1914-03-11

REPORTS AND PAPERS.

[Stage Direction]
Annual Report of the Department of Public Printing and Stationery, for the year ended March 31, 1913.-Hon. L. Coderre.
Minutes of the Proceedings in Conference of the Representatives of the Provinces, October, 1913.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicate5 by an asterisk).

Mr. BROUILLARD:: 1.	Has the Government given any printing contracts to the newspaper Le Present, published at Drummondville?
2.	If so, for what amount?
3.	What is the circulation of that paper?
4.	Has the Government caused any official advertisements to be published in Le Present?
5.	If so, for what amount?
6.	Who is the owner of the newspaper Le Present?


Mr. CODERRE:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Not known.
4.	No.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
G. Not known.


MANUFACTURE OF STEEL BARRELS AND DRUMS.
Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Are there any firms in Canada manufacturing steel barrels or drums?
2.	How many steel barrels or drums, with their value, were imported into Canada during the year 1913?


Mr. CODERRE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	These articles, not being specially enumerated in the tariff, are included in imports described as 'Manufactures of Iron and Steel.' It would take months to extract the information.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY AGREEMENT.
*Mr. EMMERSON:: [DOT]
What number of freight and van cars, and what number of tons of freight, constitute a freight train, under the agreement between the Canadian Government railways and the Canadian [DOT] Pacific Railway Company, covering the transportation of freight and passengers between Halifax and St. John, in connection with the Canadian Pacific and Allan Line steamships carrying the British Mails and making Halifax their terminal port, as finally arranged and understood between the contracting parties?


Mr. REID:: Under the agreement special freight trains consist of five hundred tons contents, east bound, and four hundred tons contents, west bound. Special passenger trains are limited to twelve cars all told, including vans, which of course are governed by weather conditions.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-LAND AT SILLERY.
Mr. SEVIGNY:: Has the Government bought, through the Commission of the Transcontinental Railway, certain lots of' land belonging to Wm. Power' M.P., near Sillery, Quebec? If so, how much has been paid for these lots per square foot?


John Dowsley Reid: The Commissioners of th9
Transcontinental railway expropriated certain lands belonging to Mr. Wm. Power, M.P., and others, designated as part of lot Cad. No. 261, of the parish of Sillery, Que-bee, for the purposes of the Eastern Division of the National Transcontinental railway, and filed an information in the Exchequer Court of Canada to determine the compensation payable for the lands. Judgment was given by the Court on the 20th day of September last, allowing 5 cents per square foot, which has been paid.
LENNOXVILLE EXPERIMENTAL FARM. Mr. TOBIN:
1.	Has the Government purchased an experimental farm in the eastern townships of Quebec?
2.	If so, where is the said farm located?
3.	From whom was it purchased and for what price?
4.	When was the deed signed, before what notary, by whom was it signed and when was it registered ?
5.	What is the area of the said property?
6.	Who acted as agent for the Government in connection with the said purchase?
7.	Were any other farms examined by him in the eastern townships?
S. If so, where are the said farms situated and what are the names of the owners?
9. Were any options obtained upon said farms? If so, for what price in each case and how much was paid for the said option?


Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Near Lennoxville, P.Q.
3.	From the following parties:	R. W.
Reid, 170 acres, $15,000; W. H. Pearson 150 acres, $12,000; H. Bennett, lot 2i acres, with brick house thereon, $2,800; W. J. Douglas, lot 6J acres, with frame house thereon, $3,750, total, $33,550.
4.	As the agent of the Department of Justice has not yet made his report, the Department- of Agriculture is not aware of the name of the notary before whom the deeds were passed, by whom they were signed or when they were registered.
5.	About 329 acres.
G. Mr.'James Mackinnon, of the Canadian Bank of Commerce, Sherbrooke, P.Q., acted on behalf of the Department of Agriculture in negotiating for the purchase of the several properties, and Mr. F. Campbell, K.C., of Sherbrooke, P.Q., acted as the agent of the Department of Justice in obtaining the deeds.
7.	Yes.
8.	Properties belonging to Messrs. C. F. Carter, J. G. Smiley, Edward Reed and Bishop's college, all of which adjoin the land purchased.

9.	Yes. Options were obtained on the following properties: C. F. Carter, f of an acre with brick house thereon, $2,300; J. G. Smiley, block of 50 acres, $6,500; Edward Reed, 108 acres, $9,720; Bishop's college, about 12 acres, $1,200. The price paid for these options was of a nominal character.


AVINDSOR FISH HATCHERY.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Were tenders called for me supply of coal to the fish hatchery at AVindsor, N.S., during the past year?
2.	Who were the tenderers and what was the amount of each tender?
3.	To whom was the contract awarded and at what price?
4.	How many tons of coal were supplied?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Tenders were not called for. A small quantity of anthracite coal was required, and the officer in charge was requested to purchase the same at the best price obtainable.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3 and 4. J. H. Smith & Co. Nine tons were purchased at $8 per ton, with $1 per ton for cartage to the Hatchery, a distance of three miles.


NATIONAL, TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-ST. HALO SHOPS.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	How many men are actually employed at the construction work of the National Transcontinental shops at St. Mai..,, Quebec?
2.	How many Italians are there employed as *labourers?
3.	What is the rate of wages paid to the labourers per day?
4.	Are any of the said Italians naturalized?


Mr. REID:: 1.	634.
2.	54.
3.	$1.80 per day of nine hours.
4.	All are naturalized.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Who has been appointed foreman at the machine shops of the Transcontinental railway *at St. Malo, Quebec, and what is his salary?


Mr. REID:: 1. No foreman has been appointed at the machine shops, Mr. E. B. Forrest is [DOT]engineer in charge of the work of construction; salary $175 per month.


SERVICES OF J. E. COWAN.
Mr. CARVELL:: AVhat amount has been paid J. E. Cowan for legal services in connection with the St. John,
N.B., post office since the 31st day of March last?


Mr. ROGERS:: Nothing.


TOBIQUE INDIAN RESERVE.
Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	How many acres of land have been sold to B. Frank Smith from the Tobique Indian reserve?
2.	What price per acre did he pay for said land?
3.	Has the money actually been paid? If so, how much?
4.	In the settlement with the department is he to pay anything for the lumber as such cut from the land so sold to him? If so, how much?
5.	What amount of lumber has he cut since March 31 last from the Indian reserve land not sold to him?
6.	Who is the surveyor or scaler of the lumber cut from lands not included in lands so sold?
7.	Who recommended his appointment?
8.	Has the department allowed the Indians who had unlawfully cut lumber on the reserve to sell said lumber to said B. Frank Smith?
9.	Has the department refused permission to the Indians to sell said lumber to any person other than Smith?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	Mr. Smith has agreed to purchase 440 acres.
2.	The price per acre is $4.01.
3.	The first instalment has been paid- $353.00.
4.	Yes; by payment in full for land and timber, and trespass dues on spruce.
5.	Quantity is unknown as no returns have been received.
6.	The local agent was authorized to *employ Manley H. Craig, timber land engineer and deputy New Brunswick land surveyor.
7.	S. P. Waite, the local Indian agent.
8.	Some timber, unlawfully cut by
Indians, formed part of the quantity placed under seizure, and for tvhich Mr. Smith was deemed liable for trespass dues, as the Indians stated that they intended disposing of timber to him.	.
9.	No.


Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	Has Manley H. Craig, of Perth, county of Victoria, offered to purchase the whole or any portion of the Tobique Indian reserve?
2.	Has the Department of Indian Affairs agreed to sell any portion thereof to the said Manley H. Craig or to any other person? If so, how much and at what price?
3.	Has the sale of any portion of the reserve been made to the said Manley H. Craig?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1. Manley H. Craig has applied to purchase Block F, Tobique reserve, containing 715 acres.

2.	No.
3.	No.


COST OF NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: 1.	What is the cost to date of the National Transcontinental railway?
2.	What is the estimated cost to complete the same, and the Quebec bridge?
3.	What portion of the cost has been paid out of revenue, and what out of capital, respectively?


Mr. REID:: 1.	Expenditure to December 31, 1913, on the Eastern division of the National Transcontinental railway, exclusive of interest, $140,562,147.
2.	(a) Estimated cost to complete Eastern
division of the National Transcontinental railway, $20,745,653; (b) cost to Government of old Quebec bridge, $6,424,781; (c) cost of Royal Commission, $31,765.44;	(d)
expenditure to date on reconstruction of Quebec bridge, $4,889,318.03; (e) estimated cost to complete, $12,000,000.
3.	$41,966,890 has been paid out of borrowings on account of construction of Eastern division of National Transcontinental! railway, the remainder out of revenue. The whole cost is a charge to capital account, irrespective of the source from which derived.


A MILITIA POSTER.
[Stage Direction]
On the. Orders of the Day being called:
Henry Robert Emmerson: I would have preferred to have waited until the Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Hughes) was in his seat, but there is a question of sufficient urgency to make it necessary that I should ask it of the Government to-day. There is being posted .and circulated in the constituency of Westmorland the following poster:
Militia Notice.
The [DOT] undersigned has been requested by the Militia Department to submit the names of all men who, in the event of a general mobilization, would be willing to enlist in ' E ' Company, 74th Regiment, also all retired officers, ex-militiamen and civilians who would be willing to accept employment with the Army Service Corps, Army Medical Corps, Ordnance Corps, Army Veterinary Corps, or Army Pay Corps.
By sending or handing in your name you will not be enlisting, but merely showing your willingness to serve your country in the event of war.
Don't delay in handing in your name, as returns must be made not later than March 31. All names must be sint or handed in to
L. G. Carey,
Captain, ' E ' Company, 74th Regiment.

I would like to know from the Government what the purport of that call is. Is war anticipated, and is this a preparation for mobilization?


Mr. BORDEN:: In the absence of my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence I am afraid I cannot give my hon. friend from Westmorland much information on the subject. However, as I attribute his desire to bring the matter up at the present moment to the feeling on his part that he ought to send in his name at an early date, I shall bring the matter to the attention of the Minister of Militia at once. I think he will be here to-morrow.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Then war has not been declared?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: My right hor.. friend has treated it as a joke, and it is a joke and nothing else.	*


Robert Laird Borden: I am treating the request of my hon. friend quite seriously.


PROHIBITION OF WHITE PHOSPHORUS MATCHES.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. T. W. Crothers (Minister of Labour) the House went into Committee on the following proposed resolution, Mr. Blondin in the Chair:
Resolved, that whereas the use of white phosphorus in the manufacture of matches constitutes a menace to the health of match factory employees, and is also attended with danger to the community at large, it is expedient to provide that the manufacture, importation and sale of matches made with white phosphorus be prohibited, and in connection therewith that the Commissioner of Patents be empowered on petition to fix terms for the use of any process patented at the time of the passing of this Act for the manufacture of matches without white phosphorus, and to provide for the inspection of any place where it is suspected that matches made with white phosphorus may be found; and to examine anv receptacle or place in which it is suspected that such matches may be; and to authorize the Governor in Council to make such orders and regulations as may be necessary; and to fix penalties for infractions of the Act.
Mr. CROTHERS:: The. Bill to be founded on this resolution provides for the prohibition of the manufacture, sale and importation of matches made with white phosphorus. White phosphorus is a deadly poisonous substance and the object of the Bill is to protect against that poison those who are engaged in the manufacture of matches and also the homes of the people generally throughout the country. There have been cases where children, attracted

by the bright tips of the matches that are in every household, have been poisoned by putting the poisonous substance into their mouths. The white phosphorus match also provides a very convenient and inexpensive poison for criminal purposes. There have been cases of that kind. Hon. gentlemen will remember the case in Prince Edward Island, only a few years ago, where a mother poisoned three of her children by shaving off the ends of these matches and feeding the poisonous substance to the children. It is not necessary in the manufacture of matches to use white phosphorus. There are other substances that aTe being used extensively.


Mr. BELAND :: More expensive?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: At a very trifling additional expense. My hon. friend will perhaps be aware of the fact that in 1906 the Government of Switzerland called, together a convention for the purpose of discussing this and other questions, and many of the leading countries in Europe at that time adhered to the convention, undertaking to prohibit the manufacture, sale and importation of matches made with white phosphorus.
England at that time did not adhere to the convention, because she had adopted some years previously very stringent regulations which it had been hoped would do away with the danger in connection with the manufacture of matches. But she discovered a year or two afterwards that even these most stringent regulations were not *sufficient to prevent the injuries that were being caused, and in 1908 she adhered to the convention also. In the United States, a similar law has been passed, not directly prohibiting the manufacture, sale, and importation of matches-because a question arose as to the jurisdiction of the Congress to do so-'but in a roundabout way, by putting a heavy tax upon such matches, they have secured the desired result. The law prohibiting the use of white phosphorus in the manufacture of matches has been adopted in nearly every civilized country.
I am satisfied, from information I have, that the use of other substances does not add materially to the cost of producing matches. A few years ago, the main substance used as a substitute for white phosphorus, and which is still used as such, was sesquisulphide of phosphorus. At that time the Diamond Match Company of the United States had a patent in 'Canada which would prevent any one from using sesquisulphide of phosphorus except by license
from the patent commissioner, but since then the patent in Canada has lapsed, so that any one is free to use it now. I am also told that the provision we make in this Bill will not incur any material additional expense for altering the machinery. The principal factory of Canada, operated in Hull, is now making large quantities of matches with this substance.
I have personally interviewed three out of the four factories doing business in Canada, and none of them have any objection to this Bill. A year or two ago I was led to believe that by installing a ventilating apparatus the danger might be removed from the factories, but I am now satisfied that such is not the case.
Very recently several cases of disease from the use of white phosphorus have appeared. I had an opportunity of seeing some of these patients myself in the hospital. The disease resulting from the use of white phosphorus is a very terrible one, and it is more widespread than is generally supposed.
Mr. GEORGE E. FOSTER: From the use of that substance in manufacturing?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Yes. The fumes of
this poisonous substance are inhaled by those who are working in the factory, and these fumes are absorbed by the teeth and gums, especially if the teeth are decayed, and an inflammation sets in which destroys the teeth and works its way into the jawbone, especially of the lower jaw. The only remedy is to take the jawbone out. The disease sometimes extends to the upper jaw as well. These are the direct results, but there are indirect results, as naturally might be supposed. A man or woman working in these factories and inhaling the poisonous substance is injured indirectly by the hrwer vitality and lessened strength to resist the ordinary diseases that attack humanity. It has a tendency to decompose and make brittle the bones throughout the whole system. There have been cases where the larger bones of the extremities break very easily as a result of the inhaling of this poisonous substance. It seems to me that there ought to be no hesitation in passing this measure. No one will be injured by prohibiting the use of this substance; the extra cost is only a few cents on 70,000 matches.


Mr. MURPHY:: Does this Bill follow
the Bill introduced in this House in 1911?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: It us substantially the same. The Bill to which the hon. gentle-

man refers did not contain any prohibition against the sale of matches made with white phosphorus, but it did prohibit their manufacture and importation. I think it well to include in this Bill the sale, because a large quantity of these matches might be imported before the date fixed for the coming into effect of the Act, and unless there was a prohibition the sale might continue for six months or a year afterwards. I have fixed the date for the coming into force of this Act in 1916.
I was waited upon by a large delegation from the Royal Society-the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) was one of the gentlemen present-and they thought that the provisions of the Bill should not be brought into force before the first day of January, 1916, so as to give the different factories, and those who have large quantities of these matches on hand, an opportunity to get rid of them before that.


Wilfrid Laurier: Did my hon. friend accept the suggestion that the Bill should not come into force until 1916?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Yes. The Bill that was introduced into this House two or three years ago post-dated the date of its coming into operation by about two years.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, but that was two years ago, and the public have had two years to be poisoned since then. The Minister of Labour is quite right, I think, in the details he has given as to the effect of this poisonous substance. I have heard of several instances, especially of young girls wrorking in the factory in Hull, whose health has been irretrievably destroyed by the use in the factory of that substance, not only because the fumes are inhaled, but because their hands, being covered with this substance, they may imprudently put them to their mouths. I do not see any reason why the public should be exposed for a further period of two years to the evil consequences which the hon. gentleman has described; I think the Bill should come into operation at a much earlier date.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As the minister has
stated, I accompanied the delegation which was appointed by the Royal Society of Canada at its last annual meeting to urge upon the Government the necessity of passing this legislation,- When the delegation was before the minister, at the end of last fall, one of the most noted Canadian chemists and scientists read a memorandum wThich was agreed to by all the other scientists present. There is no doubt as 
to the need for such legislation. I entirely concur in the remarks made by the minister, but I agree with the leader of the Opposition that this is either a poison or not a poison, and if it is a poison we should safeguard the public at a much earlier date than that proposed in the Bill.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: My hon. friend will
remember that the opinion expressed by the gentlemen who waited on me, was that it should not come into force until 1916, There is some force, I admit, in what my right hon. friend says-considerable force. Personally, I should have no objection to letting the Act come into force at an earlier date. Perhaps we could discuss that on the second reading, and I should be wdlling to consider any suggestion on that line.


Mr. GRAHAM:: As the manufacturers of matches acknowledge, according to the Minister of Labour, that the use of this material is very dangerous, and say that they are willing to quit it, one would think they ought almost to stop this manufacture without being compelled to do so by law. They have had warning for at least three years that such legislation. was pending, and if they had been wise, particularly under all the circumstances and considering the effect of this manufacture, they would have been prepared for this legislation to come into effect almost immediately after its enactment. They are not in the same position as if legislation had not been foreshadowed several years ago when Parliament almost pronounced upon the matter finally. I think it would be of interest, if the minister, wdien he is advancing this Bill through its other stages, were to give us some information as to the manufacture of matches in Canada, the places where that manufacture is carried on and the quantity produced, together with the amount of white phosphorus used.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I have all that here, and will give it later. -


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Can the minister tell us how many manufactories will necessarily be closed if this Bill passes? I remember that when the matter was discussed on a previous occasion in this House, it was stated that there was a factory in Halifax using this material and I think there was another in New Brunswick. I do not know whether the minister has considered the point that this match manufactured with white phosphorus is known in the Maritime provinces as ' the sailor's match.'

Sailors and fishermen light their pipes with these matches, which are much better for that purpose than other matches. The ordinary match in use throughout the United States and Canada goes out very readily in a gale of wind, while this hard match, which, I understand, is manufactured with white phosphorus, is found useful to this class of men who live in the open and use matches in windy weather.
I mention this matter in case it may not have been called to the minister's attention.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I understand that no factories will be closed by the passing of this Bill. I have had the advantage of consultation with the head of the firm in Halifax referred to by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sinclair), and he told me that he also was in communication with, or had some connection with, the factory in Hampton, N.B. He told me that they were quite willing that this Act should pass, although he explained that their factory had been in operation for seventy years, and they had never known a case of white phosphorus poisoning there. I do not know that my attention has ever been called to a case in either of these factories. Of course, we know that the large factory is in Hull, and all the cases to which my attention has been called have arisen in that factory. The gentleman in Halifax, Mr. Corbett, I think, said that they would be quite satisfied if a reasonable length of time were given them before the Bill was brought into force, and he thought that two years would be a reasonable time. The only other factory, I believe, is in Deser-onto. None of them will be closed by reason of this Bill.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. CROTHERS thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 103, to prohibit the manufacture and importation of matches made with white phosphorus.


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

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. 1. D. HAZEN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) the House went into Committee to consider the following resolution, Mr. Blondin in the Chair:
Resolved, that it is expedient to repeal the Acts relating to the harbour of North Sydney, in the province of Nova Scotia, and transfer the property, rights and assets now held by the
harbour commissioners to His Majesty, and that His Majesty do assume all the obligations and liabilities of the said commissioners.
Mr. HAZEN:: The object of this measure, as appears on the face of it, is to abolish the Board of Harbour Commissioners of North Sydney. For a number of years past representations have been made to the Government and to my department by persons interested in the welfare of shipping at this port that no useful purpose was being served by the commission and that it should be abolished and the harbour managed, as many other harbours in this country are by the department, through a harbour-master. These representations have pointed out, and have established, I think, beyond question, that the imposition by this commission of tolls on shipping entering the harbour of North Sydney was in the nature of a discrimination against this harbour from which no corresponding or adequate advantage was derived. Under the terms of the Act which it is proposed to repeal, the commissioners are authorized to collect dues from all registered vessels of forty tons and upwards that enter the harbour, and these dues are at the rate of one cent per ton; and in the case of large vessels this would amount to a very substantial item in the course of a season. The total revenues collected in 1912 by the commissioners were $3,917.60. Of this amount, $1,637 was paid as salaries to commissioners and harbour-masters, and practically the whole of the balance was expended on repairs to the break-water at what is known as the North bar. In addition to the representations made by individuals separately, a numerously signed petition from the citizens of North Sydney was received in favour of abolishing this harbour commission, and the board of trade of North Sydney has had the matter under consideration and has forwarded a resolution in favour of such abolition.
I understand that North Sydney is situated on the north side of the harbour of the same name and that it is the principal shipping point of the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company. The port of Sydney, on the other hand, is on the south side of the harbour and is the principal shipping point of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company. Ships from Sydney are exempt from such dues as are imposed by the commissioners in North Sydney on shipping entering that port, and it is contended, and I think with some degree of force and cogency, that the shipping at both ports should be on an equal footing

and that it is practically a discrimination against the port of North Sydney that an extra tax should be placed on shipping there over that placed on shipping at the port of Sydney. It is reported by officials of my department that the liabilities of the Harbour Commission at the present time amount to about $800, and against that there are assets of considerable value, consisting of what is . known as the ballast ground property, and the right of way to same, the Bertram property, and the breakwater property at the north bar. Under this legislation the liabilities of the Harbour Commission are assumed by and the assets of the Harbour Commission are vested in the Government. The management of the harbour will be assumed by the Marine and Fisheries Department under the Harbour Commissioners Act. A harbour commissioner will be appointed, and will be paid, as harbour commissioners are, a commission on the dues that are collected, to a certain specified amount. On the second reading of the Bill it is my intention to move an additional clause providing that the Act shall come into force on January 1, 1915. There are certain matters that have to be settled in connection with the taking over of the property, and it is considered that it will be 'better to have the Act come into force on January 1, 1915, than to have it come into force immediately upon the passing of the Bill.


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (North Cape Breton):: I have listened with some
interest to what has been said by the hon. minister with reference to the resolution before the committee. I am quite familiar with the complaint that the collection of dues by the harbour commissioners of North Sydney has been a discrimination against the harbour. The Board of Harbour Commissioners is an old institution ; I think it has been in existence for the last thirty years or thereabouts. There are officers who, I suppose, will regard it as a hardship if these dues are wiped out of existence by legislation based on this resolution. However, if it is in the best interests of the harbour that these dues should be removed, I certainly should not stand in the way of any action in that regard. Are the dues out of which the harbour-master is to be paid akin to those that the hon. minister proposes to abolish? If they will be as large as the dues now collected, of course the object 
of this Bill will be defeated. I would suggest to the hon. minister that there should be no dues at all. If he is to make the port of North Sydney a free port, it should he absolutely free. I think the harbour-master of the port receives only about $600 or $700 under the commission. That is a very small amount, and it is hardly worth while keeping in operation the machinery necessary for the collecting of dues df the object is only to provide for the salary of the harbour-master. I am sure that I would be entirely in favour of anything that is in the interests of the port.


John Douglas Hazen: With the passage of this proposed legislation the tolls of one cent a ton applicable to vessels of imore than forty tons will disappear altogether, and that is the principal source of revenue. In every harbour certain dues, sick mariners' dues and things of that sort, Which do not amount to very much, have to be looked after, and under the Harbour Commissioners Act the commissioners can only be paid a certain percentage of the dues collected, up to a maximum amount to be specified. Speaking from recollection, I think that under the Harbour Commissioners Act no harbour commissioner can receive more than $600. On the second reading of the Bill I will produce a statement of the dues that are no.w collected at Sydney. It is proposed that North Sydney, so far as dues are concerned, shall be placed upon the same footing as the port of Sydney.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. HAZEN thereupon moved for leave to introduce iBil'l No. 104, respecting the harbour of North Sydney in Nova Scotia.


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

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. Hazen (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) the House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. IJlondin in the Chair:
Resolved, That it is expedient to consolidate and amend the Canada Shipping Act and the Acts in amendment thereof, and various laws relating to Merchant Shipping.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. HAZEN thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 105, to consolidate and amend the Canada Shipping Act.

