangement can not be made whereby our potatoes can be admitted into the United States under the same regulations under which potatoes are admitted from the state of Maine.	We have found
scab in New Brunswick and in Quebec; and they have found scab in the state of Maine. I know that for the last two months they have been allowing potatoes to be shipped from the state of Maine under certain regu-

lations; and, as I read it, they are going to continue to do so. Why cannot we go to Washington and see if we can make a trade by which our potatoes can go in under the same regulations? I do not think that that is humbling ourselves in the dust or doing anything derogatory to the dignity of Canada, or of Canadians, or of good Britishers, as our hon. friends like to call themselves. It is only the real, hard practical problem of life, of trying to do business with people with whom you can do business and of making a dollar when you are doing it.
I want to give the Minister of Agriculture credit for issuing this document, which is not entirely new to me. I wish to tell my hon. friends opposite, who think that I am sometimes hardly fit to represent a constituency in this House, that there has been a good deal of confidence existing between the minister and myself during the last four or five months over this question. The first day I came to Ottawa in the beginning of this session, I placed a resolution on the Order Paper to discuss this question. My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture thought it possibly might not produce any good result; he came to me like a gentleman and I met him in the same spirit. The result has been that I have never opened my mouth in regard to the potato question during the present session. If my hon. friends could realize what the potato question means in my constituency, they would probably feel that I had exercised a good deal of restraint when I refrained from making any remarks or from taking any part in any discussion regarding it. Hon. gentlemen opposite should not think for a moment that I have not been constrained to do so. I have on my desk to-day 200 letters from my best supporters in my county asking: Why do you not say something about this potato question? Why do you not do something in order to have this embargo removed? But I believe that the minister is working along lines which he thinks are correct, and I will give him credit for being square about the matter until I know to the contrary. He has now published this document, which my hon. friends sent over to the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Hughes) with so much gusto, and thinking they are perpetrating a practical joke upon him by sending him a document showing pictures of diseased potatoes.


David Henderson: Copies of this document are in the post office for every member. There is no insult in the matter. fMr. Carvell.]


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am quite aware that they are in the post office; but there is no doubt about the motive of the hon. gentleman who has sent it over here. One of my hon. friends from Ontario must have sent it; no other man would do such a thing.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That does not apply to the whole of Ontario. There are only about half a dozen members from that province who would do such a thing. If we go on, we will get down, by the process of exclusion, to the right man.
I want to compliment the Minister of Agriculture on the work he is doing. He has promised me that copies of this document will be spread broadcast throughout the province of New Brunswick, and I hope every farmer in the Maritime provinces will have a copy of this document placed in his hands. There is & lot of valuable information in it.


Charles Marcil: Are they going to be distributed ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I was told so about a month ago by the Minister of Agriculture. I am satisfied that the minister will carry out his word; that they will be distributed, and that the people of the Maritime provinces will be able to see what a diseased potato looks like.
Mr. SEXjSMITH : Would the hon. member please give the total production of potatoes in New Brunswick?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not in a position to do that. But I can tell him that in the three upper counties of Victoria, Mada. waska and Carleton, there would be somewhere in. the vicinity of 1,000,000 barrels, three-quarters of which would be from my own county, the county of Carleton. I ana safe in saying that 3,000,000 bushels of potatoes were raised in my own constituency last year. So, hon, gentlemen can see what an enormous thing it must be. For we have only a population of 21,000 or
22,000,	and we do not devote all our time to raising potatoes either.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What quantity could the county raise?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It could raise six, or eight, or perhaps ten times as many potatoes as it does to-day, and we would do it if we had the market in which to sell them.
At six o'clock Committee took recess.

Committee resumed at eight o'clock, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Before the committee rose at six o'clock I was endeavouring to point out what I understood to be the history of the United States embargo upotn our potatoes. When this matter was first brought up in the month of December last there was a disposition on the part of certain persons in the province of New Brunswick-I mention the province of New Brunswick especially because that province _ was more deeply interested in the matter- to treat this as a political matter. We have all through the western part of'the province of New Brunswick what is called the Potato Shippers' Association, which is composed of two dozen gentlemen who are in the business. They held a number of meetings in the month of December and, as I say, there was a disposition on the part of a few of the shippers, and on the part of some of the officials of the local Government, to treat the question as a matter of politics. It was not long before we heard the same old cry that went up during the reciprocity campaign: we do not want the American market anyway; it is no good to us-arguments .similar to those advanced by the hon. member for Muskoka this afternoon. A meeting was held in my home town, attended by the shippers, by representatives of the local Government and by a representative of the federal Government in the person of Dr. Gussow, whose name has been mentioned here on two or three occasions. Representatives of the press were excluded from the meeting; I know not why, but they were told that their presence would not be desirable. When the question arose of trying to have this embargo removed and to obtain again access to the United States market, Dr. Gussow told the people to send their potatoes to Saskatchewan, where there was a good market for them; that they need not bother their 'heads about the American market. They told Dr. Gussow, in language so plain that it could not be mistaken, that he simply did not know what he was talking about: one gentleman told him that the transportation charges upon potatoes sent to Saskatchewan would be twice as much as the potatoes were worth. Mr. B. F. Smith, who was my opponent in the last election contest, and who probably will be my opponent again, was chairman of the meeting. It is true that during the campaign of 1911 Mr. Smith argued as strongly as possible that the home market was all that we needed and that the American market was no good, but on that occasion-and for thi3 he is entitled to a great deal of credit-he told the people that the American market was the only natural market for our potatoes and that we would have to get that market^ in order to succeed and prosper as we should in the province of New Brunswick. From that day to this the question has not been mixed up with politics. It is on account of the attitude of the people of my province, both Liberal and Conservative, that I have taken the course I have in not bringing this matter before the House during the present session. I have taken that course not only because I wished to do whatever was in the best interests of the people, but because I believed that the Minister of Agriculture as well was sincere in trying to work out these interests and very largely at his request I have refrained from saying anything on the subject. I think that hon. gentlemen on this side have demonstrated to the committee that this is a matter vitally affecting the people of the Maritime provinces; vitally affecting the whole of Prince Edward Island, the western portion and; to a considerable extent, the whole of the province of New Brunswick, the whole of the Annapolis valley in the province of Nova Scotia, and the eastern portion of the province of Quebec. It is the most important question affecting our trade and commerce to-day; it is the most vital question affecting the prosperity of that portion of Canada which I have mentioned. It is too big to be mixed up with political discussions and it is because of the intense interest which every member representing constituencies in the Maritime provinces must have in this matter that we have placed it so plainly before our skeptical friends opposite from Ontario. I have tried to eliminate politics from my presentation of the case; we are not bringing the matter forward from a political standpoint. Rightly or wrongly, the Americans consider this matter as of some importance, because when they were framing the Underwood tariff they took exactly the same course with regard to potatoes that they did with regard to wheat and wheat products; they made potatoes free to all countries that did not exact a duty upon like products. As we exact a duty upon potatoes coming from the United States into Canada, we must pay the duty of 10 per cent which the United States has imposed on our potatoes. I dc

not believe the American producer will send a bushel of potatoes into Canada, if they are made free, that he does not send now, because he sends potatoes to Canada now only in those seasons of the year when we are not producing them. On those occasions we buy them from the southern states, and will continue to buy them from the southern states no matter whether the duty is taken off them or not. Evidently however, the Government of the United States think differently, because they have insisted that potatoes shall not be allowed to go into the United Sates from Canada free of duty unless we impose no duty upon potatoes coming from the United States into Canada. That being the case, it seems to me that we cannot with very good grace enter into negotiations with the United States with a view to obtaining the removal of this embargo unless we first comply with the terms of their tariff and remove the duty.
The burden is on us to do something, and I believe that if the Parliament of Canada will remove the duty on potatoes coming from the United States into Canada, we shall then be in a position to go to the United States and ask to have the embargo against our potatoes removed. I confess that I have no inside information on that subject; I have no authority for making the statement; I am only giving my judgment. I have lived alongside United States people all my life, I have known a great deal of their business relations, and I think I know the potato business as well as any man in Canada.
I know how the Mairtime provinces people feel about it. I have tried to tell the committee the considerations which animated the people of the United States in imposing this embargo.


Richard Blain: Does my hon. friend not think that the Government of the United States placed the embargo on at the request of the United States farmers as a protection to their market from the Canadian potatoes going into the United States?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: To some extent, no doubt.


Richard Blain: I say that for the reason that it has been very generally stated in this House that the embargo placed by the British Government on Canadian cattle is kept there as a protection to the producers of cattle in the United Kingdom.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think there is no doubt about that to some extent, bu+ T think 
that the demand came altogether from one portion of the United States. I have some information as to the real inside working of the placing of this embargo, but I do not think it would be wise to communicate it to the world. I can say without any breach of confidence that it all arose on account of the action of certain politicians in the state of Maine alone. I do not believe that the President or the Government or the great majority of the people of the United States are now as anxious to have this embargo kept on as a matter of trade protection as they are as a matter of protection from disease. I do believe, from the conduct of the United States Government, that the great body of the authorities in the United States to-day believe that it is necessary that this embargo should be maintained to some extent as a matter of protection against disease. I think it has reached that point, and the burden is on our Government to eradicate that idea from the minds of the United States authorities. I believe we should first show our good faith by removing the duty. I have no fault to find with the Minister of Agriculture, except that I do not think he moved rapidly enough in the beginning. I think he failed to realize the importance of this matter at first. Perhaps when I commenced sending letters and telegrams to him he may have thought that I was playing the game of politics, but I know that later on he received telegrams and letters from other people, his own political friends, whom he could not charge with playing the game of politics. 1 do not think that sufficient energy was displayed in the initiation of this matter in October and November of last year. Since then the minister has become thoroughly seized of the importance of the situation, and I believe is trying to do everything he can to overcome the existing difficulties. I believe that if you could convince the minister personally that the embargo could be removed by our removing the duty, he is sincere enough to vote for that; and I do not believe that he or any other reasonable man in the House can feel that the removal of the duty would cause any injury to the Canadian producer.
Just what can be done I am at a loss to know. I only argue from the premises which we have before us. I find that the United States are now treating the state of Maine just as they treat New Brunswick, having placed an embargo on its

potatoes. That serves the people of Maine very well right. The growers of that state are getting a little of their own medicine, and if they had to do this over again I do not think they woujd take the selfish course they did last summer. However, they took it, and they are now paying the penalty as well as we are. The people of Maine will now use every possible effort to have the embargo removed as against their potatoes, and I think the same methods which will be used by the people of that state might be used by the Government of Canada to secure the removal of the embargo against New Brunswick potatoes. Therefore, the first duty of this Government is to. approach the United States Government to ascertain the true situation to-day-to ascertain whether or not every province in Canada really comes under the embargo, and whether they cannot have the embargo removed as to those provinces which are not affected or about which they have no evidence of the existence of the disease; then, as to the provinces about which they claim to have evidence of the existence of disease, to see if the potatoes from those provinces cannot enter the United States under rigid inspection. If the disease exists it is necessary to take all steps to eradicate it, and I believe that the minister is giving the best advice possible to the farmers along these lines. If the disease exists it will take some time to eradicate it. But remember that every farm is not inoculated with this disease; it is only claimed that in the county of G'arleton, the great potato-producing country, the disease exists in a few spots within six or eight miles from a small town. The difficulty is that the whole county is tabooed because of the existence of the disease in a few places. Then, it is only claimed that the disease has been found in one or two places in York county; in one place in Kings, twenty-five or thirty miles above St. John; in one place in Victoria; tout not at all in Madawaska. It seems to me that if the United States Government are willing to allow potatoes to be sent out of the state of Maine under rigid inspection, we might arrange with them to allow us to send our potatoes under the same inspection. It is true that it means a good deal of difficulty, the appointment of inspectors and so on, and we of course would have to pay the United States inspectors; but that is a mere bagatelle in
comparison with the enormous proportions of this great industry. I can only say again that, in the first place, we must remove this duty in order to be in a position to approach the United States Government. When that is done we can ask the United States Government to allow our potatoes to pass in under the same inspection as those of the state of Maine.
My hon. friends opposite must admit that I have not approached this question from a party standpoint. I am trying to impress on the Government and the committee the enormous importance of this great industry in my constituency and province and the eastern portion of Canada. I accept the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Northumberland and the hon. member for Kings, P.E.I., as showing conclusively that the removal of this duty will not in any way hurt the Canadian producer of potatoes, while in many cases it will help the Canadian consumer.
Believing as I do in the correctness of their proposition, and knowing as I do the importance of this industry to our country, I feel that the Government can, without any degradation to itself, and without any loss of national dignity, approach the United States as with a business proposition, and see if something cannot be done to allow our people to go on, do business and prosper, as they might have done if this embargo had not been imposed upon them, and as, to some extent, they have done in the past; because we find ourselves in a very much worse position to-day than that in which we were placed before the American tariff was reduced. When the American tariff was in existence it was possible, under some circumstances, to send some potatoes over there, notwithstanding the fact that the tariff was almost prohibitive. The year 1912 was the time of the potato famine in America. We were sending potatoes from New Brunswick even into British Columbia. Shippers could pay the transportation charges from New Brunswick to British Columbia and then pay the farmer $1.50 to $1.75 a barrel for his product. The same famine existed in the United States, and I find from the returns that in the month of March, 1912, we sent to the United States from New Brunswick 11,000 odd bushels; in April we sent 83,000 bushels; in May, 1913, we sent 28,000 bushels, and in June,
36,000	bushels in the face of a tariff of 25 cents a bushel. This shows you that when

the market was open we could do some business, and there was some outlet for our farmers even although they could not make very much money out of it. Now, with the embargo on, these men are in a very much worse position than they were before. I am pointing this out to the minister to show the calamity which threatens the people of the Maritime provinces and the national necessity that everything possible should be done that can be done to get us access to that market so that our people may go there, do business and grow up and prosper as they ought to be allowed to do.