He said: This Bill, as its title indicates, is one to consolidate and amend 4 p.m. the Canada Shipping Act. Such a consolidation has been d's-cussed, I understand, by the Department of Marine and Fisheries for some years past. It has been felt to be very desirable that there should be a consolidation of the different Acts that have reference to the Canada Shipping Act and also certain amendments of a more or less important character. The Bill is a lengthy one, and there may be very considerable difference of opinion about some of its clauses among those who are interested in shipping. It is therefore my intention, on the second reading of the Bill, to move that it be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Marine and* Fisheries so that there may be, perhaps, a more careful consideration of the provisions of the Bill in that committee than is usually possible in a Committee of the Whole House. I have given instructions that a considerable number of copies of this Bill should be printed so that they may be circulated among those interested in shipping in Canada, in order that we may find out what objections they may have to its different provisions, and so that they * may have an opportunity, if they desire to do so, of appearing before the Marine and Fisheries Committee and placing before that committee the views which they entertain regarding any provi-' sions of the proposed measure. It may be, considering the length of the Bill and the very many sections that will have to be considered-although a great many of them are largely sections as they are at present in the Canada Shipping Act-that it will be impossible to get the Bill through the House at the present session. In that case, the matter can stand over until the following session. In the meantime the different interests in Canada that are affected by its provisions will have an opportunity of fully discussing them, and at the next session of Parliament we may be in a better position thoroughly to consider the Bill. I have thought it desirable, as the Bill is one of very considerable importance to large interests in this country, that I should place on ' Hansard ' at the outset a resume or summary of what the Bill contains and, if the House will pardon me, I shall take the opportunity of doing that now. It may have the effect of expediting the consideration of the matter and placing in more succinct form than otherwise could be done before the members of this House and 98	.
before the shipping interests of Canada, the different provisions of the Bill and what it is sought to achieve by it.
In order that the necessity for a complete revision of the Canada Shipping Act may be apparent, the history of shipping legislation in Great Britain and Canada should be considered.
The earliest imperial legislation which need be mentioned is the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, which was a consolidation and revision of all the previous legislation upon the subject. During the following forty years numerous amendments were made to the Act, and in 1894 it was again revised, and, although ftumerous amending Acts have since been passed, notably one of great importance in 1906, it is the Act of 1894 which is the constitutional source of legislation relating to merchant shipping throughout the empire.
This Act, like its predecessor of 1854, performs two functions.
Upon many important subjects, such as, for instance, the registration of ships, it legislates for British ships all over the world.
On other equally important matters, it deals only with ships registered in the United Kingdom, leaving the other parts of the empire to legislate with regard to these matters as they deem best.
Even with regard to the first class of subjects, however, some latitude was left to the colonial legislatures.
Thus, in the Act of 1854, by section 574, a colonial legislature was given power by Act or Ordinance, confirmed by Her Majesty in Council, to repeal wholly or in part the provisions of the Act relating to ships registered in that possession. A similar provision is found in section 735 of the Act of 1894.
In 1873, two important Acts relating to shipping were passed in Canada. These were chapters 128 and 129 of 1873, entituled respectively, ' An Act relating to shipping, and for the registration, inspection and classification thereof,' and ' An Act respecting the shipping of seamen.' These Acts are printed at the beginning of the statutes of 1874. By the terms of both these Acts, which were reserved for the signification of the Queen's pleasure thereon, and were thereafter duly confirmed by Her Majesty the provisions of the Imperial Act of 1854, so far as ineons!stent with the terms of those Acts, were repealed.
At the same session of 1873, a number of other Acts relating to shipping were passed by the Canadian legislature, as to which it
[Stage Direction]
was not considered necessary to obtain confirmation by Her Majesty. All these Acts were from time to time amended, until the revision of the Canadian statutes in 1906, when all the Acts relating to shipping were collected into one Act which was called ' The Canada Shipping Act,' being chapter 113 of the Revised Statutes, 1906. In connection with this revision no attempt appears to have been made to redraft the Act, or to improve its arrangement or its phraseology. Since that revision further amending Acts have been passed, especially one in 1908, when an attempt was made to bring the Act in some particulars more up to date.
It will be seen, then, that the present Act is a conglomeration of a number of separate Acts, most of which were written while the Imperial Act of 1854 was still in force, and of a great number of amending Acts, all of which were designed to remedy some defect or defects which had revealed themselves in the practical working out of the Act, and that for forty years no effective attempt has been made to modernize the legislation upon this most important subject. The two Acts of 1873 already referred to, together with the Coasting Trade Act in 1870 and the Masters and Mates Act in 1871, are the only ones which have ever been confirmed in the United Kingdom, and there are many provisions in the Canadian legislation which, if tested in the courts, might be held to be ultra vires of the Canadian Parliament for want of confirmation.
It has been found, too, that many of the provisions are obscure and of doubtful meaning, and many new provisions are required by the ofiicers of the department charged with the enforcement of the shipping laws in Canada. So many changes and improvements have taken place during the past forty years in the construction and operation of ships that they in themselves require that the language of the Act should be modernized.
It is proposed, therefore, to pass a new Act, based upon the latest imperial legislation, and so drawn that .it will be acceptable to and be confirmed by the imperial authorities-an Act dignified, modern and consistent-adjectives none of which could with any regard for truth be applied to the existing legislation.
Many of the changes which have been made in the present revision are changes of phraseology only, designed to reproduce, wherever desirable, the exact language of the Imperial legislation, and thus to make available for the interpretation of the Act the vast number of authorities which have

accumulated in the United Kingdom in connection with merchant shipping legislation during the past sixty years. Apart from these changes of phraseology, some substantive alterations in the law of shipping in Canada are proposed. These will be dealt with in connection with the various parts into which the Act has been divided.
Part 1-Registration and Classification of Ships.
Very few structural changes have been made in this part. Provisions have been inserted giving the minister power to appoint surveyors of ships. This has been found to be necessary especially in connection with the accommodation on board ships for seamen and apprentices. The Board of Trade in the United Kingdom have power to appoint, and have appointed, surveyors. The power of appointment in Canada has heretofore been vested in the Governor in Council.
Another change proposed is with regard to the registering of the names of managing owners. In the existing Act, provision is made for registering changes of managing owners, but there is no obligation to register the name of the original managing owner.
A section providing for a master submitting himself for examination after a shipping casualty has happened, has been transferred to another part of the Act, which seemed a more appropriate place for-it.
Provisions have been made by which vessels exempt from registration shall annually take out a license, and have the license number and the port at which they are licensed painted on their bows and sterns. This has been done because it has been found in practice very difficult to identify small vessels, such as motor boats, which have violated the law in any particular, or to identify the owners of such vessels.
A section has been inserted defining the proper national colours for Canadian ships.
There were in this part a number of sections providing for mortgages on ships in course of construction. These have been found to be of no particular value, and have therefore been omitted.
Part 2- Masters and Mates.
A serious condition of affairs has arisen in the past few years with regard to sailing ships owned in the Maritime provinces. The owners of many of these ships found

the requirements as to the certificates oi masters and mates so onerous and so difficult, if not impossible, of fulfilment, that tjbey withdrew their vessels from their Canadian registers and had them registered in Barbados, where the restrictions as to certificated officers are practically nil.
There were really two difficulties, each affecting a different class of owners. One related more particularly to masters, the other had more special reference to mates. The first difficulty arose out of the definition of a coasting voyage, which, for the purposes of this discussion, may be considered only from the standpoint of its southern limits on the Atlantic, which was the fifth parallel of north latitude. This would permit a master with a coasting certificate to take a vessel as far south as Berbice, in British Guiana. It happens, however, that cargoes frequently offer for Brazil ports, but a Canadian registered vessel could not clear from a Canadian port for Brazil unless her master held a full Board of Trade certificate, or its equivalent. Competent and desirable men holding such certificates cannot be procured for comparatively small sailing craft, or if so, only at a prohibitive price. By registering these ships at Barbados, however, they need not have a certificated master at all, and, as the Canadian law stands, they could not be refused a clearance from Canadian ports.
The second difficulty arose because vessels of over four hundred tons could not engage in coasting voyages, "or trade on the inland waters of Canada, unless they carried a certificated mate. Many of our sailing ships are over four hundred tons, and it has been found impossible to procure certificated mates to sail in such ships.
The imperial Act allows vessels (not carrying passengers) to trade between United Kingdom ports and ports on the continent of Europe between Brest and the river Elbe without any certificated officers whatever, and in the United States no certificated officers are required for sailing ships under seven hundred tons.
It was thought that the restrictions imposed in this respect upon our freightcarrying sailing ships were too great, and that an effort should be made, by making those restrictions more reasonable, to induce the owners of those ships which had been registered in Barbados to transfer them back to their Canadian registers. To this end, two amendments to the existing legislation are proposed. First, to deal with the case of ships desiring to trade with Brazil it was felt that the limits of a 98i
coasting voyage should not be extended further south because some criticism has already been made by the Board of Trade of the present extensive limits of that class of voyage. It is proposed, therefore, to have a new class of certificates to be called ' limited foreign-going ' which will enable an officer to go in a vessel to the West Indies, Bermuda and Bahama Islands, or to any port on the continent of America, or on any adjacent island. The holders of the present coasting certificates will be enabled to qualify for the new certificates by passing an examination upon the practical use of the chronometer and sextant, with which they are all now necessarily familiar. Second, to meet the views of the owners of the larger sailing ships, it is proposed that the limit of tonnage necessitating the employment of certificated mates be raised to five hundred tons. It is understood that some important amendments of the Imperial Shipping Act may be expected in the near future, as a result of the conference recently held in London, and it is likely that this legislation will define for the empire the distinction between ocean going voyages and those not ocean-going. This may seriously affect so-called coasting voyages in connection with ships leaving Canadian ports, and will, almost certainly, involve some readjustment of the law in Canada. It is, however, impossible, with the information which we have at hand, to forecast the form which the imperial legislation will take. It may be, however, that before the revision of the Canada Shipping Act becomes law, the imperial legislation will have taken definite shape. In that case, the proposed Canadian legislation can be modified accordingly.
Before leaving this important question, it should be pointed out that it affects, not only the certificates of masters and mates, but also the certificates of engineers, and the quantity and quality of life-saving equipments, &c., to be carried by the various classes of ships. Oceangoing steamships will be obliged to carry a much more extensive equipment for lifesaving, fire-extinguishing, &c., than those which are not ocean-going, by whatever name they may be called.
Parts 3 and 4-Seamen, and Shipping of Seamen on Inland Waters.
It has been found possible and desirable to combine these two parts into one, and thus save a great deal of needless repetition. Many amendments affecting the matters dealt with by these parts have been made
[Stage Direction]
in England, which have not been incorporated into the Canadian legislation. This has necessitated the complete re-writing of the part. No substantial change has, however, been made in the policy of the legislation.
Some changes are proposed with regard to agreements with crew, or ships' articles, as they are more generally called, by which the limit of tonnage of home-trade ships required to have agreements with the crew, is reduced from eighty to fifty tons, registered tonnage. With regard to homS-trade ships of between fifty and eighty tons, the agreement may be signed either before a shipping master or other respectable witness. In all other cases, the agreement must be signed before a shipping master. Similar provisions have been made with regard to the discharge of seamen. The provisions with regard to seamen's advance notes and the allotment by them of their wages have been considerably amplified to conform to the practice in the United Kingdom. The provisions in the Canada Shipping Act in respect to property of deceased seamen, destitute seamen, leaving seamen abroad, and distressed seamen, have been brought into line with the most recent legislation in the United Kingdom, and the provisions of the Act have been very materially extended for that purpose. In other important respects the Bill proposes that the Canadian legislation should be assimilated to that of the United Kingdom. This has been done without materially affecting the substance of the existing legislation.
Bart 4-Sick and Distressed Mariners.
This part was found to be in such an unsatisfactory condition that it was considered advisable to have it completely rewritten. The sequence of the provisions has been re-arranged to bring them into a more natural order. No substantial change has been made in the substance of the provisions of this department, but many obscurities have been cleared up, and the part, which was most unsatisfactory in form, is now clear, logical and consistent.
Part 5-Pilotage.
The principal, indeed the only important change proposed in this part is one by which the Minister of Marine and Fisheries constitutes the pilotage authority for Canada.
The intention is to have pilotage administered as one system throughout Canada and, while it is proposed to have local pilotage authorities, they will be more _ 
under the control of the department than heretofore, and it will be possible to have a more uniform administration of the law than has hitherto obtained. This change is proposed in accordance with the recommendation of the Pilotage Commission.
As the establishment of one pilotage authority for Canada will automatically abolish all the existing local pilotage authorities, all references to local pilotage authorities have been eliminated.
A provision has been inserted by which pilots will cease to hold licenses after they attain the age of seventy years. A new class of ships to be exempted from the provisions of this part is proposed. On the Atlantic coast, steamships employed in voyages between Canadian ports and the port of New York or other United States ports north of New York, have been exempt. It was thought that a similar exemption should be given to steamships trading between British Columbia ports and the port of San Francisco or other United States ports north of San Francisco.
Part 6-Steamship Inspection, Examination and Licensing of Engineers.
This part has been re-arranged and largely re-written and amplified, but no important structural changes are proposed. The number of motor boats on our inland and coast waters during the past few years has so enormously increased, and the provisions with regard to their inspection and regulation were so inadequate that it was considered advisable to give to the department ample powers in those respects for the future. The regulation of the speed at which they may be diven in waters of restricted area, of the number of passengers which they may carry, and a number of equally important matters are beyond the powers of the department under the existing legislation. These matters it is proposed to put under the control of the department for the future. During, and previous to, the present session, the department has been receiving representations from different individuals and people interested in maritime matters in regard to the necessity of providing that these motor boats shall be equipped with mufflers to deaden the sound which they make as they are being driven through the water. Under this provision the department will be able to make regulations dealing with that question which, judging from the reports we have received, has become one of undoubted importance.
Vessels such as steam dredges, floating

elevators, etc., are to be brought under the operation of the Act as regards regulations governing equipment for life saving, fire extinguishing, etc. The application of the law as regards this type of vessel has generally been made clearer.
It has been considered desirable that power should be given to the minister to make regulations upon a number of important matters under this part, which in the United Kingdom, are regulated by the Board of Trade. These are all technical matters relating to boilers, machinery, equipment, strength of materials and structures, methods of construction, inspection and other matters, the details of which it would be impossible to incorporate in the Act.
The procedure upon inspection of hulls or machinery has been very much improved and brought into line with that in force in the United Kingdom.
Some changes, more of expression than of substance, have been made in the provision relating to the employment of engineers on the various classes of ships. In making these changes, the practice in the United Kingdom has been taken as a guide.
It is proposed to eliminate a number of provisions of the existing Act which deal with matters which from their nature would seem to be more properly dealt with by regulation, either because they are not of sufficient importance, or are too much matters of detail to appear in the Act. Other sections which hafe outlived their usefulness have been eliminated.
Part 7-Safety.
The practical value of this part has been immensely increased, and, dealing as it does with very important matters relative to the lives and health of passengers and crews, a great deal of careful attention was given to it in the revision. The principal matters dealt with are:	(a) Unseaworthy
ships; (b) dangerous goods; (c) deck loads; (d) grain cargoes.
No substantial change in the law, except in one important particular, has been made in connection with unseaworthy ships, but the provisions for enabling ships suspected of being unsafe to be detained for survey and amelioration have been made much more effective, and have been brought into line with those in the United Kingdom and the other principal possessions of the Crown. The exception referred to. is with regard to the damages and expenses to which a ship-owner might be exposed if his ship were detained, and it proved that
the suspicions as to her unseaworthy condition were not well founded. Under the existing legislation the ship-owner would have no redress except against the complainant who might be a man of straw. It is proposed that the minister, that is to say, the Government, shall be liable to the ship-owner for those damages and expenses, with a right of action over against the complainant, if any, and the right, as at present, of exacting from a complainant security for these damages and expenses before taking action upon the complaint. In the United Kingdom and Australia and New Zealand the Governments have assumed liability for these damages and expenses. It is thought that Canada should do as much as they under similar conditions. Another reason exists, however, for the proposed change. It has been found that existing legislation is almost a dead letter, because the department cannot act without first receiving a complaint in writing. This leaves the most important cases of all unprovided for, namely, those in which a ship is suspected of being unseaworthy on the eve of putting to sea, because in such cases there would usually be too little time for a written complaint to reach the minister and for an order for detention of the ship to be procured. It is proposed, therefore, in line with the legislation in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, that the proper officials of the department should, be empowered to act immediately that there, is good ground to suspect that a ship is about to put to sea in an unseaworthy condition, and upon their own initiative if a complant is not received. If this proposal becomes law it is only just that the Government should be responsible if it proves that the detention in any case was after all unjustified.
With regard to dangerous goods a more general definition has been adopted and it is proposed that power shall be vested in the minister to determine from time to time by regulation what goods are to be considered dangerous and to provide for the packing, and stowage and handling of the. various kinds of dangerous goods. These are matters of detail which cannot be properly dealt with in the body of the Act.
No changes of any importance have been made with regard to deck-loads. The provisions on that subject of the Merchants' Shipping Act of 1906 were added to the Canadian Act by an amending Act in 1908, and those provisions with slight verbal changes have been repeated in this revision.
Some slight verbal alterations have been
[Stage Direction]
made in respect to grain cargoes. The only addition which is proposed gives power to the minister to make regulations upon the subject.
Three sections have been transferred to this part from Part 8 of the existing Act and a new section has been prepared and added to them in connection with the appointment and duties of Inspectors of Ships' tackle, of whom several have already been appointed.
Part 8-Wreck and Salvage.
The only substantial changes which are proposed in this part are those which are rendered necessary by the ' Maritime Conventions Act, 1914 ' now before Parliament. It is assumed that that Act can be disposed of, and it is, therefore, proposed to incorporate in the general Act in the appropriate places all the provisions of the ' Maritime Conventions Act, 1914/ and to repeal the last mentioned Act when the general Act comes into effect.
Part 9-(Special Shipping Inquiries and Courts.
This part, which with one relating to wreck and salvage forms one part in the existing Act, has been almost entirely re-written and brought more closely into line with the provisions of the Imperial Act, but the changes are almost entirely verbal. It has been thought wise, however, to give power to appoint legal assessors as well as those of nautical, engineering or other special skill or knowledge. In the United Kingdom, courts of inquiry into shipping casualties always have at least one legal member. In Canada the Court is usually composed of the Wreck Commissioner, assisted by two nautical assessors, none of whom have any legal training. In special cases where important questions as to the advisability of evidence or of substantive law might arise, the court would be much stronger if it could call to its aid a good legal practitioner to advise the court in any such matters. In ordinary cases the services of a legal assessor would neither be required, nor procured. The provisions relating to the appointment of the person to hold formal investigations have been enlarged so that the minister will not be restricted to the judges and officers mentioned in the existing Act, but may appoint for that purpose any person whatever, having practical or technical knowledge.
It has often happened that an investigation could not be promptly held after a shipping casualty, even when the Wreck Commissioner was in the neighbourhood,

and witnesses have had to be detained, often at considerable expense and inconvenience, because the commissioner had not actually received his commission from the department to hold that particular inquiry. It is proposed that no formal appointment or commission shall in future be necessary, but that the commissioner, or other officer, judge or person selected, may act upon the receipt of a letter or telegram from the minister directing him to hold the investigation.
Part 10-Lighthouses, Buoys and Beacons, and Sable Island.
The only substantial change proposed in this Part is to vest the power of appointment of all lightkeepers in the minister, Under the existing Act, the minister can appoint keepers whose salaries do not exceed two hundred dollars per year. All other keepers must be appointed by Order in Council. This is felt to be too unimportant a matter to be dealt with by Council.
Part 11-Public Harbours and Harbourmasters.
The only new matter dealt with by the revision of this Part relates to the salaries of harbour-masters. Some difficulties have been experienced in the past in dealing with this matter under somewhat equivocal language in the existing Act. This matter has now been put beyond question, and no further difficulty is anticipated in this respect.
Part 12-Port Wardens.
The changes proposed are merely verbal ones.
Part 13-Navigation of Canadian Waters.
The only changes proposed in this Part, other than verbal ones, are those necessary to give effect to the provisions of the Maritime Conventions Act, 1914.
Part 14-Coasting Trade of Canada.
No changes, except verbal ones, are proposed in this Part.
Part 15-Delivery of Goods.
This is an entirely new Part, so far as Canadian legislation is concerned. It has been adapted from Part 7 of the Imperial Act of 1894. It is intended to provide for a difficulty which not infrequently occurs in connection with the delivery of goods at their destination when the consignee for any reason refuses or neglects to pay the freight or take delivery of the goods. The shipowner is then placed in a quandary. It is true that he has a lien on the

goods for the freight, but it is a possessory lien only. He loses it if he in any way parts with the exclusive possession of the goods, as he would do, for instance, if he were to land them and store them in any ordinary warehouse. In that case, the warehouseman would acquire a lien for his charges, which would not only have priority over the shipowner's lien 'but would actually destroy it, because he would have surrendered the possession to another person entitled to a possessory lien. It is true he can retain the goods on board the ship, but, in that case, he cannot charge demurrage for the ship. His only alternative is to store them in a warehouse which is ufider the exclusive control of himself or his agent. Such warehouses are rarely available, so the quandary is a genuine one. The object of Part 15 is to provide a means by which the shipowner may store the goods in any ordinary warehouse, or other place of deposit of goods, and, by giving certain notices, and taking certain other steps, preserve his lien against the goods. Provision is also made for the necessary customs entries being made, for sale of the goods if the lien is not discharged, for payment of the shipowner's lien and the charges of the warehouseman by the owner of the goods, and generally for the effective working out of the Tights of the various parties, without ousting the jurisdiction of the courts to determine any matters of difference between the parties. Legislation of this nature is a practical need in Canada, and should have been on our statute books years ago.
Part 16-Liability of Carriers by Water.
This part has been expanded to include the provisions of the Water Carriage of Goods Act, 1910, and an amending Act of 1911.
Part 17-Legal Proceedings.
This is a new part modelled upon one in the Imperial Act. The existing Act, made up as it is of a number of separate Acts thrown together more or less haphazard, contained no consistent scheme for putting the numerous penal provisions into force. Some parts lacked all provisions of that character, others had some, none had sufficient. The provisions relating to procedure have been taken out of the various parts and put into this special part together with such other provisions as were necessary to round out the matter. In addition some very necessary provisions which do not appear in the existing Act have
been added. Among these are provisions governing the taking and using of depositions of witnesses who are by reason of illness, absence from Canada, or other good clause, unable to appear at a trial, and others dealing with the jurisdiction of courts, damage occasioned by foreign ships, detention of ships, proof and service of documents and application of penalties.
Part 18-Supplemental.
In this part are collected provisions with regards to the following, among other subjects:	documents and forms; powers for
enforcing compliance with Act; Orders in Council, rules and regulations; transmission and publication of documents; definitions; repeal; commencement of Act. Of these 'definitions' alone require any special mention. In Hie existing Act each part had its own definitions which were often inconsistent with definitions in another part or parts. The definitions of the same word were not identical throughout the parts, and many essential definitions were missing. Thus, for example, steamship, steamer and steamboat were differently defined in different parts, but no two of those words were defined in the same part. Yet it was by no means rare to find several of those words used in the same part, apparently with the same intended meaning. To rectify this condition of affairs, the word ' steamship ' was adopted as the synonym to be used throughout the new Act; that woTd was defined; and the words ' steamboat ' and * steamer ' no longer appear in the Act, except, perhaps, by inadvertence. The principle has been adopted of having one set of definitions for the whole Act, and these have been compiled with great care. It is true that some special definitions still appear in a few of the parts, but these have been retained because they appear in that way in the Imperial Act, and it was thought better to preserve as far as possible in all cases the exact form of the parent legislation.
Some few general observations may be permitted. The work of revision, clerical and otherwise, has been collossal. Out of 970 sections in the existing Act, hardly one but has had at least some verbal changes made in it, and most of them have been so altered in form as to be almost unrecognizable. As a matter of fact, the whole Act has been practically re-written, and many sections have undergone that process repeatedly before they assumed their final shape. Two parts
[Stage Direction]
which were obsolete or useless have been omitted, and two new parts, those relating to delivery of goods and legal proceedings, have been inserted. Another part, that dealing with wreck and salvage and investigations into shipping casualties, has been subdivided into two parts. The result is that the proposed Act is longer by one part than the existing Act, but, on the other hand, as the Tesult of careful pruning away of useless matter which has taken place, no less than 226 sections have either disappeared or have been combined with other sections. We have 744 sections in the proposed Act, as against 970 in the existing one.
It should be mentioned that the work of revision has been performed under very high pressure. The work was not begun until late in July, 1913, so that less than eight months have been devoted to it. It was thought desirable that the proposed legislation should be introduced into this House at an early date in the present session. In order to make that possible the work, of revision has proceeded with unusual speed. Partly as a result of this, imperfections will undoubtedly appear. They will be, I am sure, the imperfections of speed, not of carelessness.
The proposed Act is not a mere consolidation; it is intended to be a complete revision of the legislation upon this most important subject, with a view to providing for Canada a code for merchant shipping which will be worthy to take a dignified position alongside the legislation upon the same subject in the motherland and in the other great possessions of the Crown. We have been too long labouring under the disadvantages of a code which was crude, obsolete, obscure, and unworthy of a great nation. It is high time that we took our place in this respect with the other great maritime powers of the world.
I feel I should apologize to the House for taking up so much of its time, but I thought time might he saved in the future were I to place a complete summary of the legislation upon 'Hansard', so that it can be studied by hon. members of the House and others interested in the shipping interests of the country.
John Howard Sinclair: If I understood the
nrnister rightly, he said that captains holding coasting certificates have to submit themselves to an examination before being permitted to sail further south than 5 degrees north latitude.


John Douglas Hazen: I stated that the proposal in the Bill was to create another class of certificate which shall be known as ' limited foreign-going,' which certificate will enable an officer to go in a vessel to the West Indies, Bermuda, the Bahama Islands, or any point on the continent of America, whether North or South America. The only examination which a man having a coasting certificate will have to pass will be an examination on the use of the sextant and certain other instruments which that captain undoubtedly knows how to use at the present time.


John Howard Sinclair: It will be very inconvenient for captains now engaged in the service to submit themselves for examination. I would submit to the minister the importance of dealing with the question at the present session. I understood from the hint he threw out that he scarcely expects this Bill to become law this session, and as the matter is an urgent one, I hope he will consider the advisability of facilitating the passing of a Bill that I introduced very early in the present session. This case illustrates how difficult it is for a private member to get his views before the House. I introduced my Bill on the 21st of January, only a few days after the opening of the session. I have been in my place every day since, yet I have not had an opportunity to move the second reading of that Bill nor to explain its purport to the House. But the minister is familiar with the matter, and he admitted in the House recently its great importance. I would urge upon him the desirability of dealing with it prior to . this Bill because, if it could be dealt with at the present session, it would be of great advantage to the shipping interests throughout the country.