John Wesley Edwards: The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) began his remarks by quoting the words ' fools rush in '-leaving the rest to be inferred, and immediately proceeded to give us a demonstration of the truth of that in so far as he was concerned. If the hon. member for Carleton had addressed himself to this subject in a non-partisan way, if he had not been actuated by any other motive than the desire to obtain for his province what he believes would be in its interest, I think he might very well have left unsaid many of the remarks which he made. I did not see that the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. Wright) had, in his remarks, said anything which warranted the hon. member for Carleton in addressing him in the disrespectful manner in whiefi he did address him. Neither was he justified in speaking as he did of the hon. member for Dufferin (Mr. Best). In his Chesterfieldian way he spoke of that hon. gentleman's mental and business capacity and he asked: What kind of people must they be who will send a man like that to represent them in Parliament? I do not believe that even the worst Grit in the county of Dufferin would send a man to Parliament like the hon. member for Carleton. Even in their wildest moments I do not believe they would make such a selection as that. What call was there for referring to my hon. friend from Muskoka in the way in which my hon. friend did refer to him, and for saying that they had talked of these things in the lodges on the back concessions? What had that to do with the motion before the Chair? Could anybody imagine the hon. member for Carleton being a member of any lodge? I could not. I do not think the hon. member for Carleton could become a member of any lodge or any association of men which was

gathered together as a lodge, council, court or anything of the kind. If the hon. member for Carleton ever occupies any position at all in a lodge of any kind, it will be a position, I fancy, in which he will not require much decoration; that ds to say, that of the goat.
It is idle for the hon. gentleman to say that he is not actuated by any political motives in his remarks here to-night. Fancy the hon. gentleman for Carleton addressing himself to any subject in this House in which he was not actuated by political motives! In referring, as he did refer, to different members from the province of Ontario he spoke in very discourteous tones of the class of people who inhabit the province of Ontario. The hon. gentleman forgets what the figures show in regard to his own province. If the hon. gentleman has the influence in the province of New Brunswick that one would suppose from his talk we would have expected very different results in the last election. I presume he talked potatoes in the election of 1911 and no doubt it was small potatoes too that he talked. His majority was reduced from 151 in 1908 to a very doubtful 11 in
1911.	If the hon. gentleman had not made use of his fine legal knowledge and taken advantage of technicalities it is said that he would not have a seat in this House at all. The hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Loggie), who also, I suppose, talked his potato ideas down in his county, had his majority reduced from 981 to 392. The hon. member for St. John city (Mr. Pugs-ley) had his majority reduced from 496 to 65. I suppose that he talked potatoes too. The hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) had his majority reduced from 1,385 to 64 and I presume he also talked about potatoes and the advantage it would be to the farmers of New Brunswick if potatoes were on the free list. I can only infer then that the people in different parts of New Brunswick-in these constituencies at least to which I have referred-had given this matter more thought and attention than their representatives had given it and had showed that they had given ,it more attention by the vote they gave in the election. The hon. member for Kings, Prince Edward Island (Mr. Hughes) stated there were only ten states on the other side of the line which grew potatoes to any extent, that really only one of these states, namely, the state of Maine, could be called a potato-growing state and that the United States was not adapted to the growing of

potatoes. The hon. gentleman is entirely wrong in making any such assertion.


James Joseph Hughes: I did not catch what the hon. member stated in the early part of his inference to me.


John Wesley Edwards: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that the United States could not be regarded as a potato-growing country, that the state of Maine was the principal potato-gro-wing state of the Union and that potato-growing in the United States was practically confined to ten states.


James Joseph Hughes: I said it was not a potatogrowing country outside of the ten states along the Canadian boundary line.


John Wesley Edwards: Of which you say Maine was the most important.


James Joseph Hughes: Yes.


John Wesley Edwards: I want to take exception to that, and I think I can prove that the statement of the hon. gentleman is not correct. The state of Maine is not by any means the principal potato-producing state in the Union. I have here the statistical abstract of the United States for 1912, and at page 146 I find that the principal potato-producing state in the Union is New York, which produces 38,000,000 bushels.


James Joseph Hughes: From what is the hon. gentleman quoting?


John Wesley Edwards: The statistical abstract of the United States for the year 1912, issued by the Department of Commerce and Labour, and the statement at page 146 is that the principal potato-producing state of the Union is New York, which produces
38,000,000 bushels, next comes Michigan with
36.750.000	bushels, next, Wisconsin with
34.920.000	bushels, next, Minnesota with 33,000,000 bushels, next, Pennsylvania with
28.885.000	bushels, next, Ohio with 20,000,000 bushels, next, Illinois with 14,000,000 bushels. To summarize, only six of the forty-eight states in the American Union produce less than one million bushels of potatoes annually, and twenty-five states of the American Union produce annually from five million bushels to thirtyTeight million bushels each. The tables show a considerable fluctuation, and there is hardly any farm product that fluctuates as much as potatoes; one year a large crop, another year a small crop, as is proven conclusively, not only by the figures for the United States, but by the Canadian figures.


James Joseph Hughes: What is the average production in each of the states of the American Union?


John Wesley Edwards: I am glad the hon. gentleman asked me that question, because it enables me to tell him he was wrong in another statement he made. The hon. gentleman said that the average was somewhere around ninety bushels to the acre, but allow me to tell him that he is entirely wrong there. The average yield per acre, for all of these states in the United States, is 113 bushels per acre, and it runs up as high as 198 bushels per acre. That is entirely contrary to what the hon. gentleman said. I am not giving any guess-work about this, I have given the information and the source whence I have obtained it, which purports to be an official document issued by the United States Government. I invite my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes) or anybody else to refute the figures I have given.


James Joseph Hughes: As the hon. gentleman has invited me, I suppose it will be all right for me to give him my authority for the statement I have made. I have here a statement prepared by Lawrence G. Dodge, an official of the United States Department of Agriculture, on the northern potato-growing states.


John Wesley Edwards: For what year ?


James Joseph Hughes: For 1908. He gives the average per acre for all of the United States as ninety bushels; the average in the state of Maine, 177 bushels, and in Aroostook county, 225 bushels per acre.


John Wesley Edwards: I am not questioning the hon. gentleman's statement in regard to the yield per acre in the particular county to which he refers, nor am I questioning his statement with regard to the yield in the state of Maine, but the hon. gentleman is entirely illogical in taking a few selected states along the border and giving the average for these selected states, and assuming from an examination for one year of a few selected states of the Union, a figure covering the production of the whole of the United States, and drawing from that his conclusion that the United States is not a potato-producing country.


James Joseph Hughes: It is not my statement; it is the statement made by Mr. Dodge, an American Government official.


John Wesley Edwards: The statement is made by Mr. Dodge, but the statement and the

hon. gentleman's conclusion are two different things^


James Joseph Hughes: My conclusion was drawn from the statement exactly as Mr. Dodge made it.


John Wesley Edwards: Very well. We will follow the statement further and see what there is in it. In the first place, I very properly disputed his statement that Maine was the principal potato-producing state, by quoting figures to show that 'Several states each produced more potatoes than Maine.


James Joseph Hughes: Not on the same area; they are larger states.


John Wesley Edwards: 
John Wesley Edwards: I think the hon. gentleman is mistaken in the reading of his figures.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I .shall send the document over to my hon. friend. I want to put him right.


John Wesley Edwards: I have not time to look into it now.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You had better look into it before you give figures to the country that are not true.


John Wesley Edwards: If my hon. friend, the Lord Chesterfield of this House, will maintain his soul in patience-I am not making statements without fairly and honestly and squarely giving the authority for them.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: But the authority is
wrong.


John Wesley Edwards: My authority is a
document issued by the United States Government. Of course, the hon. gentleman, who pretends to know everything about everything, may know more about the United States Government's affairs and about its official figures than they do themselves, hut I may be excused, Mr. Chairman, if I accept these official figures rather than the statement of the hon. member for Carleton, N.B.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Then, take the statement of our own Government. Will the hon. gentleman accept that?


John Wesley Edwards: The hon. gentleman
has made his own statement and I am making mine. ' Hansard ' will place one statement over against the other, and if he can produce as good authority for his statement as I am producing for mine, let the country judge between us.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What is the year of the issue of that document?


John Wesley Edwards: December, 1913. It is
issued by the Department of Commerce, and I have quoted from page 526.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I want to be fair about this thing. Is not the hon. gentleman reading the total importations into the United States?


John Wesley Edwards: I am giving the importations into the United States.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: But I am talking about the exports from Canada.


John Wesley Edwards: were 12,408,798 bushels, valued at $6,550,-
000.	In 1913 the total importations were 3,170,522 bushels, valued at $1,549,592. You will observe that notwithstanding the reduction of duty made by the Underwood tariff the importation of potatoes into the United States for the year ending 31st December, 1913, were only about one-quarter as great as in the preceding year. Analyse these figures a little further, as is done in this report, and you find that the im portations for October, November and December, 1913, that is, after the Underwood tariff came into force, were 1,864,421 i nthis report, and you find that the importations for the nine months preceding were 1,306,101, valued at $723,527. I call attention particularly to the value of these potatoes. Work it out, and 9 p.m. you will find that the value of these imports after the Underwood tariff came into force with its reduction of duties, was 44.3 cents per bushel, while the value of the potatoes imported for the nine months before was on the average 55.4 cents per bushel. That might help out hon. gentlemen opposite in their argument if these values were values in the United States; but according to this document, these figures represent the values in New Brunswick or other countries from which these potatoes came. So, instead of the duty having the effect hon. gentlemen opposite say it would have, of enhancing the price of potatoes, according to these figures, it had the effect of reducing the value. I do not claim that it did have that effect, but I say that the figures show that when the duty was reduced, the price of potatoes in countries from which they were imported into the United States was lower than before that reduction of duty. Now, what is my argument in regard to that? Here I take issue with the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Loggie). He made use of the peculiar argument-if it may be dignified with that name-that when the Canadian farmer sends potatoes into the United States he has to pay duty to get them into that market-the duty came out of the pocket of the Canadian producer. He also placed alongside of that, the statement that when we imported potatoes from the United States we in Canada paid the duty- so to say, we got it in the neck going and coming. Now, if that argument is good, that we have to pay the duty no matter which way it goes, what would be the object of the United States in changing the 
duty? The question involved is Really the old question, who pays the the duty? My contention in regard to that I will illustrate in this way: If we import into Canada tea, for instance, and impose a duty of five cents per pound on it, I argue that the Canadian purchaser will have to pay five cents per pound more for his tea. Why? Because we do no,t produce tea in this country nor anything that comes into competition with tea. When a duty is imposed upon an article produced in large quantities in Canada and produced in other countries as well, then I say that the removal of that duty does not inure wholly to the benefit of the country taking the duty off. There must inevitably be a levelling of prices tending to a common price, and my contention is that in such cases the common price will approach most nearly to the price in that country where the surplus production is the greater. So I contend that hon. gentlemen, in arguing as they do very frequently that the price of an article is enhanced by the amount of the duty, show that they have not given the matter as much thought as they should.
That is not all. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Northumberland is as follows:
That tariff item No. 83 he amended by adding thereto the following words:	Provided, however, that potatoes dry, desiccated or otherwise prepared, being the growth and production of the United States, shall be admitted free of duty when, and as soon as, the United States removes the embargo regulations now existing against like articles, the growth and production of Canada.	*
Why this restriction to the United States? Why is the United States specially singled out? Why not remove the duty altogether and allow the potatoes of other countries to come in? I am not sure that I caught the hon. member correctly in his answer to the question put to him by the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham). I think he said he did not want European potatoes to come in.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is always necessary to keep my hon. friend straight. I made no such statement. I said that it did not refer to European potatoes, but merely to potatoes coming from the United States.


John Wesley Edwards: I think that is what I said. Would the hon. gentleman be willing to remove the duty on European potatoes?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Would you?


John Wesley Edwards: No. Will my hon. friend be equally frank?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not on the rack
to-night.


Mr. EDWAEDS:: My hon. friend, in dealing with this matter, professes to be absolutely free from all political bias; to have approached this subject with the utmost candor and frankness, but when I put to him frankly and honestly, a pertinent question with regard to this matter, he refuses to answer it; he says he is not on the rack. Why does he not answer the question? The hon. member for Carleton is afraid to say that he is in favour of the removal of duty on potatoes coming into Canada from Great Britain. Let the United States potatoes come in here, he says; but he does not say that he is in favour of letting potatoes come into Canada from England free of duty, because they produce potatoes in Europe very much cheaper than we can produce them here.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Let me give my hon.
friend some information. Under our existing tariff laws, the proposed resolution, if carried, will allow potatoes to come into Canada from Great Britain free of duty, but not from Germany, France or Belgium.


William Cameron Edwards: Why not from Germany? The hon. gentleman is on the rack again. Why not let potatoes come in from Germany, France and all these other countries? Will my hon. friend say that he is willing to allow potatoes to come into Canada free of duty from these countries?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, I will not.


William Cameron Edwards: a perfect right to the high prices which prevail for a few days after the new potatoes first come in. It is utter nonsense, as every member in this House knows, for any man to say that we are entirely out of potatoes at any month in the year. Every-one knows that from one crop to the next our potatoes can be kept, and are kept, the year round. Suppose the farmer of Ontario, Quebec or New Brunswick specially prepares his ground with the intention of placing some potatoes on the market at the earliest possible moment. He goes to extra trouble to do that, and gets the potatoes on the market perhaps two weeks before the ordinary crop is available. Is he not entitled to the high prices which he obtains for those potatoes? Who pays that price ? Is it the general consumer ? Is it the workingman, the labourer, the artisan-the men on behalf of whom hon. gentlemen opposite are making such frantic appeals with regard to the lowering of the price of potatoes ? Not at all. The people who pay that high and fancy price for potatoes for a week or ten days or two weeks are the rich people who are well able to pay it. It goes as a direct benefit into the pockets of the farmers who are entitled to that benefit.
The hon. member for Carleton, the hon. member from Prince Edward Island, the hon. member for Northumberland, and others on that side of the House, say that we should take this duty off and allow the Americans to come in and get these fancy prices for fruits, tomatoes, etc., and let the Canadian producer come at the tail end and take what is left. They will have a hard time in convincing the Canadian farmer that that is a fair deal for him. I maintain that in a country situated as Canada is there is only one just and fair way to deal with the farmer, and that is by means of a protective tariff. In the United States, in their large population, they have about
10,000,000 blacks. There are upwards , of half a million of these negroes in the border states along lake Ontario and lake Erie. The majority of the coloured population is in the south, hut those people form a very large element among the labouring classes of the United States. They work at a rate of wages which we do not want our labourers to work at in this country, and I say that in such a country as Canada, where our farmers have to spend large sums in providing barns and expensive buildings to house their stock, and where they have, for from four to six months of (the year, simply to wait umti1 the next

season opens up, being under expense all the time, they are entitled in all fairness to a protective tariff which will place them somewhere on an equal footing with people who, through climatic conditions, have advantages which they do not possess. That is what I have always claimed in this House, and that is why, when I sat on that side of the House, I found fault with the former Government because in certain respects the protection to the farmer was not as high as it should be. I say the same thing to-day, and if it were in my power to make any change I would increase the duty on many articles that the farmers of Canada now produce. New Brunswick is entitled to protection as well as the farmers of the other provinces. If they can produce potatoes in Maine, as has been said, at the rate of 275 bushels to the acre, and if that state produces
23,000,000 bushels, it is manifest that New Brunswick cannot send potatoes there; but in case of a drouth, the New Brunswick market will undoubtedly be flooded with potatoes from the adjoining state.
The hon. member who moved this amendment would not agree to allow continental Europe to send potatoes here. Why? Because he and hon. members who spoke with him knew that these potatoes coming in here would be taken off the steamers first in the Maritime provinces if the price would suit them. Hon. gentlemen are not cot sistent; if they want to talk free	,
round, if that is their policy, let them say so frankly and candidly; let them come out and advocate that policy. But they advocate one thing for one portion of the country, and something else for another portion, a duty here and free trade somewhere else. They have a haphazard sort of policy which appeals to no person because it is absolutely illogical. I do not want to take up the time of the committee any further, but I would ask hon. members not merely to consider the production of potatoes in the state of Maine or in those two or three states, but to look carefully at the American returns for each state. They will find then that potato-growing is not confined to one state, but is scattered all over the United States. Not only would it affect New Brunswick but it would affect, and in my judgment affect very injuriously, British Columbia, the prairie provinces and the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.