John Douglas Hazen: I will certainly consider
the matter and will discuss it with my hon. friend.


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

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. George E. Foster for Committee of Supply:
Mr. W. E. KNOWLES (Moosejaw):: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention, before closing my remarks, to move an amendment to this motion, which amendment I will read now. It is as follows:
That ' all the words after the word ' that ' be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

In the opinion of this House the time has arrived when, in the interests of the farmers, and consequently in the interests of the whole of Canada, the duties on agricultural implements should be forthwith removed.
I desire to address myself to this question in no controversial manner, but rather, if possible, to speak of it from such viewpoint that I may appeal to both sides of the House, and to offer remarks which may commend themselves to hon. gentlemen whether they sit upon your right or on your left. The question is one of too great importance, and the principle involved is too fundamental, to justify either myself or any other hon. gentleman on either side of the House making it a mere political question for party purposes; for it involves the problem of supplying those engaged in the great agricultural industry of this country with what is. in reality a very important part of their raw material. I think it goes without saying that the people who use agricultural implements, namely, our farming classes, are the foundation of our country, the basis of the success and prosperity of the Dominion, and that everything that contributes to their success contributes to the success of our whole nation. There are many other industries in Canada but none that can commence to compare with the agricultural industry in point of importance. If you were to take away from our economic activity the interest of the farmer, you would have no Canada left. In our own province of Saskatchewan, or in the province of Manitoba, or in the province of Alberta, take away the grain grower, and you have no city of Winnipeg, no Regina, Moosejaw, Edmonton, Calgary, Saskatoon or Prince Albert. For, if you remove the tiller of the soil, the grain grower, you remove the man who keeps every person in the town in employment and in supply of the necessaries of life. Take the city of Moosejaw, for instance: if there were no grain growers in the district, there would be no bankers in Moosejaw, no lawyers, no clergymen, no schoolteachers, no milliners, no merchants. So I might take each town in the prairie country and show you that the whole system of our towns depends on the prosperity of our agricultural classes. And just as it is true in that absolute way that unless we have an agricultural class we shall have no city class, it is true to a proportionate degree that to the extent to which we encourage and make prosperous our agricultural classes we encourage and make prosperous our city and town classes.
Legislation enacted in this House will be, in the last resort, wise legislation which o-oes to the very root of our national prosperity, namely, the success of our agricultural classes. Therefore, I make no apology for taking the time necessary to bring before hon. gentlemen the necessity of bringing relief to our agricultural classes in the manner of which I have spoken.
The motion of which I have spoken, and with the moving of which I shall close my remarks, makes the assertion that because it will be for the benefit of the farming class, therefore the step I advocate will be for the success of the whole nation. That,
I think, is clear upon the face of it. As my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) yesterday so well said, it is surely false economy to believe that you are going to make a successful nation on the basis of milking the industries which are natural to our country, industries which succeed here on their merits and stand on their own feet, and give to other industries that are artificial and not able to stand alone.
I desire to express the view-and I wish I had words that would express as forcibly as I feel the importance of what I am going to say-that the Dominion of Canada to-day owes more than it has ever realized to the people who started the farms of this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
I speak, of course, as a western man, but I trust that this motion will commend itself to those interested in the agricultural industry in the East, and to people interested in the prosperity of Canada everywhere. We do not give sufficient recognition to people who have taken the land which had remained unproductive since it left the Creator's hands and turned it into a source of national wealth. Whether in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario or the West, the man who has gone upon the land which for ages has lain without being the source of any benefit or wealth, and as a pioneer has turned it to a source of wealth, is the man to whom the greatest credit is due, he is the man to whom in this House the greatest consideration should be shown.
My riding is an immense one. At one time I represented a district embracing 400 miles along the line of the Canadian Pacific railway, from forty miles east of Regina to eighty miles west of Medicine Hat, and from the international boundary line to the top of Township 34, over 200 miles. My riding is not now so large, but is still a vast one. 1 have gone through that

riding at different times; I have seen ttie homesteaders, the first men to go on	the land. I have seen their
humble circumstances, their poverty, if you will; I have seen the hard row they have had to hoe, and I have thought that notwithstanding their modesty, they, after all, are the men who make the Dominion of Canada, and not the millionaires who sit in the clubs in the cities of Montreal and Toronto. When you come to analyse the success of the Canadian nation, you are brought face to face with the fact that the men who have built up Toronto and Montreal are these same men who have taken homesteads; men. who had, perhaps, pledged their credit for a pair of oxen and have gone out upon the lonely prairies to till the virgin soil. For that reason I feel that I may with confidence appeal not only to hon. gentlemen on this side, but to members on both sides of the House, because there is not in the House to-day an hon. gentleman who does not realize that he and his constituents-nay, all of us, as Canadians-have a greater Canada to-day because of the development that has taken place in the prairie provinces. I ask for the co-operation of my hon. friends on the other side, who represent the tillers of the soil in the prairie prov,incus. I believe they must realize the truth of what I have said in regard to the privation which the farmers have had to undergo, and will agree that they should give the most favourable consideration and support to any course of action which will result in the introduction of legislation beneficial to their constituents. Although, as I have said, I am going to try to keep away from the controversial side of the matter, I may point out that hon. gentlemen opposite are, at this juncture, in a position to do more than we on this side of the House are able to do. Such gentlemen as the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner), the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury), the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen), the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. McKay), are able to do more than we are, because they have the ear of the Government. May I remind them that the constituents whom they represent feel the pressure of present conditions upon them, and require relief in one form or another.
If hon. gentlemen analyse the vote of the people in 1911, they will see that the farmers of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba are not satisfied with the present condition of affairs. Let us analyse the vote, just for a 
moment. I wish to refer first to the election returns for the county of the hon. member for Souris. That hon. gentleman was just as good a man in 1911 as he was in 1908; personally, a perfectly good man in every way, I am confident. He supported a policy that denied to tire farmers the measure of relief that was offered to them from the pressure under which they were existing and are now struggling. What was the result? His constituents sent to Ottawa a message, just as definite as if they had elected a Liberal candidate, that they were not satisfied with the existing condition of affairs. The majority which my hon. friend had in Souris was reduced from 880 in 1908 to 61 in 1911, the latter being but one-fifteenth of the majority he had before. I am not reflecting on my hon. friend; I simply use that fact to convince him and hon. gentlemen of this House that the people of Souris sent a message to the Parliament of Canada that they desired some measure of relief from the pressure of conditions under which they were struggling. Take the constituency of the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Eoelie). In 1908 he had a majority of 560 in 1911 it was reduced to 126. His majority in 1908 was four and a half times that amount. Take the case of the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Sharpe). His majority was reduced from 105 to 20. The majority of Mr. Staples, who is not now in the House, was reduced from 576 to 161.


Mr. W. H. SHARPE:: What about the last majority in Macdonald?


William Erskine Knowles: I am glad my hon.
friend asked me that question; it serves to show that although it is my desire to avoid the controversial aspect of this question, he is more inclined to make some petty political capital out of it than he is to serve the farmers of Lisgar. Unless my hon. friend wants to have his majority reduced not to one-fiftli of what it was before but made five times as large again on the Liberal side, he had better take to heart the advice I give him, leave party politics alone in respect of these important matters, and attend to the farmers of Lisgar county, or they will attend to him at the next election.
The hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) is a shining exception to tlie rule. He was the same hon. gentleman in 1911 as he was in 1908-just as strong, just as able on his feet or off his feet. He increased his majority, multiplying it by three. And why? Because he

was the man who got up in this House and said that he was in favour of the reduction of the duties on agricultural implements. In the election of 1911 my hon. friend was everywhere in the Prairie provinces regarded as the man who, if his party came into power, would be the apostle of free agricultural implements for the farmers. This exception to the rule convinces me of the truth of the principle which I am endeavouring to establish as underlying the election of 1911. The people gave the hon. member for Portage la Prairie the increased majority that they denied to his colleagues because they thought they were voting for a man who, in power or out of power, would advocate what he preached while in opposition. But to their sorrow he has been more than 2 years with his party in power and done nothing.
Let us take Alberta. In 1908, Mr. Herron, of the riding of McLeod, had a majority of 273; the hon. member who now represents that riding reversed Mr. Herron's majority, making it a Liberal majority of 819. Mr. McGrath, in Medicine Hat, had a majority in 1908 of 300; the present member for Medicine Hat defeated Mr. McGrath and had a majority of about 1,500. So 1 could go over the different constituencies, I could take this one and that one m Alberta, I could take my own in which, from one thousand, the majority was increased to twenty-three hundred because the farmers of the district of Moosejaw wished to send to Ottawa the message that they desired some release from the pressure and strain under which they were struggling in their agricultural operations.


Mr. BURNHAM:: How do they propose
to pay their share of the national expenditure?


William Erskine Knowles: They propose paying
this share, but not, as they are doing now, much more than that.


Mr. LALOR:: Get the land for nothing
and then pay nothing.


William Erskine Knowles: My hon. friend had
better not get into a discussion of protection. I repeat that the people of these provinces have, as emphatically as it is possible for them to do so, sent
5 p.m. their message that they wish relief in some form or other. I do not care greatly whether we get it in the open market offered in the south or in the lowered duties on goods purchased, I would like both forms of relief, but relief we wish and ought to have. I might
say that we must have it if we are going to continue to assist in building up the prosperity of Canada as we have done in the past.
The question will be asked, and I am sure my hon. friends opposite will raise it, as to whether the Liberal party is altogether in an ideal position on this question of the tariff on agricultural implements, or the tariff as a whole. There is no doubt that that is a question that will be raised, for it is raised on every occasion that hon. gentlemen opposite seek to defend the present conduct of the affairs of the Dominion of Canada. In order to anticipate the objection or the twitting that might be offered to me on that score, I may say that, in my humble opinion, neither party in Canada has gone as far towards a lower tariff as I would have liked them to go. When I differ from my party I am not afraid to say so; but I am just as clear on this as that I am standing on my feet, that as between the two parties, for the man who has the interest of his constituents at heart, if they are farmers in the West, there can be no debate or hesitation as to which party he ought to support. I quite understand a person saying that neither party goes far enough, but I cannot understand a man representing the farmer on the prairie saying that he thinks the Conservative party is the better of the two from the viewpoint of his constituents. One party goes a certain way, a long way towards that relief, and the other goes the other way, being the protectionist party. Sc, 1 say, as between the two, I can have no hesitation in standing before my constituents or in this House and saying that, much as I regret that the former Government did not go further than it did, yet, as between the two parties, there can be no question as to which I deem it my duty to support in the interests of my constituents. As long ago as 1908 I uttered words in this House which I have recalled before, and which I shall recall again. On the 1st of June, 1908, as will be found on ' Hansard,' page 9,514, of that day, I uttered the following words, and they were my view then and they are my view to-day. Speaking with reference to the duty on lumber, 1 said:
I deliberately state that protection is the mother of trusts and combines. Tariffs breed trusts and if there is one thing in which there should be no trust, that thing is lumber. For my part, I am against protection from start to finish, protection is to me an abomination. I support the Liberal party because of the two parties it is the one that favours the lower duties. But if a strong party de-

cidedly devoted to free trade were to arise, I would be a supporter of that party, regarding its tariff policy. In this House, as representing my constituents, I believe I serve them best by supporting the party that goes the furthest in granting a low tariff.
That was my view then and it is my view now. I say also for the Liberal party that not only did they effect very substantial reductions in the tariff while they were in office, against the bitterest opposition of the hon. gentlemen now in power, but they went down to their defeat because they were in favour of a further reduction in the tariff and offering us the American markets, and thus aroused the enmity and hostility of the trusts and mergers and combines in this country. The whole Liberal party is very often twitted on its conduct on the question of the tariff. Sometimes it is said that the platform of 1893 committed the Liberal party to free trade. I do not need to read that platform to you; you know very well, and hon. gentlemen of this House know it did not. The policy of the Liberal party, as laid down then, was that free trade as they have it in England should be the goal towards which the Liberal party should look in the Dominion of Canada. These are the words spoken by the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier):
I propose to you from this day forward, that it would be the goal to which we aspire.
I propose to you from this day, although we cannot adopt the policy itself, to adopt the principle which regulates it; that is to say, that though it should be your misfortune for many years to come to raise a revenue by customs duties, those duties should be levied only so far as is necessary to carry on the business of the Government.
And I think there is nothing inconsistent as between that policy as laid down there and the policy as it was carried out by the Liberal Government while in power. I will make the statement that I would not be so foolish as to advocate that free trade should be introduced to-morrow or forthwith. I do not know how many hundreds of millions are invested in manufactures in this country. A man would be foolish to say that all of that should be jeopardized and every whit of tariff removed.
The Liberal policy is a sane one: we are not iconoclasts. I am dealing with the duty on agricultural implements, and before I conclude I shall try to show that the abolition of the duty on agricultural implements is such a move as even protectionists should agree to, because the time has arrived when they

need no more protection but are able to stand absolutely on their own feet.


Mr. SCHAFFNEE:: You have stated
your position in 1908. Kindly state what your position was in 1907 when a very similar motion was before this House.


William Erskine Knowles: The same position that I take now, namely, serving my constituents to the best of my ability.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I beg your pardon,
not according to 'Hansard.'


William Erskine Knowles: Get your 'Hansard.'


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I have ' Hansard '
right here.


William Erskine Knowles: All right, get your
vote.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: On page 5597-


William Erskine Knowles: I have answered the
hon.' gentleman.
Some hon. MEMBEES: Oh, oh.


William Erskine Knowles: My speech is not going to be interfered with.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I did not wish to
interrupt you.


William Erskine Knowles: Now, the hon. gentleman, realizing the weakness of his position and seeing the Senate door closed to him, seeks to interrupt me. My hon. friend should not be cross with me; I did not make the British North America Act.
I had nothing to do with the terms on which Manitoba was allowed to enter Confederation, and am not to blame for the fact that the Government cannot make any more Manitoba senators.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He will have a chance to vote on this amendment.


William Erskine Knowles: I say that, on the
other hand, the Conservative party has had its declared policy as being a policy of protection; and those who support it must necessarily take the responsibility of supporting a protectionist party. The best way in which I can establish that is to recite to you the motion made by the present Prime Minister, the then leader of the Opposition, in 1903. He moved a very short motion:
That this House, regarding the operation of the present tariff as unsatisfactory, is of opinion that this country requires a declared policy of such adequate protection to its labour, agricultural products, manufactures and industries as will at all times, secure the Canadian market for Canadians.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Erskine Knowles: basis from any other industry. In addition to this the agricultural implement manufacturer secures what to him is a very large revenue in drawbacks. In the last fiscal year drawbacks amounted to $306,168, which was either a present to the manufacturer or a bonus to the foreign purchaser at our expense.
There is another reason, and it follows from the one I have just given, why the manufacturer of agricultural implements stands on a different footing from other manufacturers, and it is this: he can go into the world's markets and successfully compete against the manufacturers of other countries. If he can do that successfully in other countries, why cannot he do it in Canada? If the farmers of Great Britain, having money to spend, find that the Massey-Harris Company, the International Harvester Company or any other company manufacturing binders in Canada, can sell to them cheaper than the American manufacturer, why cannot our Canadian manufacturers, with all their loyalty, sell to their fellow-Canadians as cheaply as the foreign manufacturer can? They desire to build up Canada for the Canadians. Why do they then give this great privilege to Frenchmen, to Germans, even to Russians and to Australians? Why do they not give to their fellow-Canadians, since they want to help Canada, the same terms that they give to the purchasers of their manufactured articles away across the seas? They can compete in the world's markets with the manufacturers of the United States or of any other part of the world. I do not wish to refer to a past debate, but the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) last night made the observation that the manufacturers of agricultural implements in Canada could undersell, and compete successfully with, the manufacturers of agricultural implements in Germany, Australia or any other country, and could meet the exported article from any other country in fair competition. Even the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. White) seemed to say the same thing. He even went farther in his argument the Minister of Finance went so far as to say that he was going to take into consideration the question of putting a duty oil pig iron, as his supporters asked him to do, and he added: If I do that I will have to take into the consideration the question of increasing the duty on agricultural implements. When I heard him say that about in-
creasing the duty on implements, 1 thought it was high time that we had a motion to the effect of that which I am going to place in your hands, Mr. Speaker.
Let me observe further that the manufacturers of agricultural implements can go, not only into the world's markets, but right into the United States and compete successfully. I see my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) here. He will bear me out when I say that the manufacturers of agricultural implements in Canada can pay the United States tariff, pay the freight and sell substantially all their goods in the United States.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: What is the United States tariff on implements?


William Erskine Knowles: I am not positive as to the present, but at the time my figures have reference to, it was 15 per cent on ploughs. If I am wrong, will my hon. friend .correct me?


Arthur Meighen: Not just now.


William Erskine Knowles: Not just now. I will live in hopes that he never will. I know I am right. The company of which I have the data is the Cockshutt Plow Company. My hon. friend from Brantford will believe me when I say that I do not bring it up because his name is connected with it, but it is because I have had access to the information on that point. The Cockshutt Plow Company, of Brantford, makes an eight furrow gang plough which at the time my figures were compiled-and as far as I know at the present time-sold at Brantford for $600, at Winnipeg for $680, and at most points in Saskatchewan for $705 cash. This same infant industry in Brantford, which requires 17J per cent protection before it is able to supply the people of Canada, is able to go into the United States, pay a duty of either 13 or 15 per cent, as it was at the time my figures were compiled, and sell this plough at Peoria, Illinois, for $525 and at Minneapolis for $502.


Arthur Meighen: At what time were the hon. gentleman's figures compiled?


William Erskine Knowles: Since the present Government came in.
' Mr. MEIGHEN: Since the present Government in the United States or this Government came in?


William Erskine Knowles: No, this present Government. These figures which I am giving were given previously to this House in

the debate either in January, 1912, or December, 1911. If there is any difference in the American tariff now, it makes no difference to my argument. The cost of manufacturing has not at all increased, and if the Coelcslmtt Plow Company was able to do it under these circumstances it answers the purpose of my argument just the same. The same plough that sold at Brantford for $600 sold in Minneapolis for $502 after paying a duty of fifteen per cent besides the freight. Could anything more be wanted to substantiate my statement that this industry at least needs no more protection? If my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie, in raising this question, wishes to make the point that ploughs are now admitted free into the United States, it does not change the correctness of the argument I am making from these figures. They were then able to sell at a lower figure in the United States and pay the duty. If they are able to compete with the American manufacturer in the United 'States after paying the duty, surely, they are able to compete with the American manufacturer in Saskatchewan without paying the duty. If they can do that then my motion should be accepted by the hon. members of this House and by the hon. member for Brantford amongst them.
My hon. friend from Humboldt (Air. Neely), in the same debate, read in this House two letters which had been received by a certain gentleman who had written to the representative of the Cockshutt Plow-Company in Saskatoon and the representative of the same company in the United States and the figure given for an 8-gang plough at Saskatoon was $705 cash and the figure given for that plough at Minne-appolis was $541.20. This infant industry, the Cockshutt Plow Company, that needs protection from this Government, went away to the markets of the south of us and showed that they could compete, without any bounty or duty, with the American manufacturer right at home, while at the same time declaring that they cannot stand fair competition here in Canada. I could go over all the different implements in the same way. If I am not mistaken the southern boundary of the constituency of my hon. friend from Souris (Mr. Schaffner) is the same as the international boundary line. You can get agricultural implements on the one side and on the other and invariably they are' about twenty per cent dearer on the Canadian side than on the American side.


An hon. MEMBER:: No, no.


William Erskine Knowles: My hon. friend says,
' No, no.' After the investigation which I have made I am convinced that the figures which I have here will bear out what I have said, and I do not wish to make any statement that is not correct. Let us take, for example, the figures given by my hon. friend from Regina (Mr. Martin) on December 28, 1911, page 474 of 'Hansard' and I would add that these figures have never been contradicted nor questioned by any hon. gentleman in this House, and several Conservative members spoke in opposition to Mr. Martin's speech but did not question the correctness of his figures; therefore I take it that they are correct. My hon. friend from Regina made this statement:
I have here figures obtained from implement men, and no doubt they are correct, and they show that in southern Saskatchewan the farmer has to pay $90 for a wagon which in Montana or Minnesota he can buy for $S0; that the farmer in southern Saskatchewan pays for 5 feet mowers $57 which are bought by the farmer in the northern states for $47.50 each. These figures also show that binders cost the southern Saskatchewan farmer from $150 to $160 each. I am told that last year they sold in Regina from $180, and the same mower can be bought for $140 in the northern states, then the Saskatchewan farmer has to pay $85 for a gang plough which can be bought for $70 across the line, and $57 for a hay-fork which his neighbour in the northern states can purchase at from $28 to $35. How is that explained? Is it fair that the southern Saskatchewan farmer should pay from 10 per cent to 20 per cent more for what he needs than does his brother farmer to the south of the line, just for the benefit of affording protection to the Canadian manufacturer.
These figures were given in the debate dealing expressly with this subject when hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House spoke and the figures given by my hon. friend from Regina were not in any way challenged either by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie, who has questioned the correctness of what I have just said, or by any other hon. member of this House. I therefore say that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, there is a very substantial difference between the price which the American farmer has to pay in the West and that which the Canadian farmer has to pay. My hon. friend (Mr. Cockshutt) has an explanation of why he should be allowed to go into the American market and pay the duty, and yet, as a manufacturer, not be willing to stand open competition in the American markets, and this is the explanation he gave on December 5, 1911, page 810 of ' Hansard,':

Let me explain how these ploughs are used in order that thi3 House may understand thoroughly the position of this matter, because I charge here again that this is an endeavour to set the farmer of the west against the manufacturer, of the east. That is what the whole argument is designed to do and what has characterized the conduct of hon. gentlemen opposite. It is the desire of hon. gentlemen to set the farmer of the west against the manufacturer and the working man of the east. This plough that the hon. gentleman refers to will turn twenty-eight acres of new land per day. Let us see to what use this plough is put by the man who buys it. He takes a contract from his neighbour, who is not fortunate enough to have one of these ploughs, and he charges him from $4 to $4.50 per acre for turning the land. I have known of a case in the west where a man during a season has ploughed 30 acres per day at $4.25 an acre, making in all $138 per day. This is not bad business. We should consider that a very fair profit in the plough business. A man who would make that profit per day would probably have 100 days in the season in which he could do it, and after allowing $53 for labour and working expenses of the plough, he would have $75 as a profit on his day's work. If he had 100 days in a season this would give him $7,500 for the operation of his plough for a season of 100 days. So that I do not think the hon. gentleman has made out his case that this man is worthy of such an immense amount of sympathy.
This is the hon. member's reason for saying that it is right that the people of Saskatchewan should have to pay an inflated price for their ploughs. The statement happens to be very inaccurate, for unfortunately our farmers are not making the fortune my hon. friend imagines. But let that go, and let us investigate his argument. Let us see where that reasoning lands us. My hon. friend does not say that he needs protection; in fact, he cannot say that, when he pays his duty and goes into the United States and sells there. But he does say that the Canadian farmer m Saskatchewan is a money maker, and has the money, and therefore, by law, we should take it away from him. If the hon. member says anything at all, that is what he says. He says this man is making $138 a day, and therefore we should not take off this 20 per cent, but the manufacturers should continue getting nearly $200 more for their ploughs in Saskatchewan than they get in Minnesota, where they have to pay the duty, and this extra $200 taken by law from the farmer and given to my hon. friend's plow company. Did you ever hear such reasoning, Mr. Speaker ? If there is anything in that reasoning, it means that if a farmer in Saskatchewan happens to have $500 in the bank, and the Cockshutt Plow Company hears of it, and thinks he can live without it,

legislation would be justified which would take $300 from that farmer and give it to the Cockshutt Plow Company. The very fact that my hon. friend is driven to that argument, which is nothing but legalized robbery-and I make the statement without fear of contradiction-the very fact that my hon. friend is driven to say, that because the farmer in Saskatchewan makes money on his farm, therefore, it ought to be given to the manufacturing firm in Brantford, leads us to this: that we should pass legislation here to take the money away from the millionaires. If because a man makes money, and has lots of money to spare, we should pass an act which will take away from him $20,000 for each one of us to blow around the country as we think fit, that is the principle announced by the hon. member. If one is right the other is right, but of course both are absurd.
The very fact that my hon. friend from Brantford is driven to such an extremity to defend the protective system in connection with the products of the Cockshutt Plow Company, shows the weakness of the whole protective system.
As another reason why I contend that the Canadian manufacturers of agricultural implements should stand on their own bottom, I refer to the evidence taken before the Ways and Means Committee, which is the Tariff Committee, of the Congress, at Washington, in 1908-9. I shall quote some parts of the evidence of Mr. Metcalfe, who was the representative of the International Harvester Company, which, as you are aware, Mr. Speaker, is the leading manufacturer of agricultural implements in the United States. Mr. Metcalfe, in reply to the Chairman of the Committee, deposed:


The Chairman:: Would it be any inducement to the foreign manufacturer of farm implements to open a market here for him when he cannot compete successfully with you in his own market?
Mr. Metcalfe:	There are some nations that
would probably nend some goods to this country.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Why did you build your
Canadian plant?
Mr. Metcalfe: Because of the Canadian duty.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Do you manufacture any
cheaper in Canada than in the United States?
Mr. Metcalfe:	They do not.
The Chairman :	As cheaply?
Mr. Metcalfe:	Comparatively.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Can you manufacture
cheaper than the English manufacturer or the German manufacturer?
Mr. Metcalfe:	I think they can. Otherwise they could not compete with them in Germany and also in England.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: About labour, the price of
labour is higher here than in England and Germany?
Mr. Metcalfe :	Yes ; it is.