James Joseph Hughes: I wish to read a short statement to show the committee the authority on which I made my statements.

As I .said, it is from the Department of Agriculture at Washington, and is made by authority of Mr. Dodge, who says:
.The leading potato-growing states of the country, those where the crop is at home and where it forms an important farm crop, are the two northern tiers of states east of the one hundredth meridian. Besides this region there are several states growing large quantities of potatoes, but not at all comparable with the district mentioned.
There are several states along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts where potatoes are an important crop, but in those states they must be reckoned as truck crops in the majority of cases rather than as a general farm crop.
The average yield for the past ten years shows that the production per acre in Maine is nearly twice that of any of the other nine states enumerated, though there does not seem to be sufficient difference in the climatic or other natural conditions to account for this wide variation.


John Wesley Edwards: My hon. friend has mentioned Maine and nine other states. Why not give the names of those nine other states ?


James Joseph Hughes: 'Certainly; New
York, Maine, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Minnesota and Nebraska. The hon. gentleman from Frontenac has stated that the production last year in the United States was 300,000,000 bushels.


John Wesley Edwards: In 1912. For last year I -nave'420,647,000 bushels.


James Joseph Hughes: That was very high.


John Wesley Edwards: Considerably higher
than 1911. In 1911 it was 292,000,000 bushels.


James Joseph Hughes: That would be an average of between three hundred and four hundred million bushels a year, or about three or three and one-half bushels per head of the population. Anybody who will think of the situation will see that the United States under those circumstances must be an importing country for potatoes, having only three to three and one-half bushels per head of the population. We have a much larger production in Canada. In Prince Edward Island, with a small production, we have over seventy bushels per head.


John Wesley Edwards: The hon. gentleman
will understand that when I say potatoes I am not including sweet potatoes.


James Joseph Hughes: I assumed that; but I am sure that does not amount to anything.


John Wesley Edwards: Yes, it does.
Mr. HUGHES': Well, take that for what it is worth. The production is between three and four bushels per head of the population. It is below the consumption.


John Wesley Edwards: What authority ha3 my hon. friend for saying that the average consumption is more than the production?


James Joseph Hughes: Naturally, I would take that to be the case. Common sense would indicate that. Therefore, I say that that country would constitute the best market in the world for potatoes.


Mr. FOWLER:: The hon. gentleman is
following his own preference. He is no doubt a large consumer of potatoes, and therefore he claims that the people of the United States are in the same catagory as himself. The people in the southern states do not use the sort of potato that is referred to in the statistics given by my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), which referred to the kind of potato which is the favorite of the hon. member for Kings.


James Joseph Hughes: What is your particular favorite?


George William Fowler: I, like my hon. friend,
prefer the Irish potato. That is where my
hon. friend gets wrong in his statistics.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not propose to refer to any of the rambling remarks about what they are doing in the United States per head and what they are not doing. I would like to hear from some of my Conservative friends from the province of Ne.w Brunswick as to how they feel on this question. But I would be particularly interested in hearing from the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell) on the question of the embargo if he does not want, to talk on the question of the duty. I have tried to convince this committee that this is an important matter to the people of the Maritime provinces. I do not think that there is any person but will admit that. We all have to admit it and we are face to face with an exceedingly serious condition of affairs. It is no use for members on this side of the House or on the other to stand up and make general speeches on the theory of protection or free trade in so far as the farmers are concerned. We are discussing now a concrete case. There is no use in the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) quoting figures of the total production of the United States or the im-



poirtations from Europe or anything like that. We know in the Maritime provinces that the United States would offer a market for our potatoes if we could get them in there. Every farmer in New Brunswick knows that, every famier in Prince Edward Island knows that, every farmer in the Maritime provinces, be he Liberal or Conservative, knows it. Every man, no matter how he voted in 1911, knows it. They all want to get that market and they all realize that we cannot get into that market on account of this embargo. I want to come down to the real question at issue.


Mr. W. T. WHITE:: I understood.my hon. friend (Mr. Cairvell) to say that the United States would be influenced to remove the embargo if American potatoes were admitted into Canada free.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I said I believed that
might have something to do with it.


William Thomas White: Let me ask my hon.^
friend one other question. What is the value to the American potato raiser of free entry into the Canadian market?-because I understood my hon. friend to say that that would be of no advantage to him. If that foe so, what is the value of the Canadian market to the United States on the strength of which they will be influenced to remove the existing embargo?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is a fair question. In my judgment it amounted to nothing, but I think the American Government must have considered it as amounting to something or they would not have framed their tariff as they did. They refused free entry of Canadian potatoes into the United States because we would not allow free entry of American potatoes into Canada. Otherwise, they would not have left them at 10 per cent. They removed the duty as against other countries and let potatoes in free. The United States never could send a barrel of potatoes to any country in the world except Canada or Cuba. It would not be common sense to talk about sending potatoes from the United States to Europe; yet they have allowed European potatoes to come in free and they have imposed a duty of 10 per cent against Canadian potatoes, unless by our legislation we allow theirs to come in free of duty. I be ieve that this market does not amount to anything whatever to the United States producer because there is,

in my judgment, not the least possibility of potatoes coming into Canada from the United States, although in the summer months when we do not produce them they come from the southern or central states, where they mature much earlier than ours do in Canada. I may toe wrong in my conclusions, my arguments and my beliefs, but these are my conclusions, my arguments and my beliefs.
Now, I want to come back to the Minister of Agriculture. I have tried in the course of this argument to treat him fairly and any man except some of the backbenchers who heard what I said to the minister will admit that I treated him fairly. I have given him credit for sincerely trying to meet the situation. I believe the minister is honestly and earnestly trying to see a way out. I give him great credit for sending out this statement which we have had placed in our hands to-day with reference to the potato disease. I think it is going to be of great benefit to the potato raisers of Canada. I want to give the minister full credit for the attention which he has tried to give to this great question. But I think this committee is entitled to a statement from the minister as to what the condition is, as to what has been done and as to what, in his opinion, can be done. Possibly he cannot agree with me in my idea of the remedy, tout I do think the committee is entitled to some information from the minister on the situation as it exists to-day.


John Wesley Edwards: In this publication
which I hold in my hands, at page 603, are given the prices or values of potatoes, amongst other things, for each month, beginning with the month of December,
1912,	and carrying it on through the year
1913.	First, I will give the import prices on this side of the line. They are as follows:
1912-	December	$3.25 per bushel.1913-	January	
1.29February	
1.07March	
1.21	"April	
1.35	"Mav	
0.75	"June	
0.42	"July	
0.81	"August	
0.74	"September	0.69	"October	
0.43	"November	
0.45	"December	
0.45	"
The prices for the same months on the other side of the line are as follows:

1912'-December	
0.74	per bushel.1913-January	
0.82	"February	
0.82	"March	
0.77	"April	
0.78	"May	
0.76	"June	
0.85	"July	
0.77	"August	
0.80	"September	
0.77	"October	
0.80	"November	
0.80	"December	
0.80	"
The figures for the month of December, 1912, and for these months in 1913, again indicate an enormous fluctuation in the prices of potatoes, not only in the different months, but in the different years. There is nothing so quickly affected by production as the price of potatoes.


Angus Alexander McLean: For fear a wrong impression should go abroad with reference to the action taken by the Department of Agriculture in regard to potato diseases, I wish to inform the House that in Prince Edward Island, in 1912, and again in 1913, there were two officials of the department travelling from house to house conducting investigations into this potato disease. Last year it was the intention of the Government to place a laboratory in the province, and to put in charge a bacteriologist of repute, but owing to some mishap he was unable to go there. However, I understand that this year the Government have secured the services of an official competent to take this matter in charge, and that the investigation will be further prosecuted in Prince Edward Island. I may say also that the provincial Department of Agriculture is acting in accord with the Dominion Department of Agriculture, and good work is being done. Rapid strides, are being made in agriculture in Prince Edward Island, as the hon. member for Kings (Mr. J. J. Hughes) knows. Had that hon. gentleman made inquiries at the department in Ottawa or at the department in Charlottetown, he would have found that these investigations were going on. I presume it is as a result of this investigation by the Department of Agriculture that this very interesting document, which we have received, has been issued. There is no doubt, as the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) has said, it is a move in the right direction, and one which probably should have been taken years ago, because it is well known that disease has existed in Canadian potatoes for many years.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Oh.no.


Angus Alexander McLean: That is a fact. The
nature of the disease was not known, but that disease existed there can be no doubt. Canker did not exist in Canada and does not exist to-day, but powdery scab has existed in this country, and so long as no action is taken by the farmers themselves it will spread. It is up to the farmers whether they will let this disease spread or not.


James Joseph Hughes: It is a very serious statement for the hon. gentleman to make that potato disease has existed in Canada, for years.


Angus Alexander McLean: I know what I am talking about.


James Joseph Hughes: On what authority does the hon. gentleman make that statement?


Angus Alexander McLean: I make the statement because I know it is a fact. It is a fact that there is potato disease in Canada to-day, and the hon. member for Carleton admitted, that by Teason of that disease in his own province there was an embargo placed on potatoes going into the United States.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I must put the hon.
member right there. I was careful not to make any such statement. I said the United States Government claimed that, and claimed to have evidence of the fact, but I do not know whether that evidence is well-founded or not. I do not admit it and I said that I had grave doubt that disease did exist. I do not want my hon. friend (Mr. A. A. McLean) to put words in my mouth that I did not use. I do not believe that powdery scab existed up to two years ago, even if it exists now. If the Minister of Agriculture wants to give certain information he can give it, but it would perhaps not be wise to give all the facts in connection with the introduction of this powdery scab into Canada, if it be in Canada at all.


Angus Alexander McLean: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Carvell) cannot help admitting that he said that the United States Government were justified in placing an embargo on Canadian potatoes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There again, my hon.
friend is misquoting me. I said the United States Government probably believed that they were justified.


Angus Alexander McLean: That is a qualification
that the hon. gentleman makes now.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No it is not.


Angus Alexander McLean: We all heard what, the
hon. gentleman said; we all heard him make the broad, plain statement that the United States Government were justified in putting an embargo on Canadian potatoes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, I did not. This is a matter of too much importance to let
pass.	I protest against the hon. gentleman attributing to me any such statement as that. I do not want him to repeat it again, because it is not true and he knows it is not true.


Angus Alexander McLean: The same statement was
made 'by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), and the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) did not deny it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I make it a practice in this House to not pay any attention whatever to anything said by the hon. member for Frontenac.


John Wesley Edwards: The hon. gentleman has found it in his interest not to do so in the
past.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not put my hon
friend from Prince Edward Island (Mr. A.
A.	McLean) in the same category with the hon. member for Frontenac, and therefore when he makes a statement that is not in accordance with the facts I must call him to order.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Before six o'clock 1
addressed a question to the hon. member for Carleton to this effect: Does the hon. gentleman believe that the United States in putting an embargo against Canadian potatoes, were fair? and the hon. member for Carle-ton said: 'Yes.'


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Certainly I did; that is a correct statement.


Angus Alexander McLean: I have no doubt
that when we get ' Hansard ' to-morrow, we shall find that the statement I have made is correct.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I want my hon. friend
to withdraw that statement, because it is not in accordance with the facts.


Angus Alexander McLean: I certainly make the
statement that when ' Hansard' is published to-morrow, it will be seen whether I am right or whether the hon. member for Carle, ton is right.	*


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I ask my hon. friend to withdraw that statement.


The CHAIRMAN:: If a statement attributed to another member is denied by him, the word of the* hon. member must be accepted.


Angus Alexander McLean: The hon. member for Carleton denies that he made that statement, and I suppose I must bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and withdraw my statement. But, notwithstanding, the statement I made was that ' Hansard ' would show which one of us was right.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Take it back.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is good enough; go on now.


Angus Alexander McLean: The hon. gentleman said' further that he believed that probably scab existed in the state of Maine, and that the United States Government had appointed a commission to investigate the matter, and inspectors to inspect the potatoes shipped from that state. He said further, that if potatoes in Maine were found affected with scab, they were not allowed to be used for seed. There is no doubt that the hon. member for Carleton made the statement that the Maine potatoes were affected with powdery scab or some other infectious disease, because otherwise the United States Government, in whom he places great reliance in matters of this kind, would not have put an embargo on shipments of Maine potatoes for use as seed. We have this condition of affairs- an embargo put upon potatoes in the state of Maine and an embargo put upon potatoes from New Brunswick, or for that matter from the whole of Canada. It is the duty of the Government to investigate this matter, and I want to tell the hon. member for Kings (Mr. J. J. Hughes) that the Government has been investigating it for the last three or four years, that this investigation has been widespread, and that the Government is to-day in possession of very important information on the subject, which I have no doubt the Minister of Agriculture will give to the House.
I am not making a statement concerning things about which I know nothing. It is of so much importance to the people of my province that, no matter what it costs, the Government should take the matter up and investigate it properly. We were in the habit of selling our potatoes in the United States where we got very good prices for them. Sometimes we got a. higher price than at other times. Sometimes prices in Boston were higher than in New York and sometimes higher in St. John than in Boston. So far as Prince Edward Island was concerned, we had a home market at Sydney, Stellarton and other mining towns of the Maritime provinces. New Brunswick was not in a posi-

tion to produce enough potatoes to supply the markets of Nova Scotia. Sometimes the people of that province were not in a position to supply more potatoes than they could use themselves. Although New Brunswick is a large province, it has only about 40,000 acres under potatoes, which is a very small acreage in comparison with the acreage under potatoes in Prince Edward Island.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Would my hon. friend
tell me how long ago it was that New Brunswick was not in a position to supply more potatoes than it used itself?


Angus Alexander McLean: In 1911.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: In 19H we shipped half a million barrels of potatoes from my own county alone.


Angus Alexander McLean: How was it, then, that potatoes came from the state of Maine to New Brunswick, and were sold in competition with potatoes of New Brunswick?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They did not come into the province of New Brunswick in 1911, and we have the records to show it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


David Henderson: Take it back.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Nothing is accomplished by this.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order. The hon. member for Queens, Prince Edward Island, has the floor. The hon. member for Carleton knows that he has no right to interrupt.


Angus Alexander McLean: I do not suppose there is any gentleman who knows so much or who presumes to know so much as the hon. member for Carleton, but I think other hon. members have a right to give utterance to their views on questions under discussion. The hon. member for Carleton should not assume all the rights of every member or even of the members of his own party.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: When my hon. friend is wrong-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: When my hon. friend is wrong, I am going to put him right; make no mistake about that. I think my hon. friend and I get along very well. I presume that he wants to be fair. I have here a statement from the Customs Department of the imports and exports of potatoes for the last two years. My hon. friend can get these, and be absolutely accurate in his statements. Instead of
importing potatoes into New Brunswick in 1911, from my own county alone we exported close to half a million barrels, and the whole province of New Brunswick must have exported three-quarters of a million barrels in that year.


Angus Alexander McLean: I have no doubt that, in his own mind, my hon. friend always thinks he is right,, and he will not concede to any other hon. member the privilege of being right.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Not when he is wrong.


Angus Alexander McLean: According to the hon. member for Carleton, N.B., anything that any hon. member on this side of the House states is wrong; everything that he thinks is evil. It is very unfair to hon. members on this side of the House to be treated in that way by my hon. friend. He ought to make this concession, that every one of us is actuated with good intentions. We are here, not for party purposes; we are here, not for the best interest of Prince Edward Island or New Brunswick or Nova Scotia or Ontario or Quebec; we are here for the best interest of the whole of Canada. When my hon. friend takes upon himself to say, as he has in effect said, that the whole politics of this country should be guided by the quantity of potatoes going into the county of Carleton, I think he goes far afield. He should, as was done in the case of agricultural implements, upon which the duty was reduced, concede something to the manufacturers. He has conceded nothing to them. According to him, they should be turned down from one end of the *country to the other. What would be the-effect in the Maritime provinces to-day if the Nova Scotia Steel Works, the Dominion Steel Works, and the other great industries of that province were turned down, as would be the desire of the hon. member? Where would the markets be for the products of the farmer? There would be none. Since these manufactures have been established in the Maritime provinces under the tariff which we have now, the tariff of 1879, the farmers have become wealthy. To-day the farmers of Prince Edward Island, as a class, are the wealthiest people in Canada. We have the smallest province with the smallest population, but there is not another body of 95,000 people who have the same wealiM as we have. The people of Prince Edwam Island are all farmers, and have made their money through the farming industry -through selling potatoes, cheese and the

other products of the farm. My hon. friends opposite want to take away the pro. tection that the farmers have, the 20 per cent on potatoes, and allow the potatoes of their friends in Maine to come in and undersell our potatoes. Why did they not take that ground when the Laurier Administration increased the tariff on potatoes? Since 1896 the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Hughes) says that conditions have changed. Where is the change in conditions since the tariff on potatoes was increased from 15 cents to 20 cents? There is no ehange so far as I can see, and I venture to say there is not an hon. gentleman on the other side of the House who can show that there is any change in conditions to-day.


Mr. LOGGIE:: Might I ask the hon. gentleman a question? He wants to know what the change is, and why this resolution should not have been made prior to the present date? A very good answer is that the United States Government until last October had a duty ,of 25 cents a bushel against Canadian potatoes. Now they make the duty 10 per cent on condition that if we allow their potatoes in free, then, ipso facto, our potatoes go into the United States free.


Angus Alexander McLean: And the hon. member for Kings, P.iE.I., and the hon. member for Carleton boast that the state of Maine, the state adjoining the province of New Eruns-wick, raised last year 18,000,000 bushels of potatoes; and you want the farmers of the state of Maine to come in and undersell our farmers. There is no doubt that is what you want. What change has taken place in the conditions? The only change is that we have a better market to-day than we had when the duty on potatoes was raised from 15 cents to 20 cents, by reason of the great industries that have been established and the increasing population which has come into the industrial centres, composed not of men engaged in agriculture, but of men engaged in manufacturing.
I wished particularly to make reference to the statement made by the hon. member for Kings that nothing was being done by the Department of Agriculture with reference to this matter. You see, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is now in Opposition and does not know what i3 going on. It is just as well that he should be made acquainted with the facts.


Hon. MARTIN BURRELL (Minister of Agriculture):: The House has probably
learned more about potatoes .last evening and to-day than ever before in the history of Parliament, and I should be loth to burden the patience of the House by discussing at much greater length questions relating to that useful vegetable. There are one or two things however to which I wish to refer briefly and also to make a statement as to the position of the department on some matters that have been touched upon. In the first place, I can hardly see how in any case, a member on this side of the Hcuse understanding the nature of resolutions and what they mean can possibly vote lor so extraordinary a resolution as that moved by the hon. member for Northumberland, as follows:
That resolution 3, schedule * A,' be amended by adding after 79a, the following:
That tariff item No. 83 be amended by adding thereto the following words : Provided, however, that potatoes dry, desiccated or otherwise prepared, being the growth and production of the United States and shall be admitted free of duty when, and as soon as, the United States removes the embargo regulations now existing against like articles, the growth and production of Canada.
I do not know what unhappy confusion of thought exists in the hon. gentleman's nund that may have induced him to frame his resolution in these words. It means, if it means anything that the United States are absolutely insincere in putting on that embargo. It is perfectly true-and this rather conflicts with the statement of the hon. member for Carleton-that it has been urged, and urged not without some reason, that powerful commercial interests were at work in inducing the United States to put that embargo on. I am not making the statement, but I say it has been urged, and urged with some force. But my hon. friend who is so courteous to the United States and complains that we on this side are trying to establish unfriendly instead of friendly relations is dealing them the most unkindest cut of all when he says that they put on the embargo for reasons of this kind. If his resolution does not mean that it means nothing, for it in effect declares that we should have a reduction of duty against the United States in return for the wiping out of the restriction against disease. I should find it, therefore, impossible, whatever my opinion on the duty question, to vote for a resolution so un-

309i
sound. Speaking as a member 10 p.m. of this side and a member of the Government, I would certainly not vote for a resolution that would have the effect of wiping out the duty on an article produced so widely in our own country. I am not going to labour that point. In passing I might point out that my hon. friends opposite, especially those from the West, have a favourite way of stating the effect of duties on our products sent to the United States by saying that they pay the duty, but when an article is imported from the United States, they assume that they pay that duty also; but you cannot have it both going and coming. But, assume for the sake of the argument that the producer pays the duty on the potatoes exported from Canada to the United States, yet that duty is only ten per cent, and the price, if I remember the figures given by the hon. member for Carleton only forty cents per bushel, so that it would only amount to four cents per bushel. In order to wipe out a duty of four cents per bushel on our potatoes going to the United States, which it is not clear that the Canadian producer pays, the hon. gentleman is willing to abolish the twenty cents per bushel on potatoes coming into Canada which would be a hardship-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Forty cents peT bushel
is the average price under present conditions and has been for years past. But if the American market were free to us, it would be greater than that, and so it would mean the saving of I should think, five cents per bushel.
Mr. BURRELL; The difference is only one cent, and I will not dispute about that. But I am bound to say, with my limited knowledge-or perhaps a little more than limited knowledge-of the farming community of Canada as a whole, though perhaps New Brunswick is in a peculiar posi-* tion with regard to the United States market, the farmers of Canada, and especially those of my own province, would oppose and strongly condemn me if I advocated the removal of the duty of 20 per cent per bushel on potatoes. I do not wish to go into the question of duty, but merely wish to say that I would vote against the resolution for this reason as well as for the other that I pointed out.
Now, I desire to say a few words in regard to another feature of the discussion which occupied a good deal of time, namely, the question of the embargo and the po'tato disease, which led up to the embargo. As members of the House know,
the disease in question is a fungous disease, propagating once a year by spores, as all fungus growths do. We have lately heard much about two serious diseases. One of these diseases is potato canker or black canker of the potato. In 1910, the late Government issued an order prohibiting entirely the importation of potatoes from Newfoundland and from St. Pierre-Miquelon, for reasons that in those countries they had this canker, which was considered of a dangerous kind. In September, 1912, we got information that canker was very prevalent in certain parts of Europe, and that they were having great difficulty, especially in Great Britain, where they were quarantining large areas. After careful consideration, this Government issued an Order in Council prohibiting the importation of potatoes from Great Britain and from nearly all countries in Europe. This was followed shortly afterwards by action on the part of the United States of a similar kind, placing an absolute embargo on European countries for potato canker, which was admittedly a very serious disease. After we had done that, we thought it wise, as there had been some importations into Canada very few; not nearly so great importations as had been made into the United States before the embargo was put on;
I think there was a lot of 300,000 bushels arriving in Boston from Europe to bring to the attention of the the farmers in this country, and so we issued a circular from our department and a coloured poster along the line of, and a little smaller than, the one shown here today. This led to potatoes supposedly affected with canker, or some other disease, being sent from all parts of the country to our Dominion botanist. We detected the existence of powdery scab in various parts of the country, perhaps most heavily in Kamouraska, Quebec. Perhaps I should not name these places, as it does not help to have the places talked about, but, on the other hand, it is often well to give these matters publicity with a view to remedy, so on the whole it is probably better to state all the circumstances. This disease, powdery scab, was found very slightly in Nova Scotia; a good many cases-about fifteen I think at that time-in New Brunswick; and in Prince Edward Island, in a considerably greater number. I was rather astonished to hear the hon. member for Kings, Prince Edward Island (Mr. Hughes) -and he will correct me if I am wrong-

make in this House the extraordinary statement, the making of which, I think, shows that he is not familiar with farming problems and is not following attentively the progress ' of farming in Prince Edward Island-that no powdery scab existed in Prince Edward Island, nor any other disease. He stated that the American Consul, who, I suppose, is not considered a great authority on plant pathology, had made the statement that there was no powdery scab. And the hon. gentleman was surprised that the Government-I presumed he referred to the Prince Edward Island Government- did not at once confirm this statement.


James Joseph Hughes: I read from a paper published in Charlottetown, a statement to the effect that the American Consul had reported to his Government that there was no disease in the Prince Edward Island potatoes against which the United States were providing an embargo,-that the diseases were simply dry rot and wet rot. I did not vouch for that statement, I read the statement in a paper published in Charlottetown that the American Consul had made that report to his Government; I did not vouch for its authenticity at all. '


Martin Burrell: I may have been wrong in assuming that my hon. friend endorsed that position, but I thought my hon. friend's argument led to the view that Prince Edward Island was free from this disease. I am surprised that the statement was made, and still more surprised that the hon. gentleman did not verify it before he cast blame upon the provincial Government for not backing up the statement of the American Consul, who evidently was not fully conversant with the subject. My hon. friend would only have to look up the annual report of the Dominion botanist to find where the disease existed and where it did not. While it is true that the distribution of the disease is rather widespread in Prince Edward Island, the infestation itself is comparatively slight. After we found out these things, we obtained the services of expert men-qualified plant pathologists who pay special attention to potato diseases-and sent them to Prince Edward Island and other points to examine carefully into the conditions so that we could take steps to educate the people to look after these things and to report if the existence of any of these diseases was discovered. I have given to this matter a great deal of attention, and I have never yet been convinced and never have seen reason to convince me that the powdery fMr. Burrell.]
scab is of as malignant a character as the potato canker, which probably justified the embargo against Europe and other countries where it existed. The spores of the canker remain dormant under ground for eight years, always ready, when potatoes are planted, to take active life and propagate the disease. While a similar state of things may exist in a smaller degree with regard to powdery scab, the methods of combating it are attended with greater success, and I am bound to say that I cannot regard powdery scab as being in the same category as the potato canker. In the fall of 1913 reports appeared in the press to the effect that the United States was contemplating taking action against Canada in the way of prohibiting the entry of her potatoes.
I would like to refer for a moment to the remarks of the hon. member for Carleton.
I shall not criticise what be said; I appreciate the kindly references he made to myself and to the efforts of the department in this regard, but I do gather that he thought that the Minister of Agriculture or the department was slow in taking the initial steps and that a much better arrangement cbuld have beep made at Washington if we had moved more quickly at the beginning. I know that my hon. friend does not want to be unfair, and I want to put him right on that matter. I received a wire from the hon. gentleman on November 26, and I think he will recall the fact that I wired him the following day assuring him that this matter had been under the consideration of the department and that we were giving it every possible attention. His letter arrived during the week; on account of the reports which were appearing in the press, I had quite a number of letters and telegrams from New Brunswick and elsewhere along the same line. Prior to that time we had unofficial knowledge of the matter through correspondence between the experts of our department and the experts of the United States department, and in the weekly news letter of the United States Department of Agriculture we had previously seen a paragraph, which was, in a sense, official, intimating that the question whether the United iStates should take action against Canada in the way of embargo was to be discussed. I had a memorandum prepared with regard to the matter before it was brought to my attention by our various friends and by the hon. member for Carle-

ton. We gave the matter further consideration. and within a day or two of that time we took it up through the ambassador at Washington. I ought to point out that we were not neglectful of the interests of Canada, or of New Brunswick potato shippers, because we knew very well that under the terms of the Federal Quarantine Act the United States could not take action of that kind without giving us an opportunity to be heard; consequently we did not feel any particular alarm that they would immediately	put on an embargo without
giving	us an	opportunity for consultation. But, to make assurance doubly sure, we took the matter up with the ambassador at Washington. We pointed out that we did not consider that this disease was sufficiently serious to warrant the action which had been reported by the press as 'ikely to be taken by the United States, and that if such action were seriously contemplated by the United States we trusted that they -would give us ample opportunity to prepare a case and to appear before them, either through the embassy at Washington or personally, to make arrangements with regard to the whole matter. This was done. As my hon. friend knows, we went to Washington; a conference was held on December 18 and the whole matter was gone into very thoroughly.
The hon. member for Carleton said something about Mr. Gussow, the Dominion botanist and plant pathologist. I understood him to say that while he did not criticise Mr. Gussow's technical qualifications, he did not think that he was. very practical. I may say in passing that Mr. Gussow's knowledge of plant diseases is looked upon with a great deal of respect by leading experts in the United States. In matters of this kind, therefore, we shall have to rest assured that Canada is being well represented so far as her export knowledge goes.