MAKCH IX, 1914
Pierre Édouard Blondin: By manufacturing upon a
large scale it enables you with others, to make your products cheaper than your foreign competitor who has cheaper, labour?
Mr. Metcalfe:	We have improved methods
In this country in almost every industry which helps our industries.
As to the capitalization of the concern this is his evidence:


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Do you know the capitalization of the International Harvester Company? 'Mr. Metcalfe:	I do.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: How much is it?
Mr. Metcalfe. One hundred and twenty million dollars.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Do they have the Deering
establishment?
Mr. Metcalfe: Yes, sir.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: What others?
Mr. Metcalfe:	The McCormick, the Deering,
the Plano, Warder, Bushell and Gleesner and the Milwaukee. These were the five companies originally organized as the International Harvester Company.
Here we have this witness stating that in the city of Hamilton they are able to manufacture practically as cheaply as they can in the United States, where their plant is an immense one of $120,000,000. There is the evidence right from the manufacturer who was at the head of the biggest concern in the United States, and possibly the biggest concern in Canada also, and he says, that the cost of manufacturing in the two countries is practically the same. If that is so, that the manufacturers in Canada can compete in the markets of the world-and I think I have shown they can-and that they can even compete in the American market after paying the duty; if Mr. Metcalfe, who knows the concerns in Canada .and in the United States, swears on his oath that it costs practically the same to manufacture in Hamilton as in Chicago, should we hesitate any longer? Should we not, on the contrary, come to the decision that the Canadian manufacturer of agricultural implements does not need any protection but can stand upon his own feet? The doctrine of protection-and I address myself of course to my hon. friends who are protectionists-if it is ever justifiable, is justifiable only when it is needful. With regard to the Cockshutt Plow Company we can find no justification for the seventeen and a half per cent duty, if it is not needed. My hon. friends will agree with me, I think, when I say that protection is wrong when it is not needed. For my own part I am against protection anyway, but we have protected interests in this country and you cannot be an iconoclast and smash everything. When the time comes when protection is not needed, it is robbery. If pro-99
tection is not needed to enable the manufacturer to carry on his business, and you continue that protection, you are taking money out of the hardworking farmers' pockets and giving it to other men who do not need it. I believe the time has come in Canada when these manufacturers do not need protection. There is a well-known manufacturing concern in Toronto, the Massey-Harris Company, a very honourable concern in every way, so far as I know. Do they need protection? Have they not been protected far more than they needed protection? If they were living just from hand to mouth and hanging on by their teeth, there might be some argument in favour of protecting them; but what do we find.? We find that they have money coming into their pockets by the millions of dollars to throw around the city of Toronto in philanthropy. I have nothing to say against philanthropy, but if the people of the prairie provinces want to build Massey halls, do not take the money from them to do so by legislation; let them give it freely by contribution, and not by the Massey-Harris route. I repeat, that it is not just to take this money from them by legislation, when the manufacturer does not need it.
There is a plant in New York state offered for sale; and this ' infant industry ' of the Massey-Harris Company, which must be supported with money taken out of the poor homesteaders can find $3,000,000 in cold cash to buy that plant, and they have doubled that plant since then. They do not need protection, and to continue protection to them is an outrage. I submit that the time has come when that protection should be removed. We have no money to contribute either as a present or as charity to the manufacturers.
The removal of protection on agricultural implements is, I think, in accord with the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite as well as in accord with our own policy. Because National Policy, so called, proposes to give protection only so long as it is needed, I do not think there is an exponent of the National Policy in this House who will disagree with me when I say that the underlying purpose of the National Policy when it was introduced was to nurture industries until they required no more nurturing, and then to leave them without protection. I would refer hon. gentlemen to quotations made by my hon. friend from Portage la * Prairie (Mr. Meighen) in 1911. The first is from the address of the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) on



the 27th of March, 1894, and is reported at page 234 of ' Hansard ' of that year. The hon. gentleman was speaking with regard to the reduction he then made in the duty on agricultural implements when he reverted to the figure-20 per cent-that had prevailed under the Mackenzie Government:
After considering the matter in all its phases the Government has come to the conclusion to reduce these from 35 per cent to 20 per cent, a reduction of 15 per cent on the whole, and a reduction which it will tax the manufacturers of these implements to meet and keep the field in which their competition is at present even quite heavy, especially in the Northwest; but a reduction with which the Government believes that they can prosecute their industry, while, at the same time, it will have the effect of greatly cheapening one of the largest items of expenditure to which the farmer has been subjected, especially in grain-growing districts.
The late hon. member for South Lanark, the Hon. John Haggart, who was then a minister of the Crown and spoke with all
the responsibility of his position, speaking in the debate on the 28th of March, 1894, as reported at page 347 of f Hansard 5 said:
The policy of the Government has been to develop our industries and, so successful has that policy been, that the time is coming soon when not only can our manufacturers supply our own markets, but when they will be able to export to the markets of the world and to compete on fair and even terms with the manufacturers of any nation on the face of the globe. In Canada, nature has given us great facilities for manufactories. It is true in some places they have no coal, but nature provides another blessing in an immense water-powef*, which can be obtained at comparatively small cost. There is no reason why, by application of science to our natural resources, we should not be able to produce as good and as cheap articles as there are in the world, and to compete successfully in foreign markets as well. For the last fourteen years, protection in Canada has so developed our manufactories that the Government now think that a fair reduction in the tariff can be ventured on. They believe that . our people can compete with less protection than formerly, and to prove that, it can be pointed out that we are now sending agricultural implements to many portions of the world.
In view of these utterances as to the true purpose of the National Policy, I think the time has arrived when even the most devoted advocate and supporter of the so-called National Policy might now give his support to the motion which in a moment I shall place in your hands.
There is only one objection which may be raised to this motion that I wish to anticipate, and that is that it might embarras the Government and that it would be better < to deal with the matter at the time of the Budget. I do not take that view. I think

it right that the Government should know the opinion of this House. I appeal to the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) and to all the gentlemen who come from the grain-growing parts of the West, as well as to the gentlemen who represent grain-growing counties in Quebec and in Ontario-and there are many of them. Now is the opportunity to leave party politics aside, now is the opportunity for hon. gentlemen on the other side to show to the Government they support that in their opinion the time has arrived for this change in the law. I say the matter will be quite in order. My hon. friend from Portage la Prairie moved a resolution, not on the occasion of the Budget, but as a private member's motion, some three years ago.


Arthur Meighen: Not as an amendment
to Supply.


William Erskine Knowles: And perhaps not on
this day of the month; and there may have been other differences. But in effect the hon. gentleman sought the opinion of this House on the reduction of the tariff on agricultural implements in the same way as I now do. It is quite as much in order on t'his occasion to ask hon. members on both sides to signify by their votes at this moment what in their opinion the Government should receive as a message from those who represent rural constituencies in this House. I wish not to be sectional, and as the prosperity of Canada depends upon the prosperity of the lural districts, I believe that my motion is not provincial or sectional. In amendment to the motion that you do now leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, for the House to go into Committee of Supply, I move, seconded by Mr. Thomson (Qu'Appelle):
That all the words after ' that ' be struck out, and the following substituted therefor:
In the opinion of this House, the time has arrived when, in the interests of the farmers, and consequently in the interests of the whole of Canada, the duties on agricultural implements should be forthwith removed.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend from Moosejaw
(Mr. Knowles) began his speech with the declaration that he did not intend to approach the question in a controversial spirit. I am not quite sure that he succeeded in that as well as he intended. It is perfectly clear-and I wish to remind him of this in connection with his exhortations to hon. gentlemen on this side of the House-that when the late Administration was in power he succeeded in restraining

his emotions to the extent of not making any motion of this kind, and certainly not under such circumstances. He is aware, and all members of this Houses are aware, that declarations with regard to changes in the tariff are not made in advance of the Budget Speech of the Minister of Finance. Therefore, he understood perfectly well when he made this motion that no such declaration could be made at this time. Under these circumstances he has seen fit, although declaring that he does not approach the subject in a controversial spirit, to bring this subject forward in the shape of a motion of want of confidence against the Administration; and, of course, so far as we are concerned, there is only one answer to that-we cannot accept the motion proposed by the hon. gentleman, and if he does not withdraw his motion, it will have to receive the opinion of the House upon its merits as a motion of want of confidence in the Administration.
My hon. friend rather emphasized the spirit in which he approached the subject by not following the usual courtesy of giving us a copy of the motion before he made his speech, at least so far as I am aware no copy of the motion was furnished to us on this side of the House. For many years it has been customary, when a resolution of the kind was to be proposed, to furnish a copy the day before, or, at all events, several hours before the debate began. But, up to the time that the hon. gentleman began his speech, we were wholly unaware of the character of the motion which he proposed to present.


William Erskine Knowles: I sent a note the day before yesterday to the Minister of Finance, and told him as much as I knew about it then, informing him that on motion to go into Supply I would move an amendment dealing with the question of the reduction of duty on agricultural implements. It was only this morning that I finally made up the motion.


Robert Laird Borden: I understood that my hon. friend intended to make the motion yesterday. Of course, I at once accept his word that he did not know the precise form of the motion until this morning.


William Erskine Knowles: I knew what the motion was going to be, in effect, but I did not
know the exact wording of it. I do not think the Prime Minister knew that I had sent the Minister of Finance a note.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not impugning in any way my hon. friend's assertion; I know 99i
that these motions require consideration, but it might, perhaps, have been better if the hon. gentleman had followed the usual custom in such cases, and have given us notice of his motion a little in advance.
My hon. friend has gone very fully into the question of the duty on agricultural implements. For the reason that this is not the time to discuss those duties, or to make any announcement with regard to them, I do not propose to follow him in the argument which he has made upon the subject. I shall content myself for the present with saying that the question of the duties upon agricultural implements, and the question of duties generally, has engaged and is engaging and will engage, from time to time, the attention of the Government, with a view to carrying out the policy upon which this Administration sought and obtained the mandate of the people of Canada. My hon. friend has spoken of the attitude of the Conservative party, and he has been good enough to quote a certain declaration of my own, made, I think, in 1903, and he has also alluded to the attitude of the leaders of his own party. So far as we aTe concerned, we have endeavoured to follow and be guided by that declaration of policy. The difference between the two parties, if a difference is to be sought, is that my hon. friends on the other side of the House have repeatedly declared themselves, not only upon the public platform but in solemn convention assembled-1 have the words under my hand at the present moment-to be absolutely opposed to the policy of protection, and to stand for free trade as it exists in England. Having made that declaration, and having sought the mandate of the people upon it, they came into power, and for fifteen years they practised a policy of protection. I have not failed to make my views known with regard to this question in every part of the country, even in parts of the country where the doctrine of an adequate protection to the industries of Canada might seem to be regarded with no great favour by the people. But I am bound to say that when I stood face to face with the strongest free-traders in the West and asked them whether they would desire the late Government or any Government to embark upon a policy which would mean the closing up of industries in Canada, involving tens of millions of capital and the employment of thousands of men, I found none who were prepared to urge the


Mr. PROULX:: That was only the beginning.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course the reduction
of duties upon agricultural implements, as well as upon other articles, does not always bring about the exact results expected. I believe that 25 years ago there were in -Canada not less than twenty or thirty plough companies manufacturing ploughs and competing with each other. I believe I have the figures somewhere, but they are not before me at the moment. The result of the reduction in duty from 35 per cent to 20 per cent was the elimination of nearly every one of these plough companies-the strong ones were able to stand-and it might be that the abolition of the duty, as now proposed by my hon. friend, would result in a still

further elimination. If there were absolute freedom of trade between the two countries, in this and in other respects-which, I know, my hon. friend from Red Deer would strongly advocate-it might be possible that the people of this country, delivered into the hands of an international trust in agricultural implements, might not find themselves very much better off in the end than they are now. I have never seen or heard any reason which would lead me to the conclusion that if there were absolute free trade between the two countries, the great trusts established in the United States would be any more merciful to or considerate of the interests of the people of Canada than they have been of the interests of the people of the United States. If any hon. gentleman on the other side believes that they would be more considerate of the people of this country in that regard I would like him to give me his reasons for reaching that conclusion. So far as trusts and combines among our own manufacturers are concerned, we have legislative powers in this country which ought to be capable of dealing with any evils that have arisen or might arise, but so far as international combines are concerned, there might be more difficulty in dealing with that question under conditions of free trade than there otherwise would be.
However, this is a question which should properly come under the consideration, in the first place, of the Minister of Finance and of the Government, and thereafter of the House when the proposals of the Minister of Finance, as outlined in his Budget Speech, are presented to the people of this country. In the meantime it is sufficient for me to say at the moment that, for the reasons indicated, I do not propose to embark at this stage upon an argument of the question either one way or the other, but to reserve the consideration of the whole question, so far as the Government is concerned, until the proposals of the Government with regard to the tariff, if any are to be announced, shall be placed before the House by the Minister of Finance in his Budget Speech.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. LEVI THOMSON (Qu'Appelle):: I gather from the remarks of the right hon. the Prime Minister, in discussing this

question, that he feels he has some grievance against the Opposition in regard to the time and manner of their bringing on this discussion. It seems to me his objections are not well founded. Rather than criticise us, I think the right hon. gentleman should be thankful that we have placed ourselves clearly on record; it strikes me it is a great advantage to my right hon. friend, as this question has to be dealt with by the Government. We know that he has sitting behind him a number of gentlemen who are not free traders, gentlemen who are looked upon by the country as high' protectionists, even if they themselves do not admit it. To these gentlemen the protective policy is a sacred thing which must not lbe tampered with whenever it can possibly be avoided. They do not wish to see the duties reduced or repealed except in very rare cases. The Government cannot expect the cordial support of these gentlemen, and if the Government wishes to bring in a measure to relieve the people of this country, and especially the farmers of the west, from the burdens of which they complain, it seems to me that they are placed in a very much stronger position by our action to-day, for now they know they can depend upon us to support any such measure. We are not only doing the Government a good turn, but we are giving our constituents, at least those of us who represent rural constituencies, a better chance of getting some relief from the present Government. So I have no hesitation in seconding the resolution of my hon. friend from Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles).
When the policy of protection was introduced into this country some thirty-five years ago, many reasons, or excuses if you like, were given for it. But I think the House will agree with me that the main reason given was that protection would encourage our infant industries; that it was necessary to prevent the ruin of our manufacturing industries through outside competition. That was the reason which led the people of Canada to accept protection, and but for that reason they never would have accepted it. It seems to me then that the questions we have to consider now are, first: Is the agricultural implement business of this country still in its infancy; and secondly, is it still in danger of ruin from outside competition? If these questions can be answered in the negative, we can fairly come to the conclusion that protection, so far as this industry is concerned, should be abolished. My hon. friend from
Moosejaw has dealt with that aspect of the case to a certain extent. In answering these two questions which I have propounded, we obtain very considerable assistance from my hon. friend who is now Solicitor General for the present Government. My hon. friend delivered a speech in this House in January, 1911. My hon, friend from Moosejaw has referred to that, and if I refer to it still farther, it is because I believe that the hon. gentleman on that occasion put up a very strong case. He adduced certain arguments and proved certain things in such a convincing way that it is unnecessary for me or any other supporter of this proposition to discuss them further. He proved that agricultural implements can be manufactured as cheaply, and as well, in Canada as in the United States. That was equivalent to showing, I think, that agricultural implements can be manufactured as cheaply in Canada as anywhere else in the world. I think every one will admit that the United States is the only serious competitor we have in the manufacture of agricultural implements such as are used in this country. I noticed that at that time there was considerable discussion of the question of reducing the duty on agricultural implements, but I do not notice that the claim of the hon. gentleman that agricultural implements could be made as cheaply in Canada as anywhere else in the world was disputed. The hon. gentleman did not ask the House to rely solely on his statements, he produced sworn evidence to prove what he said. I just wish to quote a statement made by a distinguished senator of the United States and referred to by my hon. friend the Solicitor General on that occasion. It is to be found in column 1925 of ' Hansard ' of 1911.
I would call the attention of the senators from Michigan that representatives of the International Harvester Company, who were present before the Committee of Ways and Means, said that with respect to their manufacture in Canada it cost them just as much to manufacture here; that the price of labour was the same.
I do not think anybody will dispute that, and if it is admitted that we can manufacture as cheaply in Canada as anywhere else in the world, we surely can have no just grounds for fear of outside competition. No one here will seriously claim that the agricultural implement industry is still in its infancy. It has become sufficiently strong to meet the competition of the world. The Solicitor General in the speech to which I have referred said in substance that the

object of a protective tariff was to give the manufacturing industries of Canada a reasonable hold on the home market. You will find it in column 1918 of the ' Hansard ' of that date. It was to give the manufacturing industries of Canada a reasonable hold on the home market. We have to consider the question whether or not they have a reasonable hold on the home market. If the manufacturers have not that reasonable hold on the home market it is their own fault. It has been shown by the Solicitor General in the speech to which I referred, and by my hon. friend from Moosejaw, that for a long time they have been exporting agricultural implements, that they have been exporting considerably more than we have been importing and that these exports are rapidly increasing. I am not sure if my hon. friend from Moosejaw gave the actual quotations such as were given by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie in the speech referred to. Let me quote you his record of the exports and imports of agricultural implements during the years ended March 31, 1907, and March 31, 1910. The figures adduced by my hon. friend the Solicitor General were as follows:
!rear.	Imports.	Exports.1907	
$1,615,123	$2,499,1041910	
$1,869,061	$4,330,394
You will see that during these three years the exports of agricultural implements increased by something over $1,800,000, or an increase of about $600,000 per annum. My hon. friend from Moosejaw has quoted figures showing the exports of agricultural implements during the year ended March 31, 1913. He has shown that they amounted to $6,152,559. In the three years from 1907 to 1910 the increase was about $1,800,000 and we find that the increase for the three years ended March 31, 1913, was just about the same, or a little more. There has not only been an increase in past years but that increase is still continuing and the agricultural implements industry has not only a firm grasp on the home market but has also a firm grasp on the foreign market because it is able to compete with its American competitors not only in the home market but also in the foreign market. We have also had figures adduced in this House to prove that the agricultural implements manufacturers are not only able to compete in the home market and in the foreign market but right in the American home market itself.
That being so, I think it cannot be

seriously claimed that the object to which my hon. friend referred has not been attained. I think it cannot be claimed that we have not succeeded in accomplishing that object. It seems to me that the result shows that, in the first place, the agricultural implement industry of Canada has passed its infancy, that it has no need to fear outside competition and that it has a reasonable hold not only on the home market but on foreign markets. Now if that is so, all reasons and excuses for a protective policy, in so far as the agricultural implement industry is concerned, have been removed, and the object which that protective policy had in view with reference to this industry has been accomplished. If the reasons have been removed, if the objects have been accomplished, why should we have a protective policy in regard to this industry? Can any one tell? I think it goes without saying that we should not have a protective policy when, to use the argument, whether or not I use the words, of my hon. friend from Moosejaw, it' would be an iniquity to continue that policy provided the reasons were removed and the objects were accomplished. If this industry has passed its infancy* if it is able to meet, in open competition, its competitors, if the object stated by the hon. member has been accomplished, if it has a reasonable hold on the home market and also upon the foreign markets, what reason can be given why the protective policy in regard to this particular industry should be retained?
There is only one possible reason to my mind that can be given and that is in order that 'the argieultural implement manufacturers can- charge the consumers of Canada more than they charge the consumers of other countries, which has been amply proved to be the case. I have not seen a serious 'attempt to meet the arguments that have been adduced from time to time or to show that the agricultural implement manufacturers are not charging a higher price to the Canadian consumer than * to the outsider. I do not think that statement will be seriously disputed by any one. What does that mean? We are told that we should keep Canada for the Canadians. Is that Canada for the Canadians? Is charging our own consumers a higher price for what they buy than we charge outsiders to be regarded as a policy of Canada for the Canadians? Is that a patriotic policy? It is not a patriotic policy and such a policy can only be pursued by the assistance of this Parliament and that assistance must

these manufacturers been ruined by the Fielding tariff? They would not claim so now. As a matter of fact, have they not been greatly benefited by it; not directly, it is true, but indirectly? Has the country not been more prosperous, very much more prosperous, ever since the Fielding tariff was introduced, than before, and the tariff at that time had a great deal to do with making it more prosperous. The result has been that instead of the manufacturers having been injured and ruined, Canadian manufacturing has never been so successful in the history of Canada as it has been since that time.
And Sir, the result of doing what we would like to see done by this Government, would be very much the same. It would not bring ruin to the manufacturing industries of Canada, and now I do not refer alone to the abolition of the duty on agricultural implements. I am firmly convinced that if the present Government will take the necessary steps to relieve the financial situation of this country, especially among the consumers the most important class of which is the farming community; if this Government would take the necessary steps to assist-I do not like to use the term ' assist ' either-but to remove the barriers from the way of the agricultural industry of Canada, the results would be more beneficial to the manufacturers of Canada, than even the Fielding tariff was. I say that great as has been the increased prosperity of the manufacturers of Canada since the introduction of the Fielding tariff, we will see a still greater increase in their prosperity, provided the Government will do as I suggest.
We have heard a great many complaints made about the action of the late Government, and I am not here to defend the late Government. I have never defended on the platform or elsewhere the action of the late Government with regard to the tariff; I have always admitted that to my mind the decreases in the duties were not sufficient; I have never admitted at any time that the late Government had come up to my expectations in that particular. But of course, that is a question of opinion, and that was my opinion and it is my opinion still. But we have a right to deal fairly with every government, and I am willing to deal fairly with the present Government. When any one undertakes to tell us that the same tariff is in existence to-day as when the late Government was in power, I am going to ask him to take the blue book issued by the present Government, and to find out the

average rate of duty on the importations into the country before the Fieldmg tariff, and to compare them with the average rate of duty during the last year of the Liberal Administration, and I think he will find, had the same duties been collected during the year ending 31st of March, 1911, that the Government would have collected on the same importations, on the tariff that existed before the Fielding tariff; that there would be a difference of eight millions more taken out of the pockets of the people by the previous tariff.


Mr. W. T. WHITE:: When the hon. gentleman made that comparison, did he take into consideration the amount of gold imports during the last two or three years?


Levi Thomson: I did not think that
gold imports were dutiable.


Mr. WHITE:: I would suggest to my
hon. friend that in that he may find a solution of the difficulty that is troubling him.


Levi Thomson: It is not troubling me in the least, but it is apparently troubling the Minister of Finance, and I am sorry he is in trouble. I have taken the tables published by the present Government from year to year, and I have taken the average duty on importations, and while I agree with my hon. friend that it is not an absolutely correct way to get at it, yet it is an approximately correct way. I have not made a computation for the whole time the Government was in power, but I have been told by those who have, that if a computation were made for that whole period there would have been somewhere in the neigh-bourhod of one hundred million dollars more collected on the importations into Canada by the late Government during their term of office had they collected duty at the same rate that their predecessors did. There might be a serious discrepancy for one year, I admit, but there would not be if the whole term of the Administration were taken. While a great many of us, and I among them, are not willing to admit that the late Government did all they should have done in the matter of reducing duties, I t'hink we should be fair to them and admit that they did a great deal. We would like to see the present Government go on with the same good work, and go on with it a little more rapidly.


Wilfrid Laurier: They ^ill not do that.


Levi Thomson: We think it is the very least that might be expected of them, and we would forgive them for a good deal if they did. In looking over the speech of the Solicitor General, I find at page 1921 a table setting forth the importation of binders, which is as follows:
Year ending June 30, 1897.
Number of binders imported ....	1,946
Total valuation	$203,537	00Average valuation per binder. . ..	104	00Total duty	
40,647	39Average duty	
20	35
I have not much complaint about this statement as to the average value per binder. I find on actually going into the matter that it is $104.08 which, of course, is no material change from the figure given by the Solicitor General. Further down he gives other tables, as follows:
Year ending March 31, 1907.
Number of binders imported.. ..	2,878
Total valuation	$315,744	00Average valuation per binder..	..	144	44Average duty per binder	
21	87
Year ending March 31, 1910.
Number of binders imported . . ..	1,481
Total valuation	
$165,759	00Average valuation per binder. .	..	Ill	92Total duty	
29,052	34Average duty per binder	
19	61
I regret that the Solicitor General is not in his place, but if he were present I do not think he would find fault with me for being sufficiently skeptical about his figures as to go into the calculation with a view to verifying them. He has made one serious error. Evidently, however, he was convinced that he was right, because in this same column he is asked a question and answers it, as follows:
Mr. Foster: What was the average valuation for 1907?
Mr. Meighen : $144.44.
Just how the hon. gentleman divides $315,744 by 2,878 and gets that quotient, I cannot understand. I have gone into it very carefully, and I find that the average valuation of a binder for 1907, instead of being $144.44, is $109.71. I do not accuse my hon. friend of deliberately misleading, but this has had the effect of misleading the public throughout the country, and that misleading has been very unfair to the late Government. I have followed this thing a little further and have made a little calculation from the Government blue books to arrive at the average duty paid on a binder in 1911. I find that the average duty on binders in 1911 was $18.25. Some one will say that that is not a material reduction; but we must consider the circumstances
before we can know whether it is a material reduction or not. In the last campaign I addressed a farmers' meeting at Fort Qu'Appelle. A farmer in the audience, clearly opposed to us, told me that the Government then in power were charging higher duties on binders than their predecessors, and to prove it he said that they valued binders at $100 where their predecessors valued them at only $80. I answered:	'I do not think that is quite
correct, but it suits my present argument.' Admit what this gentleman says as correct; the majority of us in this hall are farmers and we know something about the actual value of binders in 1896 when the Conservative Government was put out of power, and the value of binders now. Will the gentleman who interrupts me, or anybody else in this hall, undertake to tell me that the binder we buy to-day is not worth more than 25 per cent more than the binder we purchased in 1896? My interrupter sat down and he and every other opponent remained silent. Not a man would dare to say to an audience of farmers that the binder of 1911 was not worth more than 25 per cent more than that of 1896. Allow for this additional value, and we can arrive more fairly at an estimate of the reduction actually made in the duty. I take it for the year 1897, which is the one the Solicitor General took in his address. He states that for the year ending 30th June, 1897,-and I have no doubt he is correct-the average duty per binder was $20.35. Add 25 per cent to this and we get the relative duty on a binder in 1911. Therefore, had the duty not been changed,	we	would have had
to pay on such a binder as we purchase now, a duty of $25.45. Take from that the average sum we paid in the year ending March 31, 1911, which was $18.25, and you find a difference of $7.20. This is the real reduction in duty on binders made by the late Government as compared with the duty charged by their predecessors. I do not admit for a moment that that is sufficient, but I think that before the present Government find fault with the late Government they must at least do as mu-di. I think under the present circumstances, they are bound to do more. I believe, as I have stated, that the only fair way to deal with the question now, whatever may have been the case a few years ago, is to entirely abolish the duty. The object to which the Solicitor General referred has clearly been accomplished. He tells us that the object of the protective tariff is to give the manufacturing

industries of Canada a reasonable hold on the home market. They certainly have that now, and the object of protection being accomplished the need for further protection is removed. Then, why retain it? I think the Solicitor General proved a little too much for his own case; either his argument was too strong or his conclusion was not strong enough. He should have said: Abolish the duty entirely. However, I am not complaining seriously about him; I am glad he went as far as he did; it is good to have him on record. I have great confidence in the hon. gentleman.
In conclusion, it seems to me there is an obligation on the present Government to remove these duties entirely. The mere fact that the late Government did not remove the duties is not a good reason; two wrongs do not make a right, and if the late Government did wrong, that is all the more reason why the present Government should do right. But we have more reasons than that. The Solicitor General gave us encouragement to think that something would be done in this agricultural implement question. I would not speak disrespectfully in this House of Mr. Lake, my late opponent, for whom I [DOT]have the greatest respect, but when the late Government was in office I can very well remember attending a political meeting which was addressed by him. I [DOT]remember seeing a great sheet of cotton *pinned upon the wall, two or three feet [DOT]wide and twenty or thirty feet long, bearing in large letters the words: 'Vote for Labe and free agricultural implements.' 1 Believe that Mr. Lake was an honourable man; I believe that he was faithful to his party, and I refuse to believe for one moment that he would have had such a placard placed in the hall without the approval of the leaders of the Conservative party. I think we have every reason for asking the Government to carry out that pledge.
The present Government, in their wisdom 

or want of wisdom-saw fit to unite with the great manufacturers and financial interests of Canada to prevent the farmers of this country from obtaining an open market for their produce. By doing so, whatever else iwas gained by it, a terrible blow was struck at the farmers of Canada. Admitting for the moment that there was some good reason for doing this, it seems to me that the very least the Government can do is to take whatever steps they can to help the farmers in some otheT way. I

will not use the word 'compensate/ because while I submit that we have a right to expect the Government to take the necessary action, and while such action might, to a certain extent, be a compensation for the injury which was inflicted upon the farmers in connection with the rejection of reciprocity, I do not want to be quoted as [DOT]saying that the farmers of the West are prepared to accept compensation or anything else as a substitution for an open market. The present Government or any Government do all they can to improve the markets of other lines of industry; when the farmers are concerned they shut the door of the market in their faces. We have a right to free access to the markets of the world, and we will have it. This matter will not be settled until it is settled right, and it will never be settled right until we have the very .same opportunity to market our goods that other people have.


Mr. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) :: I desire, before the motion is put, to offer a few remarks upon what I consider to be one of the most important questions with which this House has had to deal during the present session. We on this side of the House, and, I fancy, some members on the other side of the House, are not quite satisfied with the wave of the hand by which the right hon. the Prime Minister sought to relegate this important matter to the ash heap, or, at all events, to some place outside the precincts of this chamber. The question is too big and too far-reaching in its consequences to be dealt with by the Prime Minister in a ten minute speech, and by the silence of the members of a party numbering 130 or 140 in this chamber. I have no doubt that there are many hon. members, supporters of the Government, who are very keenly interested in this matter- many of them representing rural ridings; many of them representing, as I do, both rural and urban populations-and who desire to give free expression to their thought and opinion upon this grave question, but who, by the wave of the hand of the Prime Minister, have been closured whether they so desire or not.
The Prime Minister took the ground-and technically, I suppose, he had the right to do so-that this matter might well wait until the Budget Speech is delivered by the Finance Minister, when any tariff changes to be made by the Government would then be announced to (the House. Had he

stopped there, I would not have had much fault to find with him. But he did not stop there. He committed himself firmly to one proposition, and that was that free implements would not be granted. He had not heard the case very fully argued; he said the Government would consider the question, but he stated, as deliberately as a man could state it in the House, that on account of the trusts and combines of the United States it would not he possible to give free agricultural implements to the people of Canada. There is only one thing left for him to do, and that is to reduce the tariff on agricultural implements to a minimum. In my view, that will not be as satisfactory as the complete abolition of the duties upon agricultural implements. But from the statement of the Prime Minister at six o'clock, his followers from the western provinces who represent agricultural constituencies, and his followers from the province of Ontario who represent the Wellingtons, the Dufferins, the Oxfords and the Water loos, can tell their constituents that the great boon of free agricultural implements has been denied to them this day by the Prime Minister of Canada, who is the mouthpiece of the Government.
Was the argument of the Prime Minister a good one? He said that the trusts and combines of the United States, those huge forces with $125,000,000 or $150,000,000 of capital, would take possession of the Canadian market df we made it free. I think my right hon. friend made that assertion without due reflection and without proper consideration. There is a free market in Great Britain, and the trusts and the combines, the tremendous organizations which manufacture agricultural implements in the United States, meet in the free market of Great Britain the manufacturers of Canada, and Canada holds her own. If these trusts cannot take possession of the British market, which is a free market, how could they take possession of the Canadian market if it were made a free market? To my mind, there is nothing dn the argument of the Prime Minister. It was not a reason for refusing to abolish the duty; it was the merest kind of an excuse.
I rose on this occasion chiefly because I think that some member from the province of Ontario should interject some remarks into this debate to show that the demand for agricultural implements is by no means limited to the western provinces of Canada. The riding which I have the honour to represent in this House is about equally made up of urban and of rural inhabitants.
I am satisfied that, irrespective of party, the people engaged in agriculture in the county of Wellington, north or south, would hold up both hands for the boon of free agricultural implements. That is so in my county and in the neighbouring counties. I wish my hon. friend from Dufferin were in his place to-night, because he knows how it is in his county. He has a county made up almost entirely of a rural population. I would put the question to him: Do your farmers not want free agricultural implements? and if there were no politics in the matter, if there was no partisanship in the matter, he would say: All the farmers in my riding want free agricultural implements. So I believe it is in the great province of Quebec and in the Maritime provinces; certainly it is in the great western provinces of Canada. From the Atlantic to the Pacific, the demand is as broad as is the country. I then ask the Government: Why not accede to a demand of that kind when your revenue is going to suffer so little and when no Canadian industry is going to be injured?
I desire in a few words to show that the removal, the entire abolition of the Canadian duties on agricultural implements, would not do an injustice to a single manufacturing establishment in Canada. The proof of that has been made plain by the hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles), the mover of the present amendment. We in Canada export to every civilized country that uses agricultural implements we export, and we come in competition with the United States in every one of these markets. The Canadian manufacturer is able to hold his own in each of the markets to which he goes. Our only real competitor in the manufacture of agricultural implements is the United States. Other countries do manufacture them on a minor scale it is true, but our real competitor is the United States. Now, how do we compete with the United States? How do we manage to compete with the huge trusts and combines that the Prime Minister said would take possession of the Canadian market if the duty were removed? Take in the first place the relative standing of the two countries. Here we have a country vvith a population of about eight million people, while across the line there is a population claimed to be about one hundred million people. Here we have a number of very solid industries producing agricultural implements. There they have a far greater number, with a far greater capital

invested. The market of Great Britain is a free market to the world, and we meet there on equal footing, eight million Canadians against one hundred million Americans. I find that last year the United States sold there $1,023,000 worth of agricultural implements, while Canada sold one-quarter of a million worth, or about twenty-five per cent of the 9 p.m. American sales. In Australia, we meet again on an equal foot-. ing, because the tariff against Canadian implements entering Australia is precisely the same as the tariff against American implements, last year the United States sold to Australia $1,100,000 worth of implements while Canada sold to Australia $1,278,000 worth. We are a little farther away it is true, it is a little longer haul, but we sold about $160,000 worth of agricultural machinery in excess of the sales of the United States, competing there, on the other side of the world, on equal terms. Prance is another good example. The tariff against agricultural implements in Prance is the same against Canada as against the United States. To France the United States sold $2,700,000 worth. Canada sold to France $686,000, about one-quarter of the amount that the United States sold there. Take Russia as another example. United States sold to Russia $5,800,000 worth of agricultural implements. Canada sold to Russia $2,000,000, more than one-third of the sales of the United States. The most pointed example as against Canada will be the Argentine Republic. I fancy that proximity has something to do with the trade figures as between Canada and the United States when dealing with the Argentine Republic. To the Argentine the United States sold $6,000,000 worth and Canada sold $550,000 worth, a little less than ten per cent. Not only has proximity something to do with the matter tout return cargoes have a great deal to do with it. We have no steamship line from the Argentine Republic to Canada or from Canada to the Argentine, while between the Argentine Republic and the United States there are two and perhaps three lines of passenger and freight steamers, and no doubt that has a good deal to do with the larger trade of the United States. But in all the countries I have enumerated save the Argentine Republic-and I might have gone over a dozen more countries had time permitted-Canada has held her own and more than held her own. Had we done ten per cent of the United States trade we would 
have about held our own. We have done one-quarter of their trade in France, one-third of their trade in Russia and in Australia we have outstripped them by about $160,000 last year. Thus we meet on equal terms on foreign ground, Canadian and American. If we can do it there can we not do it in Canada? To my mind there is only one answer to that question. We can do it here. If the Government will abolish the duty on agricultural implements they will find that the manufacturers of these implements in Canada will thrive and prosper in the future just as they have thriven and prospered in the past. We do not need to produce the evidence, either sworn or unsworn, of any set of men to show that we in Canada are just as capable of manufacturing as they are in the United States. We have the sworn testimony, given to us in the course of this debate, that goods can be produced in Canada just as cheaply as they can be in the United States. Then why not give the manufacturers of Canada the fair opportunity of competing? They have to-day the market of the United States free of customs duty for their wares. Why, even under the tariff of last year, we sold agricultural implements to the extent of between $80,000 and $90,000, under a pretty stiff tariff to the United States. It is not always well to prophesy, but I think one may fairly say that if, in the face of a pretty fair tariff, we could sell last year from $80,000 to $90,000 worth of agricultural implements, now, with a free market of one hundred million people in front of us, this year the Canadian manufacturers will sell much more to the United States than they did last year and compete with them on their own ground.
I understood the Prime Minister to say that the United States combine in agricultural implements would invade Canada and collar our market for implements just as it had done in the case of binder twine; but it did not do so altogether in the case of binder twine. I find, on looking at the returns, that we imported from the United States last year $2,320,000 worth of binder twine. Strange as it <may seem, we exported last year to the United States $831,000 worth of binder twine, about three-quarters of a million dollars. You will find that both in our reports and in the United States trade reports. One does not need to go over the history of the tariff in regard to agricultural implements. There are a few outstanding points that we all recognize. There was a time in this country when thirty per cent and thirty-five per

cent was charged on certain agricultural implements. Gradually that very high duty was reduced and I believe at the time of the change of Government in 1896 the duty was, generally speaking, about twenty per cent. When the Liberals came into power it was reduced to seventeen and a half per cent. Three years ago there was a proposal to reduce it to fifteen per cent, that proposal forming one of the clauses in the proposed trade agreement with the United States. The history of the duty on agricultural implements has been one of gradual decline. It may be said that the manufacturers of this country have enjoyed years of protection in order that they may become well grounded in the soil of this country. I, for one, believe that of all the industries in Canada the agricultural implement industry is the one now best able to stand without the support of any customs tariff at all. I made a little list of twenty-five articles which are generally and properly considered agricultural implements. I know that some hon. members in referring to agricultural implements include only reapers, mowers, binders and a few other articles, but 1 cannot see why the list should not be much more extended. I have not included in my list such articles as axes, spades, garden tools, gas engines, wagons and the like, all of which I think might fairly be classed as agricultural implements. I find from our Canadian reports that the importation of these twenty-five articles in Canada last year amounted to $14,372,000, and that the farmers of Canada paid in duty on those articles $2,872,000 odd. Portable or threshing engines account for half that total; $7,369,000 worth of those engines were imported at a duty of $1,471,000. I believe that the portable engine on tne farm is just as much an agricultural implement as the binder or mower and for that reason I included it in my list. When I looked at the Customs tariff of Canada I was surprised to find that the rate of duty on these various articles which we usually say is I7i per cent is much more than that; it is a very small fraction below 20 per cent. Only five articles in that list bear a 17i per cent duty; ten articles bear a 20 per cent duty, four articles a 221 per cent duty and six articles a 25 per cent duty. Taking an average I found that the duty on agricultural implements is approximately 20 per cent.


William Henry Sharpe: Would you mind giving us the list?


Hugh Guthrie: I wish my hon. friend
would allow me to conclude my remarks before reading the list. There is undoubtedly in Canada to-day a demand on the part of the agricultural population for tne removal of these duties. It is said that 65 per cent of our population are engaged directly or indirectly-in agriculture. These figures probably are a little high; 60 per cent or perhaps 55 per cent would I think, be high enough, but undoubtedly the majority of Canadians are engaged directly or indirectly in agriculture, and on the part of that majority there is a demand for free implements. You hear it in the East, you hear it in the Centre and you hear it in the West. Has there been any objection to the removal of these duties? Has any deputation called on the Government to ask that the duties be maintained? I do not believe it. I believe that the manufacturers of agricultural implements, themselves, have for years seen the day coming when free implements would be admitted into Canada. They know that they can successfully compete with the United States in the markets of the world and in our market. Therefore I do not believe there has been a movement on the part of the manufacturers or any objection raised to the total removal of these duties. And yet none on the Government side of the House has had the courage to get up, in the face of a wave of the Prime Minister's hand, and advocate that the duties be removed and at this session of Parliament. If such a universal demand was made in regard to any other matter I do not believe the Government would hesitate. We have done everything for the manufacturers of agricultural implements which can reasonably be done. What goes into the ordinary agricultural implement? Iron and steel certainly. They are practically free to the manufacturer. There was 99 per cent of a drawback on all the iron and steel used up to 1907. That was only on exported implements, 'but since 1907 the drawback is upon all implements which may be made in Canada for use here or for export.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend does
not mean that surely? That does not apply to all exports.


Hugh Guthrie: It applies to the main implements such as harvesters, mowers, binders and the like. It does not apply to the twenty-five articles included in my list, but to the more important and the

more numerous of those manufactures it does apply. The manufacturers practically get free iron and steel because they get a 99 per cent drawback on what they use. Then, they use wrood. Every particle of wood that goes into the manufacture of agricultural implements is free under the Canadian tariff. What else is there? There is a little paint and a little varnish. They pay duty on that. The duties run from 15 to 25 per cent and in some cases a dollar a gallon where the paint is ground in spirits. So it is, with regard to varnish. There are a few screw nails and a few bolts and they may pay a little duty on them, but that is the only duty on a machine of a value of from $150 to $175. We have done everything that reasonably could be done, we have maintained a reasonable tariff for years to give the manufacturer control of the home market. We have given him practical freedom from taxation. Now we believe that he can hold his own throughout the world and the yearly trade figures demonstrate to a conclusion that he can. Under circumstances such as these should the Finance Minister hesitate in removing these duties? The Prime Minister, by his announcement, practically said that he would not remove them. The time per- * haps has not yet come; there may be a week or two to consider this matter. I hope that in the light of these facts the Government will take this matter into their consideration. They could do no more popular act for themselves with the agricultural classes in- Canada than to make agricultural implements duty free. My hon. friend who launched this motion said that he did not do it for a partisan purpose, and that he did not ask for any credit or seek any kudos out of the matter, but that the Government might have it all. His plea was entirely on behalf of the agricultural community which he happens to represent in this House. What are the Government going to do with these facts in their possession and having at their disposal far more knowledge than we have? What is the Minister of Finance going to do with pigeon holes full of information in regard to this matter, with requests and petitions pouring in upon him month after month and week after week, not asking for a reduction from 17 to 15 or 10 per cent, hut asking for free implements? The people will not be put off with any temporizing measure. This is not the hour for reductions of the tariff; this is the time, this is the occasion, and this is the particular instance in which a tariff can be properly wiped away with the fMr. Guthrie.]
consent of the vast body of the population of Canada irrespective of politics or occupation.


Mr. D. B. NEELY (Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker; in giving my support to the amendment moved by my hon. friend from Moose-jaw (Mr. Knowles), I cannot help commenting on the remarkable way in which this amendment has been received by the members on the Government side of the House and by the members of the Government itself. As I understood it, when closure was introduced into the rules of this Parliament last year it was for the purpose of checking discussion on the part of members of the Opposition, but so far the only application of the rule that I have observed has been to the members on the Government side of the House and not to~ the members on the Opposition side. I am sure that the members of the House who were members of preceding parliaments will not have to tax their memories to any extent to recall the zeal, the enthusiasm with which hon. gentlemen on the Government side, especially those representing western constituencies, advocated a measure similar to that proposed by my hon. friend from Moosejaw, not as radical a measure, perhaps, as the total abolition of the duties on agricultural implements, but certainly a substantial reduction. I think the words ' substantial reduction ' are taken from the resolution proposed by the present hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) on the 18th January, 1911. Since this motion has been under consideration to-day, the absolute silence on the part of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House would lead one to quote the words of the old song 'Where are the boys of the old brigade'? The boys of the old brigade are silent tonight, the hoys of the old brigade are in retreat when the question of the abolition of duties upon agricultural implements is under discussion, and when the interests of the farmers, *whom they are supposed to represent in this House and whose interest, as we know, are the dominant interests in Canada, are in issue.


John Hampden Burnham: Bearing in mind that
all other classes in Canada are willing to pay their share of the revenue, will my hon. friend be good enougn to tell us why the farmers of the West want absolutely free agricultural implements and decline to pay their share of the revenue?


David Bradley Neely: My hon. friend is
very fruitful in questions and inter-

ruptions. I can answer my hon. friend in one word-that the premises with which he commenced his statement are, in my judgment, not correct, when he assumes that a great many people in Canada do not wish to pay their fair share of the revenue and taxation of the country. Giving a straight answer to my hon. friend's question, even if the farmer is given absolutely free agricultural implements, even if the tools of his trade, if I may use that expression, are made free, the farmer, just the same as any other consumer in the country, must still pay his fair share of taxes on everything else that he purchases for his own and his family's use. I am giving my support to this amendment for the reason, the soundness of which I think will be admitted by every member of this House, that the one basic industry of this country is agriculture. The farmers of the West and of the East are not asking for the kind of assistance that we heard proposed by an hon. member of this House yesterday, who suggested that this Government should give bounties to aid an industry that he said was in a languishing condition, namely, the iron and steel industry.
We hear hon. gentlemen opposite get up with solemn face and tell this House and tell this country that it is the duty of the Government to give bounties to the iron and steel industry. What about giving a bounty to the basic industry of all industries, namely, the digging up of the wealth of the soil th t nature has placed there, by the hands and1 by the labour of the farmers of this country. The farmers are not asking for that; all they are asking for is a square deal, and the fact of the matter is they are not getting a square deal. They are not getting a square deal from this Government, and this Government knows it. Honourable gentlemen in this House, who represent rural constituencies, know that this Government is not giving the farmers of Canada a square deal. The Solicitor General was very zealous in his advocacy of a substantial reduction of the duty on agricultural implements, when he did not have the responsibility of office on his shoulders. He is in a different position to-day; he is not a free lance any more than are the hon. gentlemen from Souris (Mr. Schaffner) and Lisgar (Mr. Sharpe).


Mr. BEST:: Will the hon. gentleman
allow a question?


David Bradley Neely: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will make a speech when I am through.


John Best: The hon. gentleman has said that the members of this House representing rural constituencies knew that this Government was not giving the farmers fair play.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Best: I was one of a deputation-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: You are making a speech now.


John Best: I was one of the deputation representing the farmers, who went to the Government asking them to raise the duty on farm produce coming from the United States into Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: What's the question?


David Bradley Neely: I am delighted to have even this expression of opinion from an lion, gentleman on the other side of the House. It is evidence that in one case at least there is an hon. gentleman opposite who is able to attempt to throw off, for the time 'being, the wet blanket that the words of the Prime Minister apparently placed on the speeches and on the utterances of hon. gentlemen on that side of the House. Honourable gentlemen know, and they know it very well, that the Government is not giving the farmers of Canada a square deal; they are not giving the farmers a square deal in their demands for wider markets. There is no question of doubt but that there are gentlemen sitting on the Government side who have their position in the House to-day, and who were saved from defeat at the last election-and I see some of them before me'-who, because of their opposition to reciprocity were persona non grata with many of their constituents, were nevertheless able to persuade their constituents to vote for them by promising that, although the Conservative party was opposed to the reciprocity agreement, if the Conservative party came into power they would make' a substantial reduction in the duty on agricultural implements, if they did not abolish that duty altogether. I appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite if that is not a correct statement of the position they took during the last election. The member for Portage la Prairie-


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. member quote me when I ever said that?


David Bradley Neely: I have not the newspapers at my hand-


Arthur Meighen: I should think you have not.