Richard Blain: When was Mr. Gussow appointed?


Martin Burrell: He was appointed by my predecessor and is, I believe, a well qualified official. We are giving him every opportunity to carry on his work in a larger and more extended way in the future. At that conference business interests were represented; there were present congressmen and representatives from various states interested in potato growing. A large number of petitions were received from persons representing the interests of what we
may call the commercial side of the potato industry. Although they would admit nothing in the way of infestation in their own country except an isolated case or two, it was pointed out at that conference by Mr. Gussow that we had knowledge of the fact that powdery scab did exist in Maine, Massachussets, Nebraska and Winconsin. I am not saying anything unfriendly, but it is not unfair to say that the proceedings at the conference were somewhat pro forma, and it was evident from what took place that the officials of the United States Department of Agriculture had made up their minds that an embargo of this kind would be placed upon Canadian potatoes. On December 22 they issued an order which took effect December 24, practically putting an embargo on our potatoes. Theoretically it was not, perhaps, an absolute embargo, inasmuch as they provided for the admission of our potatoes under certain restrictions.	.
But that is only another way of making an embargo, because the restrictions were such that it was impossible, in a practical commercial way, to ship potatoes into the country. Two of the conditions imposed were that there should be adequate field inspection, and also an adequate, clearly-defined location of infested areas. Hon. gentlemen who know anything about this matter can easily see that in December, when the crop was all harvested, some of it in the cellar and some in the hands of wholesalers, it would be quite impossible to make an adequate field inspection that year or to make a definition of infested areas that could possibly satisfy the United States authorities. That is why we regarded that as an embargo.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: From any information which the minister may have from Washington, can he say if adequate inspection would mean inspection by. United States officers or would they accept the inspection of Canadian officers?


Martin Burrell: They would require that inspection by our federal officers, Canadian officers, and it would have been impossible to carry that out. We have had many representations from New Brunswick and elsewhere, and some correspondence inviting us strongly to retaliate and put an embargo against the United States; others suggesting that we define the area. The more we looked into it the more difficult it seemed to deal with this particular condition of affairs. I did not think that

because we believed another nation had made a mistake in putting on such severe restrictions, we would have been justified in adopting similar action, and so we did not retaliate. Early this year the United States authorities had to admit, because the evidence was multiplied, that there was a very widespread infestation in the state of Maine. I must point out that until then they had made no restriction in the United States; although they must have known, and we pointed out to them, that they had the disease in various portions of that country. United States officers have practically admitted that they had made nothing like the investigations into this matter that we had made, and I wish to add as a compliment to our own Dominion botanist that the poster got out a year and a half ago in reference to potato canker has been used and copied, and our other publications have been copied and published in the United States, and they have formed no unimportant part in the United States work against potato diseases. I think that is a good tribute to Canadian energy in facing these things. As I said, the United States until lately had imposed no restrictions, but they put a restriction against the state of Maine. Then there came this question: they restricted the state of Maine to this extent that they prohibited Maine shippers sending potatoes into other portions of the United States except they had a certificate of freedom from disease from officers in Maine; but the restrictions imposed upon the state of Maine were nothing like so onerous and severe as those imposed against 'Canada in the regulations published in order No. IX of December 18. So we again, quite recently, have taken the matter up with the Embassy at Washington, and the Embassy, at our request, have made strong representations to the Department of Agriculture at Washington that they should give us just the same treatment in Canada that they are giving to Maine in regard to shipments into other states. We have not had any answer to that. I am not aware whether they will do it. I am not now criticising them except that I do say that they should, logically and fairly, give us as fair treatment in Canada as they gave their own state when they quarantined it for the same disease. While this matter was under discussion an international conference to deal with the whole question of plant diseases was called to meet in Rome.

Mr. Gussow represented Canada. The United States was invited to be present, and it was understood that the head of their board for dealing with these diseases would attend; but unfortunately and unhappily the United States was not represented at that conference at all. The French Government proposed a resolution that all vegetation and grain should be required to carry certificates of freedom from disease before being allowed to go from nation to nation. jThis, however, was woted down. The question of the preparation of a definite list of quarantinable diseases was discussed. So far as the powdery scab was concerned, each nation was left to deal with it as it wished. We have fairly good evidence in the department that powdery scab has been in Canada for six or seven years, and possibly before that. I think we are justified in assuming it has been in the United States a great deal longer than that. We have got it from them, or they from us, or we may both have got it from Europe. We undoubtedly have not hitherto considered the powdery scab as the same malignant and sinister character as potato canker. I am not minimizing the fact that it is a serious disease and that farmers should use every method to stamp it out, and I am also strongly of the opinion that the federal and provincial Governments should do everything that can be done to aid the farmer and to bring about a wholesale cooperation between the people and the Governments resulting in stamping out powdery scab. As far as this Government is concerned, we are going to give every possible assistance.
The question of the regulations of the embargo must necessarily be left now for a time until we begin to deal with another crop. I notice the United States are putting on a further quarantine which does not take place until next August, so we will. in the meantime have opportunity to consider the whole matter. In the meantime, this year we can only do our best by carrying on a campaign of education. We have added a number of men to our staff for temporary purposes. It is difficult to get good men, skilled in this work. We have engaged the services of Professor Adams, of the Science College of Dublin, who has made a specialty of potato diseases. He has entered the Canadian service, and will be put in charge of a lot of this work. We intend to try to educate the people to plant nothing but clean seed, to use fresh ground

and to take every step possible to help us stamp out the disease, and I think it can be stamped out.
Something has been said about the publication distributed to the members of this House. I am not saying this in any spirit of boasting, as the entire publication has been prepared in the department, but I believe that publication is a credit to the Dominion of Canada. I do not believe that there has been another publication of the kind on the continent as good and as thoroughly reliable and lifelike in regard to illustration or more helpful in respect to methods of eradication of the disease.
That pamphlet cost the department about $3,000. I think it is money well spent. If it is necessary to spend more I think it will be well spent. We have now 165,000 copies of it, 125,000 in English and 40,000 in French, which we intend to have widely distributed. I venture to say that our friends in the United States will take particular interest in it and will try and copy our action in that respect.
I can only express my apologies for taking up so much of the time of the committee. The country may rest assured that in so far as this matter is concerned, the Department of Agriculture and the Government will take every step that can be taken in co-operation with everybody concerned to stamp out the disease.


James Joseph Hughes: Would the minister indicate the steps that can be taken by the farmers in planting their seed in order to take precautions against the disease? Can the seed Ibe soaked?


Martin Burrell: No, that matter is all
covered by the directions in the pamphlet. With regard to several of these diseases, including this one, you can do nothing in the way of soaking seed or treatment of any kind. The only method of value is to plant clean seed. You must not only not take seed from a crop that may seem to be sound, but you must take seed from a crop that has never had the disease and plant it in soil where diseased crops have never been grown. My hon. friend will find that the pamphlet is very full and explicit. The information is packed into small compass, but it will give immense help to potato growers, and in addition the services of our officers will be at the disposal of anybody in the country who wants to make use of them.


James Joseph Hughes: I was very much
pleased to hear the remarks of the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell), and especially was I pleased when he spoke of the efforts that the Government were making to induce the Government of the United States to place no more stringent regulations upon the importation of potatoes from Canada than they were putting on potatoes from the state of Maine. That was especially gratifying to me, because it shows clearly that, in the opinion of the minister and the Government, they value highly the market of the United States for Canadian potatoes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Joseph Hughes: No better argument
could be used. Why, if they did not value that market, were such efforts put forth to get the regulations against this country made no stricter than against the state of Maine? No better argument could be used in favour of the value of that market and no stronger one could be advanced in favour of the reduction of the duty on potatoes into this country in order to obtain free access to the American market.


William Thomas White: We are in committee and I avail myself of the privilege of speaking twice. I am the more inclined to this course because otherwise I might appear to be somewhat discourteous to my hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. Loggie). I am sure he will acquit me of any intention of that character. When I expressed the desire between twelve and one o'clock last night that the debate should be concluded, if possible, before the House rose, I had no idea that so many gentlemen intended to take part in this discussion, and that it would range over so large a field. Otherwise, of course, I should have been more than willing that the House should have adjourned and that the debate should have been continued to-day. The hon. member for Northumberland has offered an amendment, and in order that we may see precisely what we are debating, I propose to read the resolution which is offered for the consideration of the committee:
That tariff item No. 83 be amended by adding thereto the following words:	Provided,
however, that potatoes dry, desiccated or otherwise prepared, being the growth and production of the United States, shall be admitted free of duty when, and as soon as, the United States removes the embargo regulations now

existing against like articles, the growth and production of Canada.
My hon. friend is evidently of the view that if this resolution were adopted and the tariff change which he has in mind made, the potatoes mentioned in the tariff item would be .admitted free from the United States only, and that by reason of their free admission into this country Canada would become entitled to the benefits of the countervailing provisions of the Underwood tariff and that our potatoes would be given free access to the markets of the United States. I think that is a fair deduction from the wording of the resolution. I would point out to my hon. friend certain consequences that would flow if this tariff change were made. In the first place, we would have to admit free potatoes from the United States and from all the Britsh colonies and British possessions.


William Stewart Loggie: I understood that.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend says that he understood that. I notice that he did not emphasize it. My hon. friend knows also that there are certain nations which are accorded most favoured nation treatment under the tariff laws of Canada.


William Stewart Loggie: That is right.


William Thomas White: Among these are the Argentine republic, Austria-Hungary, Denmark, Japan, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Venezuela. In passing, I must express my surprise that such a good free trader as we have always understood the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) to be, should take exception to potatoes coming into Canada from Germany. I understood my hon. friend to be reluctant to admit that he should like to see potatoes coming into Canada from Germany.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend understood me absolutely correctly. I do not want to see them coming from Germany, because I do not think Germany has ever given us fair treatment and because German potatoes are diseased.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend says the reason is because they are diseased.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: This would not bring them from Germany.


William Thomas White: Is it a fact that my hon. friend is objecting that cheaper potatoes would come into Canada from Germany, or some other nation, and break the price in Canada ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend puts it entirely on the ground of disease.


Mr. NESBITT:: I would like to ask the minister if Germany admits our potatoes free.


William Thomas White: I am unable, offhand, to answer that question.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I can tell you: They do not.


William Thomas White: Surely a good free trader who is in favour of free food could not by any possibility object to Canada buying cheaper potatoes, whether they come from
Germany or any other country.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Purely for information, may I ask the minister if an effort was not made some years ago to have the most favoured nation clauses cancelled ?


William Thomas White: I am coming to that in a moment. No less a personage than the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved a resolution in the Imperial conference having as its object the denunciation of those treaties.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: And that was passed.


William Thomas White: Passed by the Imperial Conference.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: And they agreed to. cancel them whenever Canada wanted them cancelled.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend from Carle-ton was evidently of the view, or he gave the committee the view, that the United States Congress had made these countervailing provisions in respect to potatoes having in mind especially Canada


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I thought so.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend surely does not argue that the provisions of the Underwood tariff are limited to Canada? I have those provisions here, and I will read them to my hon. friend. I quote from the free list of the Underwood tariff:
Potatoes, and potatoes dried, desiccated, or otherwise prepared, not specially provided for in this section: Provided, that any of the foregoing specified articles shall he subject to a duty of ten per cent ad valorem when imported directly or indirectly from a country, dependency, or other subdivision of government, which imposes a duty on such articles imported from the United States.
Therefore the legislation is general to those countries which will admit potatoes the product of the United States free. The United States will extend the same privi-

lege to them. That is the effect of this provision of the Underwood tariff.
I listened with as much interest and attention as to anything in the House, to the recital of my hon. friend (Mr. Carvell) as to what was done by the Maine farmers as soon as the Underwood tariff reduced the duty upon potatoes to ten per cent, ad valorem. I may say that under the Canadian tariff the duty upon potatoes is twenty cents a bushel, and that previously to the introduction of the Underwood tariff the duty upon potatoes in the United States was twenty-five cents a bushel. By the Underwood tariff the duty upon potatoes was reduced to ten per cent ad valorem, which is the rate to-day. The recital of my hon. friend (Mr. Carvell) wTas most graphic and illuminating, and I could . not help but reflect upon the strange irony of political circumstances. I have not the slightest doubt-and I am not going to hark back to the reciprocity agreement-that my hon. friend went upon the platforms of New Brunswick and, powerful debater as he is, set forth to the people the advantages of the reciprocity agreement, under which Canadian potatoes would be admitted free to the markets of the United States. Mark you, at that time the duty on potatoes entering the United States from Canada was twenty-five cents a bushel, and my hon. friend naturally concluded that if that duty of twenty-five cents a bushel were removed, the potatoes of his native province would gain free access to the markets of the United States. Let us see what happened.
Following on the enactment of the Underwood tariff which did not abolish the duty but reduced it to ten per cent ad valorem, the Maine farmers, who appear to value protection pretty highly, at once sent agents, as I understood my hon. friend to say, through the province of New Brunswick, to ascertain if there was any disease in potatoes which they could 'bring to the notice of the Government at Washington. He also told us that New Brunswick was capable of multiplying threefold, yes tenfold, her present production of potatoes. Is there any doubt whatever that the Maine farmers had that capacity of potato production in New Brunswick in view when they initiated the proceedings which led to this embargo. I put it to my hon. friend (Mr. Carvell) does he believe that if the United States duty upon potatoes had remained at twenty-five cents per bushel, that embargo would be in existence to-day?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend does not believe, and I do not believe it would be in existence to-day, if the duty of twenty-five cents a bushel had remained. The result then is that the reduction by the Underwood tariff from twenty-five cents a bushel to ten per cent ad valorem has caused the potato growers of New Brunswick to be absolutely shut out of the markets of the United States. Now, if that happened on a reduction to ten per cent ad valorem would it not have happened or something worse, if possible, if the duty had been entirely removed? I cannot help but reflect upon the strange irony of circumstances, which sent my hon. friend on the platforms of New Brunswick to point out the advantages which would be gained by the farmers of New Brunswick by reason of the reciprocity agreement which would admit their potatoes free to' the American markets, thus enabling them to double, and treble, and multiply by ten, their output, and today forces him in this House to point out, that because of the reduction by the Underwood Tariff to ten per cent ad valorem, on the initiative the farmers of the United States who he said had strong political influence, the New Brunswick farmers are shut out *absolutely from the markets of the United States, and they are not in as good a position as they were before.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I said on the initiative of the farmers of the state of Maine not of the United States as a whole.