David Bradley Neely: I have not the newspapers at my hand giving the reports of the hon. gentleman's speeches, but surely I do not require that evidence when my hon. friend took such pains in this House to place himself on record, -in his own interests, supposedly in the interests of his constituents, to make the motion he did in this House in January, * 1911, in favour of a reduction of the duty on agricultural implements. Does the Solicitor-General want this House to believe that when he went on the hustings in the election following, he did not take advantage of that motion and his position on the question?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman will look at that speech in vain for anything approaching what he says I stated. If the hon. gentleman be truthful I will not interrupt him.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


David Bradley Neely: I can tell my hon. friends here that when it comes to a question of veracity, I will stand my ground with the Solicitor-General. What I did say with regard to the Solicitor-General, and his friends of his own persuasion, was, that they held out the hope to the farmers that if the Conservative party came into office at the last election there would be a substantial reduction, if not a total abolition, of the duty on agricultural implements. I maintain that there were Conservative candidates in the West; my hon. friend from Qu-'Appelle (Mr. Thomson) inis pointed to one candidate at least, who took the position that he would support the total abolition of the duty on agricultural implements. But whether the promise was for a substantial reduction or the total abolition of the duty on agricultural implements, these gentlemen opposite, without any doubt, hold their seats in this House owing to that promise. And to-day we find them in the position that they have not a word to say on the question, and the reason is, the Prime Minister told us, because we were bringing in this amendment as a motion of want of confidence in the Government. In the name of common sense, when can a member of this House place himself on record, so far as this question is concerned? If we were to introduce this very same amendment when the Budget is brought down, and when the tariff has been settled for the coming year, we would still be guilty of introducing a motion of want of confidence in the Govern-

ment. Let me point out that when the hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Carrick) yesterday discussed the proposition of putting a bounty on steel and iron, we did not have the same sort of answer from the Government benches that we have had from the Prime Minister to-day. The Minister of Finance was then not afraid to anticipate the Budget Speech by encouraging the member for Rainy River, in the hope that something might be done by the Government in the way of putting bounties on iron and steel. But when it comes to this demand from the farmers of Canada, that there shall be abolition of the duty on agricultural implements, the Prime Minister says to the introducer of the amendment: Sir, you are out of order, the proper place to discuss this matter is when the Budget is brought down. I preface my support of this amendment on the fact that every member of this House must recognize that farming conditions in this country at the present time are not as they ought to be. I am not going to speak so much for the farmers in Eastern Canada, with whom I am not so much in touch, as I am with the farmers of western Canada, but I say, on behalf of the farmers in western Canada, that in my judgment the motion made by the hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) is an opportune motion, and that the Government at this time should very justly and very fairly give us some encouragement as to what we may expect in the way of relief. My hon. friend from Moosejaw is not anxious, I am sure, to press the amendment if the Government is prepared to say, either through its Prime Minister or its Finance Minister: We have this matter under consideration, and we propose to give the farmers substantial relief. We have had no such indication, not the slightest word of encouragement, not one syllable of cheer or hope in the reply of the Prime Minister to the hon. member who moved this amendment. I say, if the Government want to put aside this motion of want of confidence, they can do it by a word, and that word is that they propose to give to the farmers what they know the farmers want and that the condition of the farmers requires-relief from the great burdens of taxation under which the farmers at least of the West are labouring.
That the conditions of the farming industry in the West are far from what they ought to be can be demonstrated in many different ways. I do not ask the

House to take my unsupported word as to that condition, but wish to give evidence that I consider as authoritative as any that can be adduced in support of the arguments I propose to make. As you are aware, Sir, something over a year ago the Government of the province of Saskatchewan appointed a commission to investigate all the conditions surrounding the industry of agriculture in that great province. It is but a couple of months since that commission compiled and presented their report. And what condition of affairs is revealed so far as the farming industry in the Prairie provinces is concerned? Why, Sir, we find an alarming condition; we find that in the year 1913, in the province of Saskatchewan while the average price received by the farmer for his wheat was 66ie per bushel, the cost of producing that wheat and getting it to market was 62c a bushel, leaving the farmer the splendid profit of 4Jc a bushel for the magnificent crop of wheat that was raised in our province last year. And the Commission give a much more favourable statement of the case than is contained in the annual report of the Bank of Commerce, an institution which, as hon. gentlemen know, has a great many branches throughout western Canada. The Bank of Commerce gives the average price received by the farmers of western Canada as 62 cents a bushel. That statement was .given in his annual report by the superintendent of western branches. Comparing the figures of 1909 and 1913, we find that while the prices for farmers' products has been rapidly decreasing, the cost of production has been rapidly increasing, so that to-day the profits of the farmer have almost if not quite reached the vanishing point. In 1909, the average price realized by the farmers of Saskatchewan for their wheat was 814 cents a bushel, against 66J cents a bushel as given by the report of the Saskatchewan Commission for 1913. On the other hand, according to that report, the cost of production has increased 12.01 cents per bushel. That, of course, is due to higher freight charges, higher terminal charges, increased cost of handling, increased cost of labour and other factors that enter into the situation. So, with decreasing prices and increasing coist of production, the farmer, even with the best crop he has had in his history, finds himself unable to do more than meet the obligations of the year without taking up a dollar of the obligations of the less successful years that have gone by.
I am free to admit that in one respect the farmers of the West have had some relief this year; but that relief has not been due to any action by this Government, but rather to the act of the Government of the United States. Live animals and certain other products of our farms have been put on the free list under the new United States tariff. And would you believe it, Mr. Speaker, such authorities as the president of the Bank of Montreal, the general manager of the Canadian Bank of Commerce, and the president of the Royal Bank of Canada, some of whom, as we remember, associated with the Minister of Finance, formed part of the ' noble eighteen ' in Toronto who took such a decided stand against the trade agreement proposed by the late Administration, and bewailed the possibility of Canadian natural products crossing the border and finding a market in the United States, to-day in their annual reports to their shareholders are actually congratulating themselves and the people of Canada on the great benefits accruing from the abolition of duties by the United States. The Minister of Finance knows what I say is true, ftfr I can give the pages in the annual reports where these admissions are made. I say I admit that it is through the act of a Government outside of this country that the farmers have received this measure of encouragement during the past six months. Nevertheless, even with that assistance, grain growing, at least under present conditions, is not a profitable business in western Canada.
No man in the country is more proud of his occupation or of his position in the community than the grain grower of western Canada. Hon. gentlemen who represent western constituencies know that full well. Yet we find that the western farmer is to-day confronted with the fact that the heads of banks doing business in eastern as well as in western Canada charge him with being more dilatory in paying his bills than the farmers of other parts of Canada. What is the reason for this ? Simply because the western farmers are so far from their ultimate market, and have to pay such excessive charges for the implements they use in developing the wealth of the soil. Unless year after year they harvest and market their crops under favourable conditions, they are bound inevitably to face the situation that is facing them today, a position almost of bankruptcy. What is my authority for these statements? I find it in the annual reports of the various banks doing business in western



Canada. The Union Bank of Canada and the Canadian Bank of Commerce have a very large number of branches in western Canada. In the annual report of the Union Bank of Canada I find this statement in reference to business in western Canada last year:
Collections are reported by manufacturers and wholesalers to be very good from the eastern province but not so satisfactory from the western provinces.
I find in the report of the Canadian Bank of Commerce this statement:
The implement companies admit that in the period of high grain prices they dispensed credit to the farmers too liberally, with the result that they have been carrying an unduly large amount of past-due farmers' paper.
That refers, of course, to the farmers of the West, because a large part of the trade done by the implement manufacturers of this country is done west of the Great lakes. The report goes on:
Consequently, at the commencement of 1913 they adopted an extremely conservative selling policy. Their conservatism was supported by the indisposition of the farmers to buy more than absolutely necessary, and in the case of heavy and expensive' machinery, such as threshers and tractors, there has been a reduction in sales of at least 65 per cent while sales of all other implements were reduced by about 33 per cent.
That is, the manufacturers of agricultural implements report that in the year 1913, in which we had our banner crop, the sales of the heavier class of implements were reduced 65 per cent and the sales of ordinary farm machinery were reduced 334 per cent. The authority I have quoted makes the statement that this was due to a conservative selling policy on the part of the implement manufacturers. I deny that. Any one who knows the West knows that in 1913 the salesmen of the implement manufacturers were as industrious in selling their products as in any preceding year, but they failed to make the average number of sales 'because the farmers of the West, notwithstanding the prospects of a splendid crop, found themselves unable to purchase machinery as liberally as they had done in years gone by. The situation revealed to us by these authorities is that the profits of the farmers of the West, so far as grain growing is concerned, due to falling prices and increased cost of production, have almost reached the vanishing point, and the implement manufacturers find their sales enormously curtailed because of the lack of purchasing power on the part of the farmers. As we know, and

as the commission appointed by the Saskatchewan Government to investigate these matters pointed out, one of the elements that enters into the cost of production of grain in western Canada is the excessive price the farmer has to pay for his agricultural implements. The hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) questioned, I believe, the assertion of the member for Moosejaw as to the comparative prices of farm implements on the Canadian and on the American sides of the western part of the continent. I think the member for Moosejaw said that there was a disparity of something like 20 per cent, and the hon. Solicitor General objected in some way. The hon. member for Moosejaw went on to say that these figures had never been disputed before, and that he was quoting from a speech made in the House by the member for Regina (Mr. Martin). I think the hon. Solicitor General made some motion of the head or some remark which caused the member for Moosejaw to make that further assertion.


Arthur Meighen: It was not from me; it was from some one behind me, I think.


David Bradley Neely: I take the hon. gentleman's word, but I was looking at him, and I thought he was the guilty person. There were some who doubted that the abolition of duties on farm implements would result in a reduction of prices, and I have taken the trouble to find out what -were the comparative prices as between certain implements in the city of Minneapolis and the same implements in the city of Winnipeg during the season of 1913. My authority for these figures, Mr. G. F. Chipman, editor of the Grain Growers' Guide. The hon. member for -Dufferin (Mr. Best) smiles; so far as political sympathies are concerned, Mr. Chip-man is supposed to lean to the party of my hon. friend. Of course, anything he might quote which proves any contention of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House certainly would not seem right to the hon. member for Dufferin. These figures were published, I think, in one or more issues of the Grain Growers' Guide of last year: Implement.	Winnipeg. Minneapolis.
8-foot	binder . . . .	$162	00	$140	007-foot	binder .. . .	157	00	125	006-foot	mower . . . .	60	50	46	005-foot	mower . . ..	58	50	43	0010-foot	hay rake ..	33	50	24	0012-foot	hay rake ..	38	00	28	0070 bushels manure	spreader	155	00	120	0012-inch	gang plough.	76	00	60	00
march 11, 1914
14-inch still beam
walking plough . .	17 00	12 00Hay tedder	
49 50	36 00
The other prices correspond. The information I have here includes a great number of implements. Mr. Chipman told me in a subsequent message that while the Minneapolis prices in 1914 are identical with those of 1913, the Winnipeg prices of practically all of these lines of implements advanced for 1914. But I have taken the figures for 1913, and taking a sample of each of these implements and the prices quoted, and taking the total prices of the same implements in Winnipeg and Minneapolis, I find that the Winnipeg prices for 1913 were 27-9 per cent over the prices paid by the farmers in the vicinity of Minneapolis, and Mr. Chipman assures me that while the prices across the line have remained stationary for 1914 they advanced all along the line in the Canadian West Surely the abolition of duties will put us in a more favourable position as compared with that of the American farmer, who has this double advantage over his neighbour on the Canadian side, that lie not only has a better market and gets a better price for his product, but he is able to produce that product at a much less cost because of the lower prices he pays for the tools of production He not only gets a better price for his product but he is able to produce it at less cost than his competitor on the Canadian side. Is that a condition of affairs that appeals to hon. gentlemen in this House, I do not care where they sit or what constituencies they represent, whether urban or rural, whether in the East or in the West? Do hon. gentlemen like to see the Canadian farmer in that humiliating position? As he looks across the international boundary line he sees his neighbour to the south getting a better price for his wheat and other natural products of his farm while the, Canadian farmer has to pay 27-9 per cent more for his agricultural implements. That condition of affairs is intolerable, absolutely intolerable. Hon. gentlemen say: Why did not the late Administration remedy that condition of affiairs when in office? There
10 p.m. is an answer to that question.
Hon. gentlemen opposite may not accept it as an answer, but it is one that appeals to me, and it is that the Liberal Government did propose, previous to the last election, to give relief to the farmers of this country. They were opposed by hon. gentlemen opposite. It is true that the tariff schedule of the reciprocity agree-lOOi
ment did not contain a very substantial or pronounced reduction of duties, but at least it was a reduction that did give to our western farmers a free outlet for the products of their farms. But, Sir, we know perfectly well that in this country there is a great deal of national pride and patriotic sentiment, and when public men in this country said:	Take down the tariff wall;
give consumers of this country cheaper manufactured articles, it did always appeal to the people of this country to say to them: Oh, how can you do it when your nearest neighbour is a large country with ninety millions or one hundred millions of people who are surrounded by a tariff wall so high that the Canadian manufacturer cannot scale it. I say, Sir, that there was force in the argument that you must not allow the Canadian manufacturer to be competed with in his home market by the American manufacturer. As long as the American manufacturer was protected in his market by a tariff wall much higher than ours, that was an argument that appealed to the patriotic sentiment of the people of this country. But I ask if that is the condition cf affairs by which this Government finds itself confronted today. Unlike any preceding Administration in this country it does not encounter such a condition. It is not, because we know that on October 3 of last year there came into effect across the line a tariff schedule which put agricultural implements absolutely on the free list, so that to-day you cannot raise that argument so far as the manufacturers of agricultural implements are concerned, that the Canadian manufacturer is in a disadvantageous position because of the high tariff wall around that big market to the south. The American farmers will benefit from free competition, they will have the benefit of the abolition of the duties on implements entering the United States. But I cannot see that it will be a very great advantage to the American farmer, because to-day he enjoys a much lower price for agricultural implements than is being paid by the Canadian farmer. If the duties are abolished on agricultural implements coming into Canada, I can see where the Canadian farmer is going to derive a great deal of benefit, because, in this respect at least, he will be on an even footing with his American cousin. The revision of the American tariff then has abolished the argument in favour of protection of the agricultural implement industry in this country because of the high tariff wall around the market of the United States.

And, Sir, what do we find? We find that to-day the implement manufacturers in this country are in this advantageous position, that they are not only protected in their own market, but again by the action of a Government outside of this, the manufacturers of this country, have the benefit of that market to the south of us, the privilege of entering into that market and competing with manufacturers of agricultural implements across the line. I say it with pleasure, it gives me great pleasure to he able to shake the hand of the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt). I congratulate him that in his future shipments of ploughs across the line he is not going to have to pay that 15 per cent duty which he formerly did. We know that the hon. gentleman and his company have been for some years back shipping ploughs across the line that we in the West think are good ploughs, and they have been paying the duty and they have still been able to sell their ploughs cheaper in the United States than in the Canadian West. I can congratulate my friend that that duty has been abolished, it must mean a considerable benefit to him. I do not know the valuation of those particular ploughs, but as a result of the abolition of that duty I presume my hon. friend's company can now put into their pockets 15 per cent of the valuation. Are the manufacturers of agricultural implements in this country to be given the boon of this wider market to the south of us and have our Canadian farmers still to bear the burden that the tariff imposes and always has imposed on them? I ask: is that a square deal? The Prime Minister stated an absolute fact when he said that the people of the West are not icOinodlasts. They do not want to destroy any legitimate industry in this country, but I would like to see the Prime Minister or anybody else undertake to convince an audience of western farmers-and I trust their eastern brothers are just as intelligent-that the agricultural implement industry of this country still requires the protection it has enjoyed for so many years. We do not want to hurt the manufacturers in any legitimate industry in this country, but I can tell the Prime Minister that if the purchasing power of our farmers is not very measurably increased beyond what it is at the present time, a great many of the legitimate industries of this country are bound to suffer. If this Government will give this House their pledge to abolish these duties, I believe there will be such a substantial increase in the purchasing r&lr. Neely.]
power of the farmers not only of western Canada but of eastern Canada as well, that every manufacturing industry in this country, outside of the agricultural implement industry, will feel the benefit of that abolition. We have heard rumours that something may be done by the Government this session. I do not know how much truth there is in that.' From the personnel of the Government I think one might fairly presume that something will be done this session to alleviate the burden of taxation on the farmer.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is a very wild presumption.


David Bradley Neely: My hon. friend does not seem to have the faith that I have. My faith is based on the fact that this present Government contains in its personnel three hon. gentlemen representing the province of Manitoba-the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of the Interior, two very important portfolios, and not the least influential, although he does not hold the most influential position in the Government, my hon. friend the Solicitor General, who has recently been added to the ranks. If something is not done this session what will the House and the country believe ? They will believe that these gentlemen have not the dominant position in the Government that they are presumed to have, and the prestige of these gentlemen will suffer a very severe blow in their own part of the country. Who inspired, I would like to know from my hon. friends from the West, the resolution passed unanimously by the Manitoba legislature in favour of free wheat ? Who inspired the recent resolution in favour of a substantial reduction-I believe to 10%-in the duty on agricultural implements ? The sentiment in favour, not merely of the reduction but of the abolition of the duties on agricultural implements, is so strong that even the Tory legislature of the province of Manitoba has been compelled to take cognizance of it, resulting in the resolution to which I have just alluded. It is a well known fact that a provincial election is pending in Manitoba and Sir Rodmond Roblin needs help very badly from this Government at the present session, and he is looking to my hon. friend the Solicitor General and to the Minister of Public Works and to the Minister of the Interior to carry into effect the resolutions passed by the province of Manitoba. So you see, Mr. Speaker, this is a question of common consent; it is not a party question. I am astonished at the absolute silence on the


XI, 1914
[Stage Direction]
part of these hon. gentlemen, now that the amendment is before the House.
Just a word as to the promises of the Government with reference to this matter.
I do not want to be guilty of the charge of unfair dealing, and I want to tell my hon. friend the Solicitor General-I do not know whether he will take it as a compliment or not-that I have gone very carefully over the speech he made in this House in 1911. While his argument on that occasion was strong and logical, it did not fairly represent the facts, in that he charged the late Administration with actually increasing the tariff on agricultural implements by raising the valuation. While the valuation was undoubtedly raised from time to time, my hon. friend in his speech took no account of the fact that the cost of labour had increased and that the agricultural implement of to-day is of a much better class than that produced many years ago. I am told that my hon. friend has said on several occasions -I would not say whether it was in a byelection in Macdonald, as my information is not explicit enough, and I am speaking subject to correction by the Solicitor General- but I am told that the Solicitor General has said on certain occasions that the reason that the Government, up to date, have not made a substantial reduction in the duty on agricultural' implements is because the Senate has killed the Tariff Commission Bill. The hon. gentleman smiles; he does not say ' yes ' or ' no.' I do not know what that means. I do not know whether it means that he ever made that statement or did not, but whether he did or did not, it sounds very much like what the hon. gentleman and his friends on the other s'de would say and I would not be very far astray, I presume, in assuming that argument has been made by the hon. gentleman and by his friends on that side of the House. As my hon. friend does not say ' yes ' or ' no ' to this proposition, I assume from his silence that he has made that statement or that he has taken that position probably before his electors and others. Whether he has or not, Sir, it is undeniable that hon. gentlemen opposite have taken the position that the Senate killed the Tariff Commission Bill and that, therefore, this Government were not in a position to know whether or not the agricultural implement industry could stand a reduction in the duties. What are the actual facts of the case? I have in my hand the journals of the Senate for the years 1911 and 1912 when the Tariff Commission Bill was presented to
the Senate, amended and returned to this House. What is the nature of the amendment? The Senate did not kill the Bill and never attempted to kill the Bill. They amended that Bill and this House and this Government refused to accept the amendment which the Senate had made. The Senate demanded that in any case where the Government proposed to increase duties there must be the fullest publicity as to the capital stock of the company, or companies, interested in the industry and there must be absolute publicity as to the cost of production and all the circumstances surrounding this particular industry. That was in the case of an increase in any particular tariff item. That was the nature of the Senate amendment. The Senate amendment premised that before any such tariff increase should be made the tariff commission should make public, at least to this Parliament, all the facts relating to the industry in question. I trust that if hon. gentlemen have made that statement they will do themselves, this House and the country, the credit of investigating this fact and satisfying their own minds from the journals of this House and the Senate that what I state is the case and hereafter make amends by not repeating statements of that kind.
My position in favour of the proposition of my hon. friend from Moosejaw simply amounts to this, that the farmer is not in a prosperous condition to-day, that one of the items in the cost of production is the high price paid for agricultural implements, that the agricultural implement industry, as has been demonstrated by those who have preceded me in this debate, is at the present time well able to take care of itself and that it will be to the interests not only of the farmers but of every manufacturing industry in Canada, outside of those who are engaged in the manufacture of agricultural implements, to agree to and support this proposition having for its object the abolition of the duties on agricultural implements.
I want to say one word in closing. It is a strange thing that when we come into the realm of the learned professions, as we call them, such as medicine and law, we find that people are willing to leave the practice of medicine to the doctors and the practice of law to the lawyers. But when it comes to the industry of farming, there is no class of our people who enjoy so much free and unsolicited advice as to how to make their business profitable as the farmers. The farmers do not want honeyed words and diplomatic phrases, they do not
[Stage Direction]
want unsolicited advice; what they want is relief from the burdens of taxation by which they are oppressed. They do not ask, like my hon. friend from Thunder Bay and Rainy River (Mr. Carrick) for a bounty on the biggest industry of the country. They do not ask any undue advantage in the race side by side with the other industries of the country. All they ask is a square deal, a fair deal, and I maintain that whatever this Government may do or may not do on this question, in so far as the farmers of western Canada are concerned, absolutely nothing will satisfy them but the taking away of the duties so that in respect to the purchase of implements they will be placed in the same advantageous position as are their cousins to the south of the international boundary.
__ Mr. THOMAS MACNUTT (Saltcoats): Mr. Speaker, as a western man and a farmer, I feel that I would not be doing my duty if I allowed the debate upon this important question of free agricultural implements to pass without making a few remarks. It will not be necessary for me to take up a great deal of time because the question has already been very thoroughly dealt with. I might be allowed to say, however, that the Canadian implement manufacturer is very well able to take care of himself. He has passed the long-dress, bottle stage long ago. He is selling on equal terms with his rivals from the United States in all the agricultural countries of the world. He has been able to compete in Great Britain, the continental countries, including Russia, and even in the United States itself, although heretofore his exports to the United States have been subject to a duty of about 15 per cent. The Canadian manufacturer is the only one in Canada who benefits by the Wilson-Underwood tariff which reduces or abolishes duties on manufactured products entering that market. The American farmers will benefit because the intention of the United States Congress in abolishing the duty was to bring in competition from this side and cheapen agricultural implements to the American farmer. But the Canadian farmer does not benefit in any way and the Canadian manufacturer is able to increase his profits which are very large already. A great deal of consideration is always given to the capitalist, and to the manufacturer. How much is given to the farmer, the man who is really producing the wealth of the country? It is thought by many people in the East that the farmers of the West are making a good deal of 
money, and it is said that the East has sent out its money and its best blood to assist the upbuilding of the West. The people that they sent out to the West are now the people who are asking for the reduction of duty on agricultural implements.
What effect would the abolition of the duty have upon the cost of agricultural implements? If the future destiny of Canada depends almost entirely upon the agricultural development of that western country, as is now generally admitted, it is surely in the interest of the East to encourage anything that will promote and develop the agricultural interests of the West. The cheapening of the price of implements will, of course, have a very beneficial effect on the farmers of the West. You cannot till the ground, of which we have millions of acres still untouched, without proper implements, and what agricultural implements cost means a good deal to the farmer. Of course, if there was no means of getting them cheaper they would have to put up with it, but there is a means of getting them cheaper, and it is an injustice to every one but the manufacturers of implements that the duty is retained at its present rate. In order to show what effect a reduction of duty will have on the price of implements, I may mention that during the campaign of 1911 tylr. Hutcheson, manager of the John D-eering Plow Company, an American concern, stated publicly at Winnipeg that if a reduction of only two and a half per cent or five per cent were made, his company would at once reduce the prices as follows: On every harvester, $5; mower, $3; rake, $1.50; seeder, $5; wagon, $5, and all other implements in a similar ratio. If this considerable reduction were made as the result of reducing the duty two and a -half per cent or five per cent, what would it mean if the reduction in the duty was 17J per cent, 20 per cent, or 25 per cent? I claim that the Canadian manufacturers take advantage of this duty to the utmost extent, as may be seen from this instance: A McCormick 6 ft. cut hinder (American) is -sold at Minneapolis for $112 wholesale, at Winnipeg $122.50, that is $10.50 freight being added. The Frost and Wood (Canadian) costs $122 wholesale at Winnipeg, the freight being at 64 cents per cwt., that is $10.88, as against $10.50 on the McCormick. These implements are of the same description, and retailed at the same price, and should cost the same to manufacture. The duty is about $20, which the Canadian

manufacturer charges, and extra profit is about $18, as it takes about $2 to cover the duty on Ms raw material. There is no doubt that if the duty were abolished the prices of farming implements would be considerably lessened. I claim that the small farmers are the real developers of the West; they are there with their families to make homes for themselves, and they are not there as speculators. I believe that ten one-half section farmers are of more value to the country than one large farmer handling 2,000 acres. As a rule the very large farmers do not seem to be so very much interested in the cost of implements. We have many large farmers who are very beneficial to the country, but often they are there sirhply as speculators. They buy a lot of land and put motor ploughs and machinery on it and cultivate it, but they expect to make their money out of the increase in the value of land and not out of the crops they raise, and if they have a bad year they have money behind them and are not so badly off. I am speaking now of the ordinary small farmer, who is the man we should encourage. I have a tabulated statement here, which I think is about right, showing the implements that an ordinary farmer should have to cultivate his land, and this statement gives the average retail cost, the duty as it is, the customs valuation, and the duty collected:
						
	o			vi d		
U	S .2	s	ri	3	-S rf w 3	3 O n 3; M o	K	0	>	o	p.e.	A breaking plough.$28	00	20	$16	$ 3	20Gang plough. . . .	80	00	20	51	10	20Harrow	28	00	20	17	3	40Land packer. . . .	90	00	2a	40	10	00Seeder	125	00	20	56	11	20Disk harrow. . . .	35	00	25	24	6	0050	00	20	20	4	00Binder (8 feet)..	1	75	17|	110	19	20Fanning mill.. . .	40	00	25	25	6	27Hay rake (10 ft.)	35	00	20	17	3	40Mower (6 ft.) . .	65	00	17J	41	7	1785	00	25	40	10	00Buggy	110	00	35	60	21	00Sleigh	35	00	35	17	4	25Cutter	
Sundries, including	50	00	25	30	10	50repairs	175	00	25	100	25	00$1,206	$664	$154	84
There are other important implements, such as a manure-spreader, which I have not included in this table. It will thus be seen that these implements above referred to would cost $154.84 less if the duty were abolished, and that is a very considerable
sum to a small farmer. With regard to the difference in valuation, I think the facts show that the valuation under the late Government and under the present Government does not vary very much, but that it is a departmental matter. I gleaned information from the Trade and Navigation returns for the fiscal year 1896, which shows that 1,201 harvesters were brought into Canada from the United States at twenty per cent duty, the valuation being $131,080, or an average valuation of about $109 each; and in 1910 there were imported 1,481 harvesters from the United States, at a duty of 17J per cent, the total valuation being $165,759, or an average of $112 each, or $3 more than in 1896. Every practical farmer knows that the value of a binder is very much more to-day than it was in 1896, because the binders at the present time are supplied with trucks, and are much wider, and they are a better finished article all around. The figures will show that the late Government in reducing the duty actually reduced tne amount collected. Now, the cost of implements is not entirely due to the tariff, although, as pointed out that makes a great difference. A part is due to the business methods followed. The manufacturers axe so eager for the business-there is so much money in it-that they send out canvassers from the head office. I do not see why that should be done. The grocers or other dealers do not send out canvassers into the country to compete against one another; in this way they advertise and the people come iin and do business making their selection from the different stores.	Bu-t the implement
men have inspectors and canvassers at high salaries and expenses, and this adds to the cost of the goods. The canvasser is followed by the collector, and there is quite a difference in manner and method between these two. The canvasser is a very plausible gentleman, the collector is anything but that. As soon as the order is signed the farmer is a slave. I do not know that this has much to do with the question before the House, but I thought that I might be allowed to touch upon it. I think the 'Saskatchewan Government had this matter up and were thinking of preventing the head offices from sending out canvassers by making it illegal.
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Has the hon. gentleman one of the contracts that he could read to the House?
Mr. MACNUTT. I have none here.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It would be interesting.
] 580