William Thomas White: Maine is a powerful and
influential state. The Minister of Agriculture said that at the conference which was held with respect to this question, commercial interests were represented as well. I desire to make no strong statements about this matter, because I was not before aware of the facts which have been called to the attention of the House this afternoon by my hon. friend from Carleton and by the Minister of Agriculture. But, is there any doubt that the farmers of Maine themselves, and through their political representatives, brought powerful influence to bear upon the Government of the United States, and that as a result this embargo was established? There is no doubt about it whatever. Therefore, I say that the farmers cf New Brunswick are in a worse position than they would have been if the tariff of twenty-five cents a bushel had remained against Canadian potatoes, because the Canadian farmers would have at least been

able to sell in the markets of the United States after the payment of the twenty-five cents per 'bushel duty. I point out to my hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. Loggie) that the hon. gentleman from Carleton (Mr. Carvetl), in my judgment has this afternoon supplied the strongest possible argument against the adoption of his resolution. If the amendment of my hon. friend (Mr. Loggie) were adopted, what would follow? If the United States removes the embargo, then by reason of the countervailing provisions of the Underwood tariff, the potatoes of Canada would gain free entry to the markets of the United States. I put it to my hon. friend from Northumberland that if the farmers of Maine have taken the initiative and have by the influence they have been able to bear had this embargo put on because of a reduction of twenty-five cents a bushel to ten per cent ad valorem, what would they not do if this amendment were carried and they knew that the potatoes from Canada would go into the United States, not at <& duty of ten per oent ad valorem but absolutely free of duty? That argument cannot be refuted. If the farmers of Maine had taken the initiative, and my hon. friend criticised them pretty roughly for doing so, to get an embargo placed on our potatoes because of a reduction in the duty, what would they not be disposed to do if the duty were wiped off altogether and they found themselves exposed to Canadian competition?
I need not tell my hon. friend from Carleton, who has a strong, virile intellect, what would happen under such circumstances. He knows that if this amendment were to pass this House the efforts of the Maine farmers would be redoubled.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does my hon. friend
want me to tell him what I know?


William Thomas White: Very well.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I know no such thing,
and I tell him frankly that I do not believe the competition from the province of New Brunswick would affect the price of potatoes one cent in the United States, nor do I believe that the United States people would have attempted to put on this embargo so far as Canada is concerned. It was the European market they were afraid of. The hon. gentleman is harking back to reciprocity, but I can tell him that all of this trouble dates from the refusal of reei-
[Mr. W. T. White 1
procity, and had reciprocity gone through there would have been' an embargo against the rest of the world and there would not be an embargo against Canada to-day.


William Thomas White: 
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We do not produce
enough.


William Thomas White: I assume that the Maine farmers, to whom my hon. friend has paid a high tribute this afternoon, are a keenwitted, practical-minded set of men.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes.


William Thomas White: Will my hon. friend tell me why they took the trouble to send over agents to New Brunswick to see if they could find an example of powdery scab, in order that potatoes of New Brunswick might be debarred from the American market ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: With the greatest of
pleasure. I live alongside of those people; I know the men who have made the incursion into New Brunswick, and I have it from the potato men and the potato growers of the state of Maine. They did not fear the Canadian competition; but they were determined to prevent the free importation of potatoes into the United States from every country of the world, and they got their Government to put on this embargo in order to shut out the competition from Europe. When they shut out the competition from Europe, they wanted to shut it out from every country. Any one in the state of Maine will tell you that they did not fear the competition of New Brunswick or of Canada. If the competition only came from Canada, you would hear nothing about it; it was the competition from Europe that they desired to shut * out.


Martin Burrell: My hon. friend's argument is a little faulty, inasmuch as the United States had already a very effective embargo against Europe on account of canker, which is a different thing entirely.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They had no embargo
against powdery scab, and it is professedly only against powdery scab that they are endeavouring to prohibit importations of potatoes from New Brunswick and other provinces of Canada into their country.


Martin Burrell: My hon. friend did not understand me.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I did, and I think my hon. friend will see that I did before I have finished. They did not profess to put an embargo on potatoes on account of canker; they professed to do so on account of powdery scab. It is a fact that hundreds of thousands of bushels of European potatoes came into the United States from the 3rd day of October to the 24th day of December, 1913, from those countries which the United States believed did not possess canker, but did possess powdery scab. It was canker they were afraid of; and it was the fact that not merely a few carloads but whole shiploads of cankered potatoes came from Europe that made them determined to prohibit the importation of those potatoes, if possible.


Martin Burrell: I am afraid my hon.
friend has made rather a wild statement. I do not think he can show that thousands and thousands of bushels of potatoes came from European countries to the United States prior to their action, because they had an effective embargo against all countries on account of potato canker.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend the
Minister of Agriculture is. all wrong.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I advise my hon. friends not to get too gay over it. My hon. friend, if he looks up the trade returns, will find that shipload after shipload of potatoes came from Europe into the ports of Boston and New York in November and early in December.


William Thomas White: I think my hon. friend
will have some difficulty in making the country believe that, if the Maine farmers had in view only the prohibition of the importation of potatoes from Europe, they would seek to accomplish their purpose by making an investigation of the farms in the province of New Brunswick. There is no doubt about it whatever, and my hon. friend has supplied the reason in his own argument. He says that New Brunswick is capable of increasing its output of potatoes tenfold. Does he mean to tell hon. members that, having regard to freight rates and all the other matters that enter into the question of price, an increase of the potato-product of New Brunswick by ten will have no material influence upon the price in the nearby markets of the United States?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does my hon. friend not know that the freight rate to the United States is greater from New Brunswick than from Europe?


William Thomas White: My hon. friend says that they can keep out the European product by reason of canker.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend knows just as well as I do that, if the Canadian output were increased by ten, and if the farmers had free access to the markets of the United States and sent in their products subject to a 10 per cent or other duty, it would have a material influence upon the price in the nearby markets of the United States.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think so.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend does not think so, but some of us do think so. The Maine farmers thought so, and their action was governed by what they thought. They came in and examined the farms of New Brunswick; they found powdery scab; they brought political influence to bear, and they had this embargo enforced against the potatoes of Canada. The farmers in my hon. friend's constituency are in worse case to-day, as I said, than they would have been under the Payne-Aldrich tariff of the United States, namely, 25 cents a bushel upon potatoes. That is the result of the reduction in the tariff of the United States, which I have no doubt my hon. friend has heralded as a great advantage to Canada.
There aTe a few other statements which my hon. friend made to which I wish to refer briefly. Before doing so, I wish to say that if the amendment of my hon. friend from Northumberland, N.B. (Mr. Loggie), were adopted, and the tariff reduced, the result, in my judgment, would be that the present embargo would be made perpetual against the potatoes of Canada, because I believe the farmers of Maine, realizing as they would that this would mean, in the event of the removal of the embargo, the free 'entry of Canadian potatoes into the United States in competition with theirs, would exert their influence more strongly even than they did on the last occasion. The result would be that the Canadian potatoes would be absolutely shut out under an, embargo provision for all time from the markets of the United States.
My hon. friend said in the course of his remarks that the Canadian market would be of no advantage to the producers in the United States. That would seem to follow from his argument that prices were higher

in the United States than in Canada. If that is so, I would put it to my hon. friend, what possible influence upon the action of the United States could we exercise by the removal of our duty against potatoes? If the market of Canada is of no value to the potato growers of the United States, I repeat, what influence would any action on our part in removing or reducing the duty on potatoes have upon the Government of the United States with respect to the embargo? My hon. friend confutes lids own argument by his admission. Further, I put this to my hon. friend. He stated this afternoon that the United States acted fairly in imposing the embargo. What follows firom his argument? He said in substance and effect: If you will remove the duty, we may look for an earlier removal of the embargo. What has he suggested in that? That the embargo might be continued beyond the time during which it is properly enforcible; in other words, that it might become a protection to the farmers of the United States instead of a quarantine measure.
That absolutely follows from the argument of my hon. friend; there is no getting away from it. The Minister of Agriculture said, referring to the resolution of the hon. member for Northumberland, that there is confusion of thought in that resolution. My hon. friend from Carleton has argued this afternoon that the market of Canada is of no use to the potato growers of the United States. He has argued, notwithstanding that admission, that it will be influential in having the embargo removed so far as Canada is concerned if we remove the Canadian duty and admit American potatoes to this market, which according to his own statement, would he of no advantage to the United States. And he has 'by implication charged the United States with imposing this embargo, not for quarantine reasons, not for the purpose of keeping out disease, but solely as a protective measuie for their own farmers suffering from a reduction of the rates of duty under the provisions of the Underwood Tariff.
Let me put it another way:
11 p.m. The hon. gentleman knows that there are only two classes in the community who would be affected by an alteration in the tariff Tates-the consumers and the producers. If there is no advantage to the producer of potatoes in the United States in having access to the Canadian market, is there any advantage to the consumer in the United States in having the American tariff reduced or removed? If my

hon. friend says there is, I say the remedy is wholly in the hands of the United States: they can lower or remove their duty whenever they please.
Now, my hon. friend has spoken rather contemptuously of the home market.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Quite so.


William Thomas White: His words were: The home market and all that sort of nonsense.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I meant all that.


William Thomas White: I am sorry the hon. gentleman meant it, because I think he is a man capable of taking a broader view.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have had experience.


William Thomas White: Probably in one section of the country only. But we must learn that in this country there are many children of Confederation, there are many provinces, and what is an immortal truth in Nova Scotia may be a heresy in British Columbia. That is brought home to me every day in connection with such matters as the tariff. I am the first to admit that there are sections of Canada in which there is a considerable advantage in having access to the American market; I have always admitted that. But the hon. gentleman must take -the country as a whole. If he would visit to the province of Ontario or to the province of Quebec or many other provinces, he would find that the home market is not regarded as a bit of 'nonsense' by the agriculturists. I doubt if my hon. friend could carry his* membership in any rural constituency in Ontario if he came out and talked about the ' nonsense ' of the home market. I would point out that it was the appreciation by the Ontario farmer and the Quebec farmer of his home market that won the election on the reciprocity issue.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: And I want to say that the election was won on money and the Ne Temere decree.


William Thomas White: I do not propose to bandy words with my hon. friend on any proposition so foolish as that. I have stumped Ontario, and know rural Ontario as well; I was born on an Ontario farm, and I know farming conditions. It is true not only of Ontario but of Quebec, and of British Columbia and of Manitoba, and I believe it will be increasingly true of other provinces, that the farmer values greatly his home market. And my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), who committed himself for the

moment to a free food policy at Hamilton, had to back up on that policy because of the condition that I have mentioned as existing-namely, the appreciation by the Canadian farmer of feis home market.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: How is he going to lose it in the event of reciprocity?


William Thomas White: My hon. friend knows the difference between a home market and a foreign market.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Do I understand the
hon. minister to assert that in the event of reciprocity in potatoes between Canada and the United States our farmers would lose the home market? Surely he does not undertake to assert such a proposition.


William Thomas White: Let me say this to my hon. friend. Take the case of manufactures-


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Just one moment. I understood the hon. member for Carleton to say that there was considerable nonsense in hon. gentlemen opposite continually asserting the great importance of the home market when any one on this side suggests the desirability of having a market for their products where there is an exportable surplus.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I was talking about the home market for potatoes.


William Thomas White: The hon. member for
Carleton does not need an interpreter; whatever faults he may have, vagueness is not one of them. I understand him, and he knew I understood him. He cast contempt upon the home market.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: For potatoes.


William Thomas White: For potatoes and other
produce. He is a free trader for every part of Canada except New Brunswick, and a free trader there in everything except potatoes. He reminds me of the lines in the Biglow paper:
I du believe in Freedom's cause,
Ez fur away ez Payris is;
I love to see her stick her claws In them infernal Phayrisees.
So, with the hon. gentleman, protection is anathema on everything except the potatoes of New Brunswick. Now, I wish to say to him-because I have a good deal of respect for his ability and would like to see him take a larger view of this matter-that he cannot formulate a tariff policy by keeping in view only one province or one constituency; he must consider Canada as a whole. He is disregarding an obvious and patent
fact if he jumps to the conclusion that the farmer of this country does not value his home market. If he does not want to take my word for it, let him have a heart to heart talk with his right hon. leader (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who had to withdraw from the policy set forth so eloquently in Hamilton because the rural members in Ontario and Quebec said to him: You aire going to ruin us in our constituencies. That is what I meant when I said that free food means free trade. And it does; because if the protective duties that have been valued by the farmers since protection was introduced in 1879 are to be swept away, they will insist that others be swept away also; they all stand on the same footing, and when the farmer of Ontario and of other provinces values his protection so much, he is either going to have it or see that nobody else shall have it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Did I understand the minister to say that even if it could be shown that with potatoes on the free list in Canada and the United States it would be utterly impossible for the United States to send into this country potatoes in any substantial quantities and yet we could export in large quantitie? to the United States, he would still oppose the principle of this resolution?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: In Canada-and that he would adhere to a tariff upon potatoes simply because the placing of potatoes upon the free list would disturb the whole fabric of protection. Does my hon. friend mean that?


William Thomas White: I am of the opinion that
Canada should make her own tariffs, and that the United States and every other country should make their own tariffs. I believe in having a policy to work upon; I do not believe in taking isolated articles here and there, and for political, demagogic or other reasons, singling them out for special tariff treatment.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We are talking about
potatoes in this resolution.


William Thomas White: I know that, but my hon. friend asked me for a general statement of opinion and I say that a minister of Finance should have a policy to work to. I 'aid down in my Budget speech a policy of reasonable protection for the industries of Canada, including agriculture, and I say, therefore, that you must deal with the products of agriculture as you deal with the



products of manufacture; that is to say you must afford them reasonable protection. How much that reasonable protection should be at any given time I do not propose to say, because as conditions change from time to time, necessary tariff modifications have to be made. There might come a time when certain manufactured, articles on which hitherto a duty has been imposed might be placed upon the free list; there might come a time when certain articles the product of the farm might well be placed upon the free list. But I lay down the general principle that the fiscal policy of the Government, as stated in the Budget speech, is one of reasonable protection for all the industries of Canada, including the great basic industry of agriculture. In the application of that principle we must be guided by the facts and conditions that are before us from time to time. I think that the resolution of the hon. member for Northumberland should be negatived, on several grounds. In the first place, it could not-and he evidently had in mind that it could-be confined to potatoes coming in from the United States of America. If the resolution were adopted, potatoes would come in from the United Kingdom, from all the British possessions and from all the most favoured nations. When my hon. friend (Mr. Car-veil) this afternoon indicated that he would be, to say the least, reluctant tfyat potatoes should come into Canada from Germany or from any other nation but the United States free of duty, I could not help thinking of what his leader did at the Imperial Conference in 1911. This is the resolution which was moved by my right hon. friend and adopted by the Imperial Conference at that time:
That His Majesty's Government be requested to open negotiations with the several foreign governments having treaties which apply to the overseas Dominions with a view to securing liberty for any of those Dominions which may so desire to withdraw from the operation of the treaty without impairing the treaty in respect of the rest of the empire.
My right hon. friend obviously had in mind at that time the idea that these treaties should be denounced in order that these commodities should not come in free by reason of the reciprocity pact. My hon. friend a few moments ago said that he objected to potatoes coming in from Germany free of duty only on account of their being affected with disease.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I did not say so; my hon. friend said that for me.


William Thomas White: What did my hon. friend
say ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend drew that inference from my remarks; I did not make the statement.


William Thomas White: On what ground is my hon. friend unwilling that potatoes should enter New Brunswick from Germany free of duty?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will answer when my hon. friend is through.


William Thomas White: I asked my hon. friend a few minutes ago whether he objected to pototoes coming into Canada from Germany free of duty on the ground that it would make them cheaper in New Brunswick, and I understood him to say-and by reason of what he said he got into a controversy with the Minister of Agriculture- that he objected on account of their being diseased. If this is the only reason, then does he subscribe to what was done by his leader at the Imperial Conference in 1911, whereby the right hon. gentleman desired to have the treaties denounced in order that these goods might enter Canada free of duty?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Absolutely.


William Thomas White: If my hon. friend does not want to see natrural and manufactured products come from the most favoured nations free of duty, is he a free trader or is he a protectionist? If my hon. friend is not a protectionist, what objection has he to natural and manufactured products coming into Canada free of duty from the most favoured nations?
As I have said, the resolution of the hon. member for Northumberland should be negatived, on several grounds. One of them is that the goods from these other nations that I have mentioned would be admitted free to the markets of Canada. Secondly, as pointed out by the Minister of Agriculture, the resolution on the face of it implies that the United States has imposed this embargo for other than quarantine reasons. Th'ere is no getting away from that fact; the implication is evident from the arguments that followed. The implication of the hon. mem her for Northumberland and of the hou member for Carleton is that if Canada will place potatoes on the free list, the United States will be more likely, in the early future, to remove the embargo. On what ground should the United States remove the embargo? Only on the ground that,

from the standpoint of quarantine and the interests of agriculture, there is no longer any necessity for it. My hon. friend has admitted that the Canadian market is of no value to the American farmer; yet he says that the American Government will be prone to remove this embargo at an earlier date if we admit their potatoes into Canada free of duty.
The third reason why the resolution of my hon. friend should not be accepted is that, as I stated last night, it is inconsistent with the fiscal policy of protection that I laid down in the Budget speech. I do not say, and I never have said, that a policy of protection means that no articles produced or manufactured in Canada should be placed upon the free list. On the contrary, I have said in my Budget speech and on other occasions that as conditions change, tariff modifications may be made; that duties may be reduced or wholly abolished as circumstances may permit or as the public interest may require. But, having regard to the facts adduced this evening by the hon. member for Frontenac and others as to the production of potatoes in Canada and in the United States, I say that the time has not come when we should place potatoes upon the free list; that to do so under the existing circumstances would be inconsistent with the fiscal policy of protection which I enunciated in the Budget speech. For all these reasons, therefore, I ask that this amendment be negatived.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend assumes that I announced in this House that I was an absolute free trader. I think he would have some difficulty in finding record of my having made any such assertion, either in this House or on the platforms of this country, wherever I have discussed these questions-and I have been discussing them for a great many years. I am not like my hon. friend, who is hidebound to some particular policy and cannot get away from it. I believe in a business tariff. If it is necessary to put on a reasonable amount of protection for business reasons, I am willing to have it put on. On the other hand, if good business dictates that a thing should be put on the free list, I am for putting it on tne free list. I do not think my hon. friend can make very much capital by charging me with being neither free trader nor protectionist. I try to look at this thing from the business standpoint.
My hon. friend also brought up the question of the favoured nations. I did not in-196i
tend to hark back to reciprocity and refrained from saying anything about what the result would have been if reciprocity had passed. I am one of those who said in 1911 that reciprocity was not dead and I say so now. It is as much alive to-day as ever and will always be until the matter is settled properly. The right hon. the leader of the Opposition, when he attended the Imperial Conference of 1911, secured the passage of a resolution favouring the abrogation of the favoured nation treaties so far as Canada is concerned. This was done for the purpose of putting Canada in a position to abrogate and get rid of these treaties if we wanted to do so. I do not want to allow Germany to send potatoes into Canada if we cannot get a corresponding advantage from them. The same thing applies to Denmark, Holland, Belgium or any other country. I do not know that I would be so patriotic that I would like Great Britain or anybody else to send potatoes in here if I did not think it would be to our benefit as well as to theirs. Therefore, when our friend harks back to the favoured nation treaties he knows that the resolution of my bon. friend from Northumberland has nothing to do with favoured nations, because under the resolution passed by the Imperial Conference, if this Government wants to they can denounce the treaty as against Germany or any other country.


William Thomas White: Is the hon. member in
favour of putting on the free list all live stock and other products of agriculture in Canada either from Germany or any other country?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There may be a few exceptions but as a general principle it would be absolutely so and I think it is in the best interests of both producer and consumer in Canada. I would not say that there might not 'be a few exceptions because no person should be called on without going over the list to give an absolute answer to such a question. As a general thing I believe it would be of great benefit to the people of Canada as a whole. Therefore, I think we can dismiss the result of the favoured nation treaties on this question of potatoes. I stated that the result of this treaty would be to allow the potatoes from Great Britain to come in here free and I have no fault to find with potatoes coming from Great Britain provided they are not prevented by quarantine regulations of some kind.
My hon. friend talked about the home market and tried to show that I was inconsistent in my statement about it being

of no value to the American producer. I stated that I did not believe the free entry of potatoes into Canada would be of any advantage to the American farmer. I said I believed that the American Government might have thought it to be of some advantage or they would not have insisted in their tariff that our potatoes would not enter their country without a corresponding concession on our part. My friends from Ontario, from whom all the opposition has come, do not seem to realize that they do not produce anything like the potatoes which they consume in Ontario.


Mr. HANNA:: You do not know what you are talking about.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The hon. gentleman does not and I know what I am talking about. If the hon. gentleman goes to the Canadian Pacific railway office in Montreal he will find that for the last five or' six years we have been exporting into Ontario from New Brunswick anywhere from 500,000 bushels to 1,000,000 bushels a yeajr. These are pretty big figures but' we cannot find them in the trade returns because there are no returns for interprovincial trade. The price of potatoes all over the cities of Ontario is entirely governed by the price of potatoes in New Brunswick. New Brunswick potatoes are quoted at from 5 to 10 cents a bag more than the native potatoes. When the American market was practically open to us in October, November and December of 1913 our potatoes practically all went to the American market. Dealers in New Brunswick told me that where they send one car to the Canadian market they send ten to the American. Therefore the price in Ontario of New Brunswick potatoes was governed entirely by the price in Boston and the price of New Brunswick potatoes coverns the price of the home product in Ontario. If you take away from Ontario the potatoes we have been sending you- and that will be the result of opening the American market-you will be creating a demand for Ontario potatoes that you have not to-day, you will be compelled to raise half a million bushels a year more.


John Hampden Burnham: We do not get a New Brunswick potato in the neighbourhood of Peterborough.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend does not know. They get them anyway in Muskoka, which is farther away than Peterborough.


John Hampden Burnham: I know a potato dealer very well and he says that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If my hon. friend will
go to his potato dealer and ask him if there has not been a carload of New Brunswick potatoes sold in Peterborough this year, I am satisfied that he will learn that they have been sold; and if he sends a telegram this minute I will pay for the telegram and the reply.


John Hampden Burnham: You need not. I will tell you something shorter and quicker than that. Senator Ferguson's son from Prince Edward Island is a particular friend of mine in Peterborough, and he deals in potatoes. When there is a shortage in Peterborough through drouth he gets his potatoes from Prince Edward Island; he does not get them at all from New Brunswick.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There was a time in the spring of 1912 when -some potatoes were sent from Prince Edward Island to Peterborough. I happen to have a big lawsuit in progress now over a shipment and I hope to fight it out before very long and of course I want to win; but my horn, friend is evidently not aware that they cannot get potatoes from Prince Edward Island from the last of December until the 1st of April because there is no practical way of getting them across the straits and they have to have them in Peterborough during the winter.


John Hampden Burnham: I am telling you facts. It is no use frying to put that down my throat.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think it is a'helpless case; if my hon. friend will not believe me when I tell him that you cannot economically get them across the straits in winter time, I have nothing more to say to him. If he will consult his friends from Prince Edward Island I think he will find that I am pretty nearly correct. If ever theTe was a chance for my hon. friend to use an aeroplane in a commercial way it would be in getting potatoes across the straits in the winter time. However, the home market in Ontario would be immensely benefited by the reduction of this duty or the making of potatoes free in the United States because it would absolutely divert from Ontario the half million bushels which we are sending annually from the Maritime provinces.
Mr. DeWITT FOSTER: Will the price go up?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Will it go up to the
Ontario farmer?


Mr.   POSTER@: Yes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Of course it will.


George Eulas Foster: How will that affect the consumer?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
Edward Walter Nesbitt: After the very lucid explanation which the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell) gave, and in which he stated that there was reason for the American Government putting an embargo on potatoes from the Maritime provinces, was it wise for the Minister of Finance to charge a great and friendly nation like the United States with sharp practice in putting on that embargo against Canada? I think nobody can take any other meet meaning out of the hon. gentleman's speech.


William Thomas White: This was my argument, and it was perfectly plain: I said that some of the Maine farmers upon the reduction of the duties by the Underwood tariff, had sent agents to New Brunswick, according to the statement of the hon. member for Carieton (Mr. Carvell), to ascertain if there was any powdery scab upon the potatoes raised there. I said that they had taken the initiative, and I also said-and I think that my hon. friend agreed with me^-that if the duty had not been reduced the farmers would not have taken the initiative, and would not have brought the influences to bear which resulted in the investigation. I did not say then, and I do not say now, that the officials of the United States who held this investigation acted with any impropriety but that they would not have acted at all if the Maine farmers, of whom my hon. friend spoke this afternoon, had not taken the-initiative. I believe he agreed with that, view. I do not know if there is any powdery scab on the potatoes of New Brunswick or not, and I do not know whether the hon. Minister of Agriculture said there was or not. I was not dealing with the question of whether -there was or not. I was dealing with this only, that by reason of the reduction of the tariff the farmers of Maine had taken the initiative which had brought about the embargo. I do not say whether it was properly imposed; I do not know whether it was or not. But I say that the amendment of the hon. member for Northumberland, and the arguments which have been used in support of it, to the effect that the United States would be inclined to put an end to the embargo at an earlier date than they otherwise would if we gave free access for their potatoes to our markets, cast doubt upon their good faith in continuing the embargo. I did not cast that doubt. My hon. friend (Mr. Nesbitt) had better look to his own side for the implication, because I have made none. I have been dealing with the resolution, and I take the same view of it as was taken by my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture, namely, that its effect is to cast doubt upon the good faith of the United States Government in maintaining that embargo. I have made no such statement as that. The resolution implies that, and that is one of the reasons why it should be rejected.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I only put the question so that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance could have an opportunity of saying whether he intended that a minister of the Crown of Canada should question the good faith of a great and friendly nation like the United States.


William Thomas White: I certainly do not.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: We in Ontario had no reason to complain of their good faith in so far as cattle, etc., are concerned. I do not think it is wise for a minister of the Crown, no matter what he may think, to question the good faith of a friendly nation.	.	>
\	,

Amendment (Mr. Loggie) negatived: Yeas, 33; nays, 60.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
113. Cocoanuts, desiccated, sweetened or not, per pound-British preferential, 3 cents; intermediate, 4 cents; general, 4 cents.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is there any change in that?


William Thomas White: There is a change rendered necessary by the action of last year in reference to the West Indian treaty. Previous to the negotiation of the West Indian treaty the rates were: British preferential, 3 cents; and general, 5 cents. On account of the West Indian theaty, and, in making the adjustment that was necessary in order to meet its provisions, we changed the rate to 3 cents British preferential, and 4 cents general tariff.
Immediately after the Budget was brought down last year, complaint was made by the manufacturers of dessicated cocoanut that the adjustment we had made was unfair to them and really prevented them from carrying on business in competition with the manufacturers of Ceylon. In Canada cocoanuts are bought in the West Indies. A bag of cocoanuts weighs 160 pounds and the freight has to be paid on that 160 pounds, while the product obtained from 160 pounds is only thirty-three pounds. The manufacturer in 'Ceylon who has cocoanuts at his own door, manufactures his desiccated cocoanut and ships it into -Canada without having to pay the freight for hundreds of miles on -cocoanuts, producing only one-fiftli of their weight dn product. I sent Mir. Russell to Montreal to inquire whether the complaint was well founded, and he reported it was, and in order to rectify what was an undoubted injustice to the cocoanut manufacturers of Canada, by reason of the changes which were rendered necessary by the W-est Indian treaty, we have had to propose this modification in the tariff and to increase the two -cents British preference to three cents, in order that our manufacturers may be in as good a position as they were before the negotiation of the West Indian treaty.