Mr. MAONUTT:: The canvasser will often camp right with the farmer for days until he gets the order. The farmer may say that he has an old machine that the blacksmith can fix up to do his work, but this does not suit the canvasser. Of course, he represents that it nays in the long run to have the new machine. But while it pays in the long run, it has to be paid for in the short run. The farmer signs the order and the collector comes along in the fall. This kind of thing accounts for a good deal of the mortgaging of farms in the West. Of course, a considerable amount of the money is put into improvements and stock. But the homesteader, as you know, frequently has no capital and must buy on credit. He has only his own energy, persistence and determination to get on, and he generally does get on by some hook or crook. But, by the time he has his deed, he has also an accumulation of debts, much of it for implements and those implements dearer than they should have been. So, he mortgages his place to meet these liabilities, and it takes him some time to get rid of that mortgage. If the implement prices were lowered there would be just that much less for mortgaging. The Saskatchewan Commission of Inquiry looked into this matter and made a table of mortgage percentages at different points. The table shows that the farmers were mortgaged for from fifty to ninety per cent, and that the rates of interest run from eight per cent to fourteen per cent, most of the loans being at 9 or 10 per cent. Weyburn, for instance, a fine farming country, showed mortgages of 65 per cent, with an interest rate of from 9 to 14 per cent. In Saskatoon the mortgages were 90 per cent and the interest rate from 9 to 10 per cent; Regina mortgages 60 to 90 per cent and the rate the lowest of all, 8 per cent. There would not be nearly so much money borrowed on mortgages were it not for the high cost of implements.
Another point is that while many people have been induced to go to that western country, a good many of them have since gone away. I know myself many who have come into the country and who would have been good settlers, yet who, when they found the cost of implements and market prices, thought the proposition would not pay, and left. A letter was written by W. D. Scott, superintendent of immigration with regard to people leaving the country: He says:
I am forced to the conclusion that a number of Canadians are leaving this country for

the States, and a still greater number of recent arrivals in Canada are leaving for the States and returning to their home lands.
The British immigration figures show that in 1913, 26,401 people went back from Canada to England. A great many of these people might have been retained and I believe would have remained in Canada had the conditions been somewhat different. It is not too late to change these conditions. It would be a very easy matter for the Government now to follow the example of the United States and abolish the duty on implements. What is good for the farmers in the United States should be good in this country; and evidently the manufacturers of the United States do not fear the competition from this side of the line or from any part of the world. I think the Government now has a very good chance to do what is right in this very important matter, and in doing so to make itself very popular in the West.
There is nothing particularly sentimental about the manufacturers of implements in their dealings with people in the West. As I have said, their methods of collection are pretty drastic. And I think the members from the West will endorse my remark when I say that the Canadian manufacturer is harder on those who owe him than is the American manufacturer. The bailiff at one point informed me that he had sixty writs for implements handed to him for execution by Canadian manufacturers and not a single one from an American manufacturer although they do about the same business. So, I do not think we need to be very sympathetic with regard to the Canadian manufacturers. They want to sell their goods and get their money for them, and that is about all they think of. That is my experience.
I have been for many years in the West, mixed up with the people and have seen a good deal of pioneering and know pretty well what the progress of the West has been. I feel very strongly that the reduction on agricultural implements would assist the West very much. The manufacturers, as has been said time and again, have done well, they have made money while the farmer in the West, it has been shown, is not growing wealthy. Charge up the wages to which he is entitled for his work, and the farmer's dividend does not amount to anything; in fact, his hired man often gets more in the course of the year than the farmer himself is able to make from his operations.
While there is a perfectly justifiable feel-

ing that the West is a good place for an industrious man to go, and that there are good chances of his being able to establish a good home, there are many things that prevent him from succeeding as he should succeed. I trust that when the Budget is brought down there will be something in it providing for relief for the farmers along these lines. They have been refused a market to the south, and they should at least be given the benefit of this proposed concession. They are justly entitled to it, and I am sure it would be appreciated.
I have a number of additional notes on the subject which I have not touched, but I will not enter upon any further discussion of the matter, as there are several others to follow me, and I understand that a vote is to be taken to-night.
Mr. GEORGE E. McCRANEY (Saskatoon): Upon quite a number of occasions the question of the reduction or abolition of the duties on agricultural implements has come before this House. I understand that under the Mackenzie Government the duties on binders and on mowers was seventeen and a half per cent. In the figures which I am going to give to the House, I am quoting binders chiefly because I believe that the minimum tariff on agricultural implements is applicable to them. Between 1878 and 1894, under the Conservative Administration, and under the National Policy, the duty on binders was thirty-five per cent; it was reduced by the Conservatives to twenty per cent and remained at that figure until 1907. After 1907 the duty was seventeen and a half per cent, as it was under the Mackenzie Government. In 1911 it was pro-posed in the reciprocity negotiations further to reduce the duties on binders to fifteen per cent.
Of all articles the reduction of duty upon which might be considered to be beneficial, agricultural implements have been more seriously discussed by both parties in this House with a view to reduction, because as has been stated before in this debate, agriculture is the basic industry of this country. There is the further reason that agriculture pays less profit than any other industry in which capital is invested. I am quite satisfied that of all the money which is invested in the various industries of this country, none produce so small a profit as that invested in agriculture. It is one of the canons of taxation that those shall be taxed who are best able to pay, and any industry running upon a minimum of profit should be the first to be afforded relief.
During 1911 the hon. Solicitor Genera! (Mr. Meighen) introduced a resolution looking toward the reduction of duties on agricultural implements. At that time there was under consideration a reciprocity arrangement with the United States, and whilst the terms of that arrangement were not known to the public, the fact that it was to be a very liberal arrangement was a matter of common knowledge. It was before the terms of this arrangement were brought before the House that the resolution of my hon. friend the Solicitor General was moved. Both the resolution looking to a substantial reduction of the tariff on implements and the movement in favour of a reciprocity arrangement had their origin in the fact that agriculture in this country needed some strong support and encouragement. The scheme which was proposed by the Conservative party to meet the Liberal proposals was the resolution of the hon. the Solicitor General to which I have referred. When the reciprocity arrangement came down, there was a slight reduction on binders from 174 to 15 per cent, but so many other advantages accruing to the benefit of our agricultural population were contained in the reciprocity arrangement that a consideration of the reduction on any particular item would disclose but a very small portion of the benefit to the farmer. When one compares the position of the farmers of to-day under the Wilson-Underwood tariff, with what it would have been had reciprocity gone into effect, it will be seen that the farmers are labouring under a very serious handicap in getting their goods into the United States, which is their great foreign market. Under reciprocity they would have had free entry for their wheat to the United States; now they have to pay ten cents a. bushel. They would have had free entry of their oats; now they have to pay six cents a bushel. Our barley, which would have been free, pays fifteen cents a bushel, flax, fifteen cents, horses ten per cent. Our hay, which would have been free, now pays $2 a ton. If the Canadian farmer who wants to put his wheat into the United States market is charged say $20 on the quantity which he sends in-and this $20 does not go into the treasury of this country-if he has that imposition placed upon him by the refusal of this Government to make a reciprocal arrangement with the United States, I say it does not matter very much -whether you relieve him in one way, or in another; if you make him pay $20 in the one case you ought to let him

have $20 in the other. The position of the farmer to-day is decidedly inferior to the position he would have held under reciprocity or under the proposals of the bon. Solicitor General to reduce substantially the tariff on agricultural implements. Assuming, for the purpose of argument, that the reduction would have been ten per cent, that being the figure suggested by the Conservatives when the resolution was put forward. There is no comparison at all; our farmers, by reason of the victory of the Conservative party, are suffering under disabilities to which they would not have been subject if the Liberals had been returned to power in 1911.
I say further that there is no desire upon the part of the farmers of this country to escape their fair share of revenue raising. But when I take a stand in favour of the total abolition of duties on agricultural implements, I do it because those very people have been denied a boon which would have meant very great profit, a greater profit than would result from the abolition of any duties on agricultural implements. I do not want to exaggerate at all the benefits which might come from either the reduction or total abolition of these duties. I think it would be a benefit, but I think this Government has got to go a very much longer way than either the reduction or the abolition of the duties on agricultural implements to make up to the farmers what they have lost by the defeat of the reciprocity pact. The Solicitor General made his appeal to this House in the early part of 1911. It was a well-reasoned appeal, the arguments were good, and I only want to add that as they were good then, they are much 'better now, in view of the changes in conditions between 1911 and 1914. I need not repeat the statements which have been already made as to the increase in the manufacture of agricultural implements and the great increase which has taken place in the export of agricultural implements to other countries, by which the strength of these manufacturing institutions has been shown. The hon. member for Humboldt has also shown that from about 1910 or 1911, a time which synchronized with the advent to power of this Government-I shall not say that this Government is responsible for it-but from about the time that my hon. friend made his speech, there has been a very considerable increase in lake freight rates, amounting to $10 per thousand bushels of wheat, and of ocean freight rates, I understand, amounting to 
some $35 per thousand bushels. As the manufacturing industries have become stronger and more able to stand alone, the price of wheat has been reduced, the cost of marketing has become greater and, as the argument for reduction was good in 1911 as it was made by the Solicitor General, so I say that in this year 1914 it is a much stronger argument for the total abolition of these duties. The Prime Minister has pointed out to us that this is not the time for declarations as to the intentions of the Government; but he at once violated the principle which he had laid down by a very positive assertion to this House that the request which we make for the abolition of duties will not be carried into effect. The fact that we are about to vote a want of confidence in this Government will not, I think, make much difference eitSer to the other side of the House or to this. We on this side of the House were not elected to support the pre-11 p.m. sent Government. We were elected in support of a Government which was giving a very substantial relief to the agricultural interests of this country, a relief which this Conservative Government, as long as it may be in office, is never likely to equal. I am sure that we on this side have no hesitation at all in showing our want of confidence in this Government and in any proposals which it is likely to bring forward. I would point to the fact, in conclusion, that the Liberal party in 1878 went out because it refused to increase the customs duties. It made a very substantial reduction in 1897 in those duties and it went out of power in 1911 in an attempt to further reduce duties and to relieve the agricultural classes of this country. I do not know that we can hope very much from this Government, but so far as I am concerned I want this Government to know where I stand, that there shall be no uncertainty as to my favouring the abolition of duties on agricultural implements; and if later on they see fit to bring in a proposal for abolition, of course it must receive the unanimous support of the members on this side of the House.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.):: Mr. Speaker, the question now before you, namely the abolition of duties on agricultural implements, is not by any means exclusively a western question although members from the West have chiefly spoken on it tonight. It is a question just as broad as this Dominion, it affects every province and every industry in this Dominion.



[Stage Direction]
Agriculture is the basic industry of this country, an axiom which has been stated time and time again by Governors-General in opening this Parliament, and hy lieutenant-governors in opening the provincial legislatures. Now, if the basic industry of any country is sound and progressive, all subsidiary industries, and all their branches, must be progressive. Is agriculture in Canada as progressive and as profitable as it should be? I think not. If it were, we should not see so many people leaving the land to engage in other industries m the cities. That fact is worthy of the consideration of the Government. The motion before us asks for some measure of relief for the farmers of this country. Is this measure of relief that we are asking reasonable? Will free agricultural implements injure unduly the makers of such implements in this country?
I think not. It has been stated here to-night, and on other occasions, that the makers of agricultural implements in this country are able to meet competition in the open markets of the world. The fact that they are sending agricultural implements to Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, and to the United States, is proof that the men engaged in the industry are able to meet competition anywhere, and surely they should be able to meet it in Canada, where they have at least the advantage of freight in their favour. Under these conditions, and if agriculture is ever to receive any consideration at all, is the proposition before the House unreasonable? I do not think it can be argued that protection is to-day necessary to the continuation of the agricultural implement industry in this country; and if that cannot be argued, there is no reason, even from the protectionist standpoint, for continuing those duties. All that the fathers of protection asked when they introduced that policy into this country was that it should be temporary, that the industries that could not otherwise succeed should have some measure of protection for a time, and that the infant industries should receive protection. Surely no one will say that the implement industry is now an infant industry; and, if it is not, then protection is no longer required.
The Prime Minister told us this afternoon that when he was in the West he found no body of farmers who wished to injure or ruin any industry in this country. I am quite sure that is correct, and I am quite sure the Prime Minister would not meet any body of farmers in the East
wishing to ruin or injure any industry in this country. But if the protection which makers of agricultural implements are now receiving is not necessary to the welfare of that industry, then the statements and arguments made by the Prime Minister are not apropos to the question now before the House. If the farmers of this country are not to receive this small measure of relief that we are now asking for them, it must be because protection is so entrenched in Canada that it cannot be touched at all. If that be so, the sooner the people of the Dominion know it the better. Protection is economically unsound and morally wrong. No class of people should be taxed for the benefit of any other class. It would be just as reasonable for the farmers of this country to ask the Government to legislate so that the implement manufacturers would have to pay taxes for their benefit, as it is for the implement manufacturers to ask this Government to legislate so that the farmers have to pay for the protection of their industry. One proposition is just as reasonable as the other.
John Hampden Burnham: What about a revenue tax ?


James Joseph Hughes: The protected industries of this country, generally speaking, _ are getting all their machinery free. Agricultural implements are the machinery of the farmer, and why, then, should the farmers not get their machinery free? On what economic grounds should they be refused that ? Is it even fair play ? The only reason why they are refused-if they should be refused when the Budget speech is delivered-is because the farmers of this country are not organized in their own interests, because it is easy to divide them on political questions, and because other people are organized and will not follow party lines where their private interests are concerned. When the farmers of this country are organized and vote for their own interests regardless of party politics, they will receive more consideration than they do now. That is why burdens are placed on the farmer for the advantage of other industries to-day.
The Prime Minister said also that if the customs duties on agricultural implements were removed there would be the danger of the farmers being subjected to the operation of a trust or combine and that the last condition would be worse than the first. If the agricultural implement makers of this country are able to meet the competi-

t.ion. of the world, as has been pointed out to-night, and time and time again, how in the name of common sense would the removal of the duty be the means of establishing trusts and combines? The time has passed when it is necessary, in the interest of the manufacturers of agricultural implements to have a protective tariff. The only reason why it is retained, if it be re. tained, is because the Government have made up their minds that they will not touch the system of protection.
We are told that this is an inopportune time to raise this question and that the Government cannot announce its intentions until the Budget is delivered. It will be too late then to give advice to the Government. We would be told then that it was too late because the Government had submitted its tariff proposals, and it certainly could not change them after it had brought them down. Whatever is in the Budget speech when it comes down will necessarily be final) land therefore whatever advice we can give the Government must be given now. This is an opportune time to give the Government advice on this question whether they take that advice or not. There is no reason why the Government should refuse advice of this kind, or why they should refuse to give to the farmers as much consideration as they give to other industries. There is no reason why the agricultural industry of the country should be taxed for the benefit of all other industries. It appears so unreasonable that I cannot understand why it is carried out. Is it for the reason that it is supposed that burdens can be placed upon the farmers of the country that other interests would not submit to?
I have given these views to the House because I considered it was my duty to do so, because this is a question that affects every province and every industry in this wide Dominion and because it is a question upon which I think every man in this House should give his opinion. I cannot imagine how men representing agricultural constituencies can oppose the proposition which is now before the House.


Mr. ROCH LANCTOT (Laprairie-Napier-ville):: Mr. Speaker, as a farmer representing one of the foremost farming communities in the province of Quebec, I think I would be neglecting my duty should I not express my own opinion on the motion now before us.
I must first congratulate the honourable member for Moosejaw (Mr. Iinowles) for having presented this motion in amend-

ment whereby the Government is asked to remove the duty on agricultural implements brought into this country. This question does not affect but the West, it affects the whole country, and more especially the province of Quebec because there are at least fifty agricultural counties out of the sixty-five which she numbers. I have the honour to represent one of those counties in the House.
This amendment prays that the duties on farming implements be removed altogether. Is it not a fact that the manufacturers in this country have enjoyed a protective tariff ever since 1878? From that, time the child has grown up, it has reached the age of 36 years, and I think that, at this age, it could be left to depend on its own strength.
I say, that the manufacturers have been protected long enough, and as for the great mass of the people, I believe it is time that they should enjoy, in their turn, the abolition of protection duties, on farming implements first of all. Those manufacturers of farming implements, who dispose of their goods in Europe, selling them 25 or 30 per cent cheaper than here, could, one thinks, stand foreign competition in this country and make a very substantial profit. Why do they sell cheaper outside? Because there is no competition in our country. Such is always the case in every country under a protective system; the consumers have to pay a higher price for the goods, owing to an impassable gate which prevents competition. Such is the system under which we of the farming community are now labouring.
Is it not a fact that, no later than yesterday, the present Goverment has been asked, as was done under the late Administration, to grant a bounty on the steel works of this country? The late Government granted it, but when they were satisfied that this industry had enjoyed such protection long enough, they removed it. We farmers do not feel envious of' the favours granted to other industries. We do not want the Government to give us money with which to buy our implements,* we do not ask for such favours; we only believe it is now time that the protective duties should be removed and that free course should be given to competition. This is only reasonable.
During this debate, as the honourable member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) was addressing the House, the honourable member for Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) asked him this question: 'What about a revenue tax?' Well, the Government is

going to collect this year, as customs duties, from one hundred and ten to one hundred and twelve million dollars. The removal of the duties on farming implements which we buy would mean but the small sum of $845,300 as a rebate on that revenue and surely this would not be enough to affect the treasury.	At all
events, I think there should be some easy means of making compensation for this so-called deficit, for instance, by reducing certain extravagant estimates, by striking off a few estimates from the Militia Department for useless arsenals, some of which are supposed to cost as much as $500,000 or $600,000.
Mr. Speaker, after the budget speech has been delivered I shall submit to the House a few other small details which I would not like to allude to just at present.
I had no intention to take part in this debate, but it being unceasingly repeated in the press that this question is one which interests the western part of this country exclusively, I claim, on the contrary, that it does interest the whole country, the province of Quebec as well as all the'other provinces of Confederation.
Let me add, in concluding these few remarks, that I would be in favour of a general reduction of the duties. I woidd be glad if some honourable member should propose such a measure so that the duties were not higher than ten per cent as a general rule.
The honourable member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) is accused of being a free trader. Well, I think I belong to his school and that I am a free trader myself to some extent, and I am confident that were there less protection in this country, everybody would feel more contented and more satisfied.


Mr. W. A. BUCHANAN (Medicine Hat):: I must express my surprise that the only expression of opinion on this question from the Conservative side of the House, has been given by the Prime Minister, and all he had to say was: wait until the Budget has been brought down. But this was not always his cry. Prior to 1911 the right hon. gentleman definitely promised that as soon as he came to power a great many of the grievances of the people of this country would be remedied. As a member on this side of the House, I am not prepared to wait any longer, and so I shall express my opinion to-night. I believe it is necessary that this Government should be impressed with the importance of this matter, and
should be reminded of its want of concern for the interests of the farmers of western Canada. Those of us who come from the West have been told that in giving expression to our candid views this session, we have been libelling Canada, and doing harm to the West. I believe in being frank, with regard to conditions in western Canada and in my own part of the country, and I say to-night that we are not as well off to-day as we were prior to 1911. I am not going to put the responsibility on the Government for bringing about this condition, but I do place the responsibility on the Government for not having attempted to improve it. One of the greatest obstacles now facing the western farmer is that he has to pay big prices and high freight rates on his farming implements, when he knows that on the other side of the line the same implements are sold at a much lower price. The agricultural implement industry in this country is an old industry. A great many years ago, in nearly every county in eastern Canada there was an agricultural implement factory of some kind, but these factories have been combined from year to year until now there are few of them as compared with the number in the past. However, the combination has created an industry of great wealth and power; it has created millionaires in practically every one of its branches. I do not object to that, if these men are prepared to face free trade in agricultural implements to-day. They can ship their implements across' the line and compete with the American industries, and they can go to Russia, and to Australia, and to every agricultural country, and sell their machinery in the open market, in competition with the manufacturers of other countries. That is all we ask that they should be compelled to do in this country.
I think this subject is worthy of more attention than was given to it by the Prime Minister to-night. It might have been well had he invoked a free and frank discussion from some of his own supporters, because I know that in the ranks of the Conservative party in western Canada there is a very strong feeling in favour of free agricultural implements. The Prime Minister told us today that the reciprocity arrangement did not include free agricultural implements, and I know it did not. but I would like to inform him that the Conservative speakers in going around my constituency in the last campaign always declared: reciprocity does not go far enough; it does not give you free agricultural implements-

wait until our party comes into power and we will take the duty off. Well, the Conservative party has been in power since 1911, and there has not been a reduction in the tariff of any kind in favour of the farmers and their industry.
It has been said that the farmers of this country do not want to pay any taxation to the exchequer,-and my hon. friend from West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) insinuated that-but I can tell him, and I can tell others who have that idea, that the farmers of Canada are just as willing to pay taxation into the exchequer of Canada as any other part of the population. They are not prepared however to pay taxation also to the manufacturers of Canada, and that is what they are compelled to do under the tariff as it exists to-day on agricultural implements and on certain other things. I would like to have seen a little more interest displayed by members of the Government and by their ijupporters from western Canada, in this question. When a man goes into western Canada, and enters upon a homestead and tries to make a living for himself and his family, he is not facing ideal conditions. Some people have the misconception that once a man takes up a homestead in the West he immediately becomes rich; that he has great crops every year, that he gets high prices, and that in a very short period of time he is able to retire and live in one of the towns or cities. But what are the facts? Within the last two or three years the prices of grain have gone down, so that the farmer to-day is not farming on a profitable basis, while at the same time he has to pay a big price for his agricultural implements, which are the tools of his trade, and he also has to pay a high tariff on the other necessaries of life. I say this Government is not trying to do anything to relieve the situation in western Canada. I want to be frank, and honest, and I .say that western Canada is not prospering as it should prosper in a country of such great natural riches and possibilities. And, if this Government does not carry out more of the promises it made to relieve the burdens of the people of the West, the first opportunity the peojile of western Canada have-and the people of eastern Canada as well, because the East is realizing that the development and prosperity of the West means the development and prosperity of the East-the first opportunity the people of this country have to render a verdict on the failure of the Con-
servative party to -carry out its promises, this Government goes out of power.


Henri Sévérin Béland: At this advanced hour of the night, I intend to say only a few words on the amendment moved by my hon. friend from Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles). There is a common, and I think an erroneous idea in the House that in the country, the western farmer is the only one interested in the removal of the duty on agricultural implements, but it is safe to say that a larger number of people are interested in this question in the East than in the West. One has only to go through Ontario and Quebec, not to speak of the Maritime provinces, to realize the large number of our people who are engaged in the farming industry. I am not in a position to declare myself in favour of free trade; I believe in a moderate form of protection for some Canadian industries, and especially when they are in their infancy. The preceding Government, and the Conservative Government of 1878, have both given a sufficient amount of protection to this particular industry. It has protected it to such an extent that now those engaged in that industry have found it advisable to instal plants in the neighbouring republic and are able to make profits out of them. Then, since the Canadian agricultural implement manufacturers are able to cross the line and establish plants there, and realize profits on their industry, and when they are selling their product at a price 25 per cent lower than they are charging the people of Canada for the same implements, I think it is high time that we should endeavour to give to the farmers of the country some of that prosperity which we have given to these manufacturers.
The reciprocity pact, which was condemned in very strong terms by the party opposite, was a step in the right direction. It may be claimed that it was a very slight reduction. Indeed it was, -but still it was a step in the right direction; and I believe it was the intention of the late Government to proceed further-that Government of which I was a member, but, I am sorry to say, an ephemeral member. During the election of 19X1 Liberal candidates in the farming divisions of the province of Quebec declared themselves in favour of further reductions, and some in favour of the total abolition of the duties on agricultural implements. I am merely carrying out one of the promises I made to my electors in that instance. Now, the public revenue would not be materially affected if the duties

on agricultural implements were entirely removed; everybody will agree to that. On the other hand the industry itself would not be seriously injured, because, as was very properly pointed out by an hon. friend behind me, the manufacturers of agricultural implements in this country and every other country have amassed immense fortunes. And, in the last place, the farmers would indeed profit considerably by the removing of the duty. Make the farmers prosperous in a country like this, and you make the entire country prosperous.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer):: 1 shall interpose very few words at this late hour of the evening. I do not know that I should have said anything had it not been for the fact that up to the present moment no one has answered the appeal very courteously made to this side of the House by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Borden), who, up to now, is the only member on the Government side who has spoken in this debate. Before referring in a word or two to what was said by the Prime Minister, it is impossible not to contrast the attitude of the Government benches yesterday with their attitude today. I think the country will note that yesterday when the question was one of giving money, giving bounties, to a manufacturing industry, several speeches more or less enthusiastic were made by hon. members on the other side in favour of the proposal. But when to-day we tackle the question of removing some of the burdens which the agricultural interests of this country are bearing, the benches opposite are absolutely silent. I give due weight, I hope, to the contention of the Prime Minister that the Budget is the proper place to make Government announcements on the tariff. But I refer not so much to the Government as to the members sitting behind the Government and their attitude on these two questions. What the Budget may bring forth is in the lap oi the gods. I do not know whether even the Government themselves know what the Budget will bring forth on these tariff issues. But up to now the position of the Government as intimated by the supporters of the Government seems to be, bounties for the manufacturer and burdens for the farmer. The Prime Minister said that the motion of my hon. friend from Moose-jaw (Mr. Knowles), indicated a considerable advance upom the reciprocity proposition as to agricultural implements. Of
course the Liberal party is an advancing party, living in an advancing world. I could not help thinking that my right hon. friend did scant justice to his Liberal origin and showed himself to be a fine old crusted Conservative when he expressed surprise that the world and the Liberal party in Canada should make some advance in the considerable space of two years and a half. I spoke in Vancouver a few months after the defeat of reciprocity and referred to the statement of the Minister of Finance to the effect that reciprocity was dead; and I ventured to differ, and to say that reciprocity was in the sickroom, and would come out with a progeny. And to-night we have a unanimous party on this side in favour of free agricultural implements. That is some of the progeny. And I should not be surprised if we had more of the progeny in the form of a reduction in this duty proposed by this Government.


An hon. MEMBER:: Still-born.


Michael Clark: I could express a wish that some other people had been, still-born if they do not know better when to speak than they do. We have advanced on this question, and there is reason why Canada has advanced and why the Government should advance. There has been a great advance in itbe United States since the reciprocity pact was turned down. They have advanced there as far as they could advance in the duty on agricultural implements. And that is the crucial point that this Government are up against in this matter-the United States has removed the duty on agricultural implements altogether. What was the argument with which low tariff men were invariably met up to last year when it was proposed to reduce tariffs in Canada? The argument was: You are going to expose yourselves to be a slaughter market for the United States. Protection has never been defended on its merits in this country. It was defended because of conditions in the United States. Where are hon. gentlemen opposite logically taken by the altered condition in the United States? We have the slaughter market there now. And logic compels this Government to place our farmers in the same condition as the farmers in the United States in regard to this question. I submit that for the friendly and careful consideration of those who have pondered on arguments I am producing to them in days that aTe passed. There is an economic wrong, too, which is of national importance. I wondered if the

Government and their supporters listened to the warning of my hon. friend behind me when he pointed out that in the United States the farmers are getting better prices for their produce and are 'buying implements cheaper. I wonder if the Government pay attention to these facts. What is going to be the effect upon the large number of farmers in the West, the most desirable inhabitants in Canada, if they see that they can follow their occupation with great advantage south of the line as compared with north of the line. I put that as a serious question having a most intimate bearing upon the well-being, progress and prosperity of this country.
My right hon. friend referred to another matter, and with a slight reference to that I will resume my seat. He seemed to doubt whether free implements would reduce the price of implements, and made a very frank appeal to some one on this side to tackle that question. I should like to point out that the Prime Minister had almost answered the question in his brief but extremely pregnant speech. If I remember rightly, he began by saying that he had not met an audience in the West which would vote for closing down the factories by the removal of duties.
When my right hon. friend said that, I assumed that this is a danger which he held out before the audiences in the West. I take it that I am right in my assumption. But, my right hon. friend having pointed that out as a danger which would follow from free implements, I ask him how that danger would be brought about? How could the industries possibly be closed up unless it was because they had to sell their articles at a price which would not pay them? My right hon. friend assumed in his opening sentences that the result of the abolition of the duty on agricultural implements would be such a reduction in the price of them that there would be a danger of closing up the factories. I ask my right hon. friend, therefore, to apply to the first sentences of his quarter of an hour's speech for a complete answer to the last sentences. The fact of the matter is that no one can *approach this question of protection with a view of defending it without falling into pitfalls; they are all around the thing. The mistake was not that of my right hon. friend; it is inherent in the thing itself. My right hon. friend knows this in his heart of hearts; he is a chivalrous man, having fallen into the pitfalls himself, he takes good care that none of his followers shall
[Mr. M. Clark.J
do the same thing, because he puts the closure on the whole lot of them.
I am going to give another answer to my right hon. friend on this question. I wonder if information has come to either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance asking that these duties be kept on? I am not likely to get an answer on that subject, but it has a very important bearing upo 1 the speculation which my right hon. friend made and which he asked some of us to solve. I should like very much to know whether any of the people who are manufacturing these implements in Canada have asked the Government not to interfere with them?
Well, it is needless to wait for information, but I venture to wager that they have had approaches of that kind; if they have not, other people have had more or less gentle touches in the direction of asking them not to interfere with the duties on these implements. It is well known that the people who manufacture the implements make fairly assiduous attempts to keep the duties on them. Why? There can be only one answer: because they know that if the duties were removed they would have to sell the implements at a lower price and be content with a smaller profit. I would suggest to my right hon. friend, therefore, to go for a second answer, if he is not content with his own, to the manufacturers of these implements, and find out what they say will be the effect of the removal of these duties. For myself, I have the utmost confidence in the economic theories which I have studied ever since 1 could study anything, and which I hold with a conviction as strong as it is possible for a man to hold anything. Just as I believe that the effect of a tariff is always to raise the price of the article carrying it, so I believe that if you remove the tariff you will give a relief in the way of prices. That is the reason why we recommend this reform to Parliament and to the country.
May I point out to my right hon. friend that if there was anything in his contention that an international trust, covering the whole of the North American continent, would keep up the price of agricultural implements after the duty was removed in both countries, that would apply to everything in connection with which trusts or mergers have been formed, and would commit us to eternal protection in Canada? If an international trust is already formed in regard to any article, then the argument of my right hon. friend will do for all

time, and we can give up discussing tariffs for ever.	I submit that this
is the logical	deduction to be
made from the position which the right hon. gentleman takes up. I do not believe there is anything whatsoever in that contention.
I believe in commercial freedom; I believe that the moment you remove all artificial restrictions, such as the tariff is, from this or any other industry, the economic laws of supply and demand will operate as inevitably as the law which keeps the spheres in orbits, and the removal of the tariff would be followed by a reduction in prices. That is why we recommend it.
I think I have dealt with all the points that were raised in the speech of my right hon. friend. I do so most respectfully, and I hope the Government will look fairly well over the speech when they see it in print and see whether I am not correct in stating that the Prime Minister really furnished in the first sentences of his speech an answer to the latter part of it. We recommend this policy, as many speakers have said here to-night, just because we do believe it would reduce the prices of agricultural implements. We recommend it as a policy which is part of a consistent attitude so far as this side of the House is concerned. We are as one man in desiring larger markets for the produce of the farmers; we are as one man in desiring absolute freedom for production of the implements with which the produce is raised. It is not a policy for the West, the East or the middle; it is a policy for the whole of Canada. It is not a western question only; it is a national policy, and it is more than that, because if we do our duty by the agricultural interests of Canada; if we do our duty in the development and working up of the magnificent resources which have come into our possession in the West, we should have an enormous amount of agricultural produce to sell not only to the United States and to the old country, but to other markets in Europe which will inevitably be thrown open to agricultural produce in the near future. That is surely a destiny from which Canada should not shrink; that is surely a destiny to which every man who loves Canada should aspire. Trade is a great pacificator, and I do not think that Canada could take up a higher work than that of so developing her agricultural industry that she would not only make for herself a place absolutely unique in the history of the world, a prosperity which has never been equalled, but would make for herself an interlacing and 101


REVISED
[Stage Direction]
international trade which would make her a great pacificator among the nations of the world for all time.
Arthur Meighen: 
EDITION
[Stage Direction]
fully a well known and. long practised dodge, in asserting that they would expect
any recognition, favourable or unfavourable, of a resolution on this question. I may be excused for saying even this, that I doubt if it is the desire of the hon. gentleman who moved the resolution to advance the cause which he brings to the attention of the House and which he professes to have so sincerely at heart, because if that were his desire he could have adopted a no less likely way of advancing it. But if, on the other hand, his desire was to solidify in this House any opposition that might be gathered to his resolution, he could not possibly have adopted a better plan. That being the case, I am bound, as is everyone in the Government, to adhere to the statement I made in the debate on the Address and to make no comment on the merits of the resolution in so far as it affects the duty of the Government as to the tariff. That will be known in due course and what object could be served by this resolution which is an amendment to Supply I am at a loss to know, unless it be to make known to the people of Canada the very sudden conversion of hon. gentlemen opposite to freedom of duty. Perhaps it is just as well the position of hon. gentlemen opposite should be known and established. They desire to have this unanimous and in order that the idea of its unanimity should be spread broadcast they have chosen to so arrange their addresses that not only the provinces of the West but the provinces of Quebec and the province of Ontario and the province of Prince Edward Island, away in the far east have been represented in order that they might, if they possibly could, impress the whole of Canada. Two and a half years ago they were resolved that a tariff on implements ranging from 15 to 25 per cent was the lowest possible even for a revenue tariff, and also the lowest possible to keep our industries alive. Such was their firm resolve then, and such they declared it would remain in the future. But in the short space of two years they have come all the way around the circle and are now for free agricultural implements. There are two significant exceptions. I observed the rather concerned, though not altogether happy demeanour of the hon. member for South Oxford and I observed carefully that the right hon. leader of the Opposition himself has taken care to make no pronouncement whatever and has also taken care, although I hope it 
is only temporary, to absent himself from the Chamber.
The course pursued by the hon. gentlemen opposite has varied with the geography of the member who happens to be speaking. Hon. gentlemen from the West affirm their adherence to the resolution because they believe it i3 consistent with the theory of free trade, to which they profess to be permanently wedded. Hon. gentlemen from Ontario adhere to the resolution, not because it is consistent with free trade, because their representative who spoke is no free trader at all but a protectionist, and he justified his position because the manufacturers of agricultural implements are now, on the theory of protection itself, able to compete with the world and do not need the duties at all for their protection. The same position is taken by the hon. member for Beauce. He pronounced himself a protectionist this evening, with no qualification at all; and he says protection is especially necessary for infant industries. But without that condition he stated he was a protectionist in any event, although of course the necessity was greater in the case of infant industries. He was followed by the hon. member for Red Deer, who emphasized with the skill which only he possesses, the views that he pronounced; and warned the hon. member for Beauce 12 m. that inasmuch as lie was a protectionist, he was walking among pitfalls and sooner or later he would find himself upside down. I was warned in the course of the debate' on the Address that it was my duty, before I accepted the position with which I have now been honoured, perhaps over-honoured, to have secured from the Government a concession on this matter of agricultural implements, because it was one great essential that all members of the Government should see eye to eye. I think I appreciate fairly accurately the doctrine of Cabinet unanimity. I believe that on all matters of principle, whether such as relate to the tariff or to any other subject, it is essential that we should be unanimous and it is also of importance that the party behind us should be unanimous, that we should Irave some definite and well understood principle that should govern us in tariff matters. But that is a virtue and attribute that has long characterized the Conservative party. We have been able to boast of that throughout our history. But where do hon. gentlemen opposite stand ? In a position just as incongruous as that in

which they stand to-night. There must be questions and differences of opinion. Inevitably, on either side, there will be differences of opinion as to how far the principle that either side advocates will carry a party in relation to a specific duty, as, for example, how far it is necessary, with due regard to protective principles, to protect the agricultural implement industry. That, of course, is a matter of opinion, but as to the pole star that should guide our party in the matter of this duty, as of all others, there is no difference of opinion on this side of the House, none -has ever been expressed, and none exists. When, in January, 1910, I advocated the resolution so often referred to in this debate, urging upon the then Administration the necessity of reducing *substantially the duty on implements, I endeavoured, to the best of my capacity, to show that such a course was advisable. But 1 took no false ground then; I stated then that unless it could be shown that that reduction in the duties on agricultural implements was consistent with the protective principle, that it was doing fairly by all the industries of the country engaged in the manufacture of implements, I would not be a supporter of a reduction. I set about to show that that condition existed. I got little assistance from hon. gentlemen opposite. I spoke. I was followed by the hon. member -who moved this resolution to-day, and who, in the course of an hour's speech, refused to tell the House whether he favoured or opposed the resolution. He is the gentleman who is so radical to-night, and he almost shed tears in his sympathy for the western farmer as he pictured tne hard lot he suffers on the western plains. The -best that gentleman could say in favour of this 'two years ago, when he might have done something, was that he had no very great quarrel- to raise with it. Two years before that, the same hon. gentleman stated on the floor of this House, and having relation to a resolution moved by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaff-ner) that the duty on binders and mowers, the chief implements, should be reduced to ten per cent. He championed the position of his party against that resolution.
William Erskine Knowles: I am sure my hon.
friend does not wish to misrepresent me; there was no such motion made in the House; it was in Committee.
Mr. MEIGHEN. In Committee of the Whole. lOli


Mr. HENDERSON:: A wonderful difference.


William Erskine Knowles: A great difference.


Arthur Meighen: We must all admire the pliability of conscience of the hon. member. It is very important to the constituents of Moosejaw that he take a proper position on the floor of the House, but if the House i->
in Committee of the Whole, it matters very little. I was rather struck by one of the arguments adduced by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). He urged that inasmuch as the implement manufacturers were seizing a considerable share of the foreign trade and succeeding there, that was an argument that they required no protective duty in Canada. Is the memory of the hon. member for Moosejaw long enough to admit that in the course of his speech in the House against the resolution of the hon. member for Souris, he took the ground that the fact of the implement manufacturers succeeding in foreign trade was a reason why we should not reduce the tariff at all? The hon. gentleman shakes his head and is not aware of it. I will read it to him, (page 5598, ' Hansard,' 1907):
The manufacturers * of agricultural Implements must certainly undersell the other manufacturers of the world or they must compete with them at least. They can do so either by cutting prices or by selling in the open market at the same price as they are selling in Canada. If they do so by selling at cut prices, it is no argument in the mouth of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) that the agricultural implement makers can stand on their own footing. If they sell in foreign markets at the same price as in Canada then they can compete with their competitors and the removal of this duty' would make no difference at all. .	. If the Canadian manufacturers compete in the world's markets their price must be just as low, and there would be no object whatever in reducing the duties further.


William Erskine Knowles: My hon. friend is just giving part of that speech. I was making a hypothetical statement.


Arthur Meighen: There is nothing hypothetical about this.


William Erskine Knowles: Look again,


Arthur Meighen: It is not hypothetical at all, but it may bear analogy to another word of a similar sound.
If the Canadian manufacturers compete in the world's markets their price must be just as low, and there would be no object whatever in reducing the duties further.
Where is the hypothesis?


William Erskine Knowles: The word ' if '.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member now says that if the manufacturers are able to compete in the world's markets, we should sweep the duties off altogether. I do not see how the two doctrines can sleep together.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What are you going to do about it?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member foT Carleton knows that no government worthy of the name of government could possibly make an announcement before the Finance Minister announces his Budget. Perhaps he will get it too soon for his comfort. The hon. member for South Wellington first of all entered a bitter complaint against the shortness of the speech of the right hon. the leader of the Government. He declared this subject was of such vast consequence, not only to the western farmers but to the whole Dominion, that it was nothing short of an insult to the mover of the resolution to dismiss it in a fifteen minute speech. But he got past that argument and forgot his initial position. Later on he complained that the speech of the right hon. the leader of the Government was too long altogether, and that if he had stopped as soon as he had stated that the position of the Government was one of reserve, waiting for the proper time in this as in other matters, then he would have found no fault with the right hon. gentleman at all. That is just where the right hon. the leader of the Government did stop. The Prime Minister made no pronouncement whatever on the merits of the resolution as affecting the tariff. He stopped just where the hon. member for South Wellington said he should have stopped. In the course of the speeches of hon. gentlemen opposite I have observed: it was complained of very bitterly by the member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) and was followed, rather to my astonishment by the hon. member for Red Deer, who cannot often be charged with lack of information, although he can sometimes be charged with a lack of logic -that now that the American tariff was removed on implements we were not setting about to remove our tariff as well. He said: ' It is true, in 1911 we had an election in this country and the country at that time rebuked the late Government when they set about to reduce the tariff by two and a half per cent, and the Conservative party made a successful appeal to the country notwithstanding the attitude of the Government with regard to reciprocity, but at that time there was an 
American tariff on implements, which made all the difference in the world.' Expressing it more forcibly as he can do, the hon. member for Red Deer said: 'That is the crucial point, the whole thing turns on that; we have now a slaughter market across the line; in 1911 we were without this slaughter market.' Has the hon. member for Red Deer forgotten that at the very time the reciprocity treaty was being negotiated there was a clause in the American tariff providing that if we threw down our tariff we should get their slaughter market? The countervailing clause stated, that if, at any time, we put implements on the free list their implements went on the free list automatically. So that the American market was open to us in 1911, just the same as now.


Michael Clark: Had the Americans not a duty on implements then?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, but my hon. friend understands what a countervailing clause is. He understands it, at all events, when talking about free wheat. Why cannot he understand it when talking about free implements? The Minister of Finance of that day stated in the House that our representatives in the reciprocity negotiations were offered free entry for our implements into the United States if we allowed implements free into Canada. I can appeal with some confidence to the hon. member for Red Deer, now that he sees that the whole bottom is out of his case.


Michael Clark: I must really object to my hon. friend putting words into my mouth. I did not say anything of the kind.


Arthur Meighen: No one is so blind as he who will not see.


Michael Clark: That is a different statement from what you made a minute ago.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman sees, if he will do justice to his intelligence, that the late Government were in a position to get the American market just as free as it is to-day to this Government. So that the position of the two cases is exactly the same. It is not only analogous but it is exactly alike.


Michael Clark: I am sure that my hon. friend does not want to misrepresent me. I took these two positions: one is that we have a slaughter market in the United States. I compared that position with the time when, for years, my hon. friend and his friends used the argument that we could not reduce duties on

this side because we should be made a slaughter market by the Americans. The difference between then and now must be obvious to any one who wants to approach the question with anything but the hairsplitting ability for which my hon. friend is so famous.


Arthur Meighen: Then and now! The then that the hon. gentleman spoke of was two years ago, when the reciprocity campaign was on.


Michael Clark: No


Arthur Meighen: Yes; and he told us that what we got votes upon was the slaughter market in Canada being open to the United States.


Michael Clark: I must correct my hon. friend. I said distinctly that for years and years that was the hon. gentleman's argument, and I did not mean to confine my statement to the last general election. If the hon. gentleman does not wish to be unfair he will accept my statement.


Arthur Meighen: I do not wish to be unfair. Perhaps I should be satisfied now that the hon. gentleman has admitted that two years ago the opportunities of the late Government were just exactly the same as the opportunities of this Government today.


Michael Clark: 
Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman will not admit that?


Michael Clark: The position is not the same; .the duties are gone in the United States.


Arthur Meighen: The duties are gone, but they tried to get them gone two years ago; so it is just exactly what this Government is asked to do to-day.


Michael Clark: Well, take the opportunity then.


Arthur Meighen: So the hon. gentleman does admit it, and he will be prepared to castigate his leader just as severely as he will castigate the leader of the present Government if the leader of the present Government does not accede to the resolution, or to its effect, when the proper time comes. The conversion of hon. gentlemen opposite is a most striking tribute to somebody. I would not like to take it to myself, although they have done me the honour of quoting very freely from my speech of January, 1911. The conversion of hon. gentlemen opposite is one of the
most striking things in their history, and that is saying quite a lot. The hon. gentle-man says that there has been an advance in the Liberal party. I know that he believes that. He is preaching the gospel of free trade, and he is in earnest. I have no doubt that he believes it is somewhat due to his own missionary work and proselytism that this great advance has taken place. I congratulate the hon. member for Red Deer on the disciples around him who appear to be multiplying very rapidly. But while I offer him my congratulations let me also give him this little word of warning that if he should ever live-and I doubt very much his capacity to do so-until his friends around him are again in power in Canada, he will find a very material defection from the ranks of the free-traders. He will find his hopes dashed to the ground very suddenly as the hopes of all who professed to believe in his principles were dashed very suddenly in 1896. In 1911, just two years ago, or a little more, not only did hon. gentlemen opposite refuse the offer of the United States to allow our implements into their country free if we would allow theirs into this country, but they refused it, because, in the words of the Finance Minister, responsible for the tariff policy, it would be doing an injustice to the implement manufacturers of Canada. They refused it because it would not be consistent with the protective principle which they followed but refused to profess. Now they are free traders on agricultural implements. But worse than that; in reducing binders and mowers from 174 per cent to 15 per cent, in reducing many other implements from 20 to 15 per cent, and others from 25 to 20 per cent, and in leaving traction engines and threshing machines exactly where they were, not only did they say they were doing that but that was all they would do, and that they had no intention in the future of going any farther. The hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) knows what I am coming at now. I can see it in his face. He is the hon. gentleman who said this in a speech in Woodstock quoted in the Toronto Globe of the 4th March, and not one word of which he will deny to-night.


Mr. NESBITT:: Let us hear it.


Arthur Meighen: He could not see that the manufacturers would he touched very much, as few articles manufactured in Canada were affected. He was sure the Bain and Woodstock wagon companies would compete in the world's markets even with 2J per cent reduction in the tariff.

He thought the manufacturers opposed reciprocity because of what might follow, the ' thin end of the wedge but he had been assured by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. Fielding that nothing of the sort would follow. They had gone as far in the farmers' interests as they would.
The right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) is in the House, and I know that he will not repudiate the statement then made by the hon. member for North Oxford, because when it was .attributed to the hon. member for North Oxford on the floor of the House, ' Hansard,' page 5742, the hon. gentleman, who was then the leader of the Government, now the leader of the Opposition, made this statement:
The statement made by the hon. member for North-Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) was quite consistent with our policy, it was nothing new, and he had perfect authority, not only he but every member of the Liberal side, to make that statement.
Mr, Foster:	Did the Prime Minister and
the Minister of Finance authorize the member in question to make that statement?
Sir Wilfrid Laurier:	I have answered that
already. It is perfectly true. The hon. member for North Oxford and every Liberal member had such authority, he was not kept in ignorance of our policy in this matter and knew it well. He only stated what is our general policy.
If the declarations of the hon. member for Moosejaw and the hon. member for Red Deer are correct that the Liberal party in the House of Commons are unanimous, now that they are in Opposition, that we should sweep the whole duty off agricultural implements, are they quite consistent with the statement of the right hon. leader of the party two years ago? Two years ago he warned the people of this country in most pronounced terms that it should not be regarded as the thin end of the wedge if they took 24 per cent of the duty off implements. It was not the thin end of the wedge but the whole wedge because they had no intention whatever of going any further. However, my hon. friend from Red Deer is surely to be congratulated that he has persuaded his leader, the hon. member for North Oxford and other hon members of the Liberal party, that they were entirely wrong in 1911, that they did not know anything about the real virtue of free trade but that now that he has opened their eyes they can, after two years of irresponsibility, advocate absolute free trade in agricultural implements.
My hon. friend from Red Deer seems to be of the opinion that there have been emissaries down here from the implement manufacturers persuading the Government not to dare to touch the duty on imple-[Mr. MeiffhenJ
ments. In that, he seems to have different information from the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), who took the ground that none of the implement manufacturers would dare to ask for anything except what they were granted; that nobody, either among the manufacturers or farmers was asking for anything else, and therefore he urged upon this Government the great popularity of the move they would make if they only accepted the resolution of the hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles). I do not know whether the hon. member for South Wellington is correct, or whether the hon. member for Red Deer is correct-they are each at opposite ends of the tether-but I have not seen anybody down here interviewing the Government.
I have seen an hon. gentleman hovering around, who was a prominent Liberal in the constituency of North Waterloo, and I ' rather -suspected his purpose was to try and convert hon. gentlemen opposite to his views on tariff matters. I do not know what his effect on hon. gentlemen opposite was, but he was down here, and ;so far as I know he was the only -one who was here. But this Government takes the ground that they are here representing, not one class but all of the great interests of this country. Be they the farmers, be they the manufacturers, or be they anybody else, they are at liberty to see this Government and to present th-eir views, and fair and just treatment will be meted out to them. The country is in the position of knowing now what is the talisman, what is the guide, that will determine the course of this Government. Th-e country also knows that were hon. gentlemen opposite to be returned to power, no man could discern and no man could describe the principles that would govern them. The hon. member for Moosejaw, when he was on his feet, when challenged to say what system of tariff was put into effect toy the Liberal party, refused 'to answer the challenge. He was asked by the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) if he would kindly tell the House what system of tariff was put into effect by Sir Wilfrid Laurier when he came into power, and his answer was that he thought * it was the duty of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Middldbro) not to interrupt. And so, I say, the country has the advantage now of knowing what the principle is that is going to govern it, and I believe the people will say that that principle will be fairly applied in justice to all concerned.

It was the Conservative party, and not the Liberal party, that effected the greatest reduction in the duty on agricultural implements. The progenitors of hon. gentlemen opposite, if I may use the expression, when in power 1873 to 1878, established a tariff of 171 per cent, and decided that that was the lowest they could go, in justice to the revenue; but hon. gentlemen opposite now think they can go to nothing and still do full justice to the revenue. That tariff of the Mackenzie Government was raised under the national policy until at became virtually a tariff of 35 per cent, but two years before the Conservative party went out, in 1896, it was reduced to twenty per cent. Let me remind the House that in the whole course of fifteen years of power, hon. gentlemen opposite succeeded only in shaving two and a half per cent off these duties. They never shaved a cent off until they had ibeen in power for eleven years, and they did that, notwithstanding the advocacy of individual members, because individual members may hold different views as to the application of a principle. They continued the duty for eleven years, notwithstanding the pledged word of a man, most specifically made, who was a member of the Government practically throughout these eleven years, and who stood on the platforms in western Canada and pronounced himself in favour of, and promised solemnly to the people: free coal oil, free agricultural implements, free clothing, and free many other things. He particularly specified agricultural implements, and never ceased to specify them, and on the placards that covered the bill-boards thro agh-out his constituency, yes and throughout the province, he endorsed the promise to the people of that province that they should have free agricultural implements. Notwithstanding all that, hon. gentlemen opposite maintained the duty exactly as it was, for eleven years after they came into office. So that it will be received with very little concern by the people of Canada to-day, just what these gentlemen opposite