Frank Oliver: Has item 99a, evaporated bananas, anything to do with the West Indian treaty?


William Thomas White: That is intended to promote West Indian trade and to put this commodity the trade in which is increasing be-

tween the West Indies and ourselves, upon the same basis as currants and raisins.


Frank Oliver: Is the rate increased or decreased?


William Thomas White: It will come in now free from the British West Indies. The value is about eight cents per pound and the former rate was-Brit'sh preference seventeen and one-half per cent; intermediate, twenty-two and one-quarter per cent; general, thirty-five per cent.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is it?


William Thomas White: The Jamaica Food Products Company wrote to say that they were importing evaporated bananas from Jamaica, which business was said to be increasing with prospects of an enormous trade being built up in it. They say the evaporated bananas cannot be manufactured in Canada, as the fruit requires to be ripened on the tree, allowing all the starch therein to be turned in to fruit sugar.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amyl alcohol or refined fusil oil, when imported by the Department of Inland Revenue or by a person licensed by the Minister of Inland Revneue, to be denatured for use in the manufacture of metal varnishes or lacquers, to be entered at ports prescribed by regulations of the Ministers of Customs and Inland Revenue, subject to the Inland Revenue Act and to the regulations of the Department of Inland Revenue-British preferential, free; intermediate, free; general, free.
Frank Oliver: What is the explanation of this?


William Thomas White: With the restriction mentioned in 157-a, amyl alcohol or refined fusil oil is placed upon the free list. The reason for the change is to encourage the manufacture of metal lacquers in Canada.	The duty
on amyl alcohol, which cannot be procured in Canada, is $2.40 per gallon under the present tariff, while the varnish made therefrom is dutiable at about 60 cents per gallon. In other words, $2.40 would have to be paid upon the raw material by the manufacture of lacquer, and by reason of this condition metal varnishes or lacquers cannot be made in Canada. An American firm has embarked upon the business of manufacturing metal varnishes or lacquers -in the town of Port Hops.	They
were unaware, not having been advised, that this duty of $2.40 existed, and having
APRIn 29, 1914
got their plant installed and being ready to manufacture, they found they would have to pay this duty. I need not say to you that the good town of Port Hope *was sorely disturbed about the matter, and upon representations having been made we brought down this tariff change which makes amyl alcohol or refined fusil oil, free, with the limitation mentioned in the item. A license of $50 a year will have to be paid by the parties importing and using this amyl alcohol, and 50 cents a gallon excise will have to be paid, and they will also have to pay for the time of the Inland Revenue officers in making the necessary inspection.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Provided that on the goods specified in item 178 and imported hy mail on and after first day of July, 1914, duties may be paid by Customs Revenue stamps, under regulations by the Minister of Customs, at the rates specified in said item, except that on each separate package weighing not more than one ounce the duty
shall be	each-British preferential, 1 cent',
intermediate, 1 cent; general, 1 cent.
Frank Oliver: What is referred to here ?


William Thomas White: Item 178 of the Customs tariff relates to advertising and printed matter. A great deal of that matter comes in from outside, being sent in by firms desiring to advertise in Canada, not necessarily consigned to any party purchasing it, aDd it is dutiable under the provisions of item 178. When sent in in envelopes it is held at the frontier and the party has to be communicated with in order that the duty may be paid upon advertising matter which may weigh an ounce or two only. The Commissioner of Customs has suggested that the difficulties which have arisen under the present system can be met by the proviso in this item that Customs revenue stamps may be used, with the exception mentioned, namely, that on each separate package weighing not more than one ounce, the duty shall not be more than one cent, a cent being the smallest coin we mint. As the rate is fifteen cents a pound under item 178, and as there are sixteen ounces to the pound, a cent will be charged for the ounce and stamps may be used.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
184. Newspapers, and quarterly, monthly, and semi-monthly magazines, and weekly literary papers, unbound; tailors', milliners' and mantle-makers' fashion plates when imported m single copies in sheet form with magazines or periodical trade journals-British preferential, free; intermediate, free ; general, free.
William Thomas White: I am told that it was the original intention of the tariff of 1907 to provide that only single copies of fashion plates should come in free; but the item has been abused, and fashion plates are being ordered abroad and being brought in free of duty under this item. The intention of the amendment is to provide that single copies only shall be brought in with these newspapers and magazines. The result will be that these fashion plates will now be lithographed and printed in Canada instead of abroad.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What was the duty before?


William Thomas White: It was all under item 178- 15 cents per pound.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What is to be the tariff on fashion plates hereafter?


William Thomas White: That will fall under item 178-15 cents per pound.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Were magazines and newspapers dutiable before?


William Thomas White: Magazines were not. The item is modified. If my hon. friend will look at item 184 in the tariff as it is now, he will observe that it stops short at the words ' fashion plates.' Under the change mat I have made that item disappears, and item 184, as it appears in the tariff resolution, is inserted.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is not there any post office regulation prohibiting fashion plates coming through the mails in a periodical journal of any kind? Why would they come in single copies with journals?


Rodolphe Lemieux: As supplements.


William Thomas White: They are continually being sent in that way. The Ladies' Home Journal and other journals may have fashion plates enclosed. Some of the larger departmental .stares have been giving their orders for fashion plates and for some of their advertising matter abroad, and bringing them in under this item free of duty. We think that business might fairly be reserved under a protective tariff to the printers and lithographers of Canada. It has been a very much discussed question; and I have on record here a number of letters from engraving companies stating that this matter has been under consideration for a long time and that it is of very great importance to the trade.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is a duty on catalogues, is there not?


William Thomas White: Ten and fifteen cents per pound.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Do you propose to maintain that duty?


William Thomas White: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
188a. Decalcomania paper not printed when imported by manufacturers of decalcomania transfers to be used in their own factories in the manufacture of decalcomania transfers- British preferential, free; intermediate, free; general, free.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Tell us the meaning of that first word, and we will let the item go through.


William Thomas White: I do not wonder at my hon. friend's asking that question. That word puzzled me for some little time. The decalcomania paper is used in making decalcomania transfers. There is a process of transferring prints from paper and making them adhere to glass, porcelain and other articles. Decalcomonia transfers are chiefly used for advertising purposes.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Is it of advantage to the paper-makers?


William Thomas White: Not to my knowledge. These people get in the decalcomania paper, which is not made in Canada, free under this item. They can put on their aluminum letters and transfer them to glass, porcelain and other articles.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
208. Boracic acid and borax in packages of not less than twenty-five pounds weight; hydro-fluosilicic acid; oxalic acid ; tannic acid; ammonia, sulphate of; sal ammoniac and nitrate of ammonia; cyanide of potassium; cyanide of sodium and cyanogen bromide for reducing metals in mining operations; antimony salts, viz.:-tartar emetic, chlorine and lactate (anto-monine) ; arsenous oxide; oxide of cobalt; oxide of tin; bichloride of tin; tin crystals; oxide of copper; precipitate of copper, crude; sulphate of copper (blue vitriol) ; verdigris or subacetate of copper, dry; sulphate of iron (copperas) ; sulphate of zinc; chloride of zine; sulphur and brimstone, crude or in roll or flour; cream of tartar, in crystals or argols; tartaric acid crystals ; iodine, crude; bromide; phosphorus; sulphide of arsenic; carbon bisulphide-British preferential, free; intermediate, free; general, free.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What is the change in this item?


William Thomas White: I would call attention to item 208a-chloride of lime and hypochlorite of lime. We have taken out of this item 208a of the tariff, chloride of lime and

hypochlorite of lime, and we have inserted in it carbon .bisulphide. Item 208 of the present tariff is repealed, and the new item 208 takes its place. We have placed carbon. bisulphide on the free list because it is an article used in exterminating fruit and grain pests. We have been requested by the British Columbia Government through its Minister of Agriculture to place carbon bisulphide upon the free list.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
208a. Chloride of lime and hypochlorite of lime
[Stage Direction]
1.	When in packages of not less than twenty-five pounds weight each, per one hundred pounds-British preferential, 10 cents; intermediate, 15 cents ; general, 15 cmts.
2.	When in packages of less than twenty-five pounds in weight each-British preferential, 171 per cent; intermediate, 25 per cent; general, 25 per cent.
Frank Oliver: Why is chloride of lime subject to a duty when it was not subject before?


William Thomas White: If my hon. friend will look at item 210 and take up the two items together, I think I can more intelligently explain the matter. There is at Windsor, Ont., a salt plant, and there are, as my hon. friends know, deposits of salt in several parts of Ontario. The Windsor plant has at the present time a capacity of 4,000,000 pounds of caustic soda. This company have had no duty upon caustic soda which is one of the products of salt manufacture; nor have they had any duty upon chloride of lime or upon hypochlorite of lime, which are by-products on caustic soda production. They have been making application for a considerable time for a reasonable tariff in respect of these two articles. They have set forth the view that they could double their plant and their output and supply ail the caustic soda, chloride of lime and hypo-chloride of lime required in Canada with a reasonable protection.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Without increasing the price, I hope.


William Thomas White: I hope so. Sometimes our hopes are not realized, I know. But I think that in time, with an increased output, there would be no substantial increase in the price. The committee will observe that the rates are specific, and they amount to about eleven per cent British preferential and sixteen and one-half per cent general tariff. The differentiation is shown in the items of the tariff as follows:

Caustic soda:
1.	When in packages of not less than twenty-five pounds weight; free.
2.	When in packages of less than twenty-five pounds weight; British preferential, 10 per cent; intermediate, 12i per cent; general, 15 per cent
These are on the free list when in packages of not less than twenty-five pounds. But when in packages of less than twenty-five pounds, the duty under the British preferential is ten per cent and under the general tariff fifteen per cent; now to be increased to seventeen and one-half and twenty-five per cent. The consumption in Canada is about 16,000,000 pounds and the material is used by soap manufacturers, cotton manufacturers-for bleaching purposes; chloride of lime, as hon. members know, is commercially known as ' bleaching powder '*-by pulp and paper manufacturers and other industries. But these will not be affected to any serious extent.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Does the hon. minister
mean to say that these people in Windsor will not put up the price? They would be crazy if they did not; there would be no use in protecting them from competition if they are to go on selling at the price of competition. This caustic soda is used largely by soap manufacturers. They buy it by the carload. So, while the duty is small-


William Thomas White: About 3 cents per 100 pound of soap.
Mr. NESBITT;-yet because of the large quantities used, this change will make quite a difference in the cost of the raw material. While I have nothing to say against my hon. friend from Essex, and do not wish to prevent this factory succeeding, I hardly think the benefit of the community from this industry will be sufficient to offset the increase in price of the material. These people have increased their price of salt in the last four or five years quite sufficiently to make a profit without protecting them on chloride of lime and caustic soda. The barrel of salt that we used to get for 90 cents we are now paying $1.55 for.


William Thomas White: Of course, the hon. gentleman is quite right; the tendency will be to increase the price. But I would not say that the price would be permanently increased, and I hope not. But discussing a similar question last night in connection with structural steel, I said that no doubt the price would be higher-otherwise, as the hon. gentleman said, there would be
no use in imposing the duty. But this is not to raise the price necessarily, but to give the benefit of the market to the home manufacturer. There is no use in blinking the fact that we may look for a slight increase in price. Some representations have been made to me on behalf of those affected, 'but generally they look at it in a fair-minded way. The soap-makers say: We have, speaking generally, a protection of 15 to 35 per cent, and we can hardly deny the caustic soda and bleaching powder manufacturer a reasonable protection on his product. For the most part, I have been surprised at the fair-mindedness they have exhibited with regard- to this proposed change, against which, of course, they cannot urge any objection on principle.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is the industry worth having?


William Thomas White: No doubt. If I were to
give the floor to my hon. friend from North Essex (Mr. Wilcox), I have no doubt he could talk for an hour on that subject.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Do not do it.
Mr. WILCOX; Let the item pass or Tj will.


Frank Oliver: Carried.


William Thomas White: The number of employees at present in the chemical plant is sixty-five and the value of that plant $750,000. Steps have been taken already to duplicate that plant in view of this tariff change.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is this not a byproduct of salt? And in giving the number of employees, does not that include those engaged in the production of sailt?


William Thomas White: No, these are in the chemical plant. I cannot put the doctrine of reasonable protection on a higher basis than to say that we get the manufacturers here if we have it and we do not get them if we do not have it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: But it is of very questionable value to the country, particularly where there is only one industry.
Mr. NESBITT; While I agree with the Minister of Finance in many respects, he must bear in mind that in the salt business they have a great number of men already employed, whereas this industry, even if doubled will only mean from 120 to 130

employees, and labourers at that-not experts by any manner or means.


William Thomas White: There are other establishments; there are large salt deposits in Ontario, as the hon. gentleman knows.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Of course there are, and *what I say is that they .should be able to make enough money out of the increased price of salt to be able to do without this protection on their by-products. There is no doubt that there is an arrangement among the salt people as to prices. Everybody knows that. You can no more break a price than you could if the industry were in the hands of one man. Therefore, I am not strongly in favour of putting on duty for that sort of people when, as the minister no doubt knows, there is an arrangement among them as to price.


William Thomas White: I do not know that.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: 
William Thomas White: The principle is the same.


Mr. BOIVIN:: Why is there a difference in the duty on chloride of lime in packages of different sizes.


William Thomas White: I cannot give that information off-hand. I will try to get it for my hon. friend to-morrow.
296. Flint, ground flint stones, felspar, fluorspar, magnesite, mica schist, cliff, chalk, china or Cornwall stone, ground or unground, refuse stone, not sawn, hammered or chiselled nor fit for flagstones, building stone or paving- British preferential, free; intermediate, free; general, free.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Were the articles enumerated in this item previously on the dutiable list? If so, what is the change?


William Thomas White: Mica schist is admitted
free of duty under the present tariff. There has been some doubt in the minds of the customs officials as to whether under the existing tariff it should be admitted free, and we have decided, in order to clear the matter up, to put mica schist upon the free list. The change proposed in this item will make talc or soapstone dutiable under item 711 at fifteen per cent British preferential,

seventeen and one-half intermediate and seventeen and one-half general. In other words, talc or soapstone, which was formerly on the free list, is now dutiable at seventeen and one-half per cent general tariff. I may say that this article may be obtained in unlimited quantities in the county of Hastings, Ontario.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Borden, the House adjourned at 12.07 a.m., Thursday.
Thursday, April 30, 1914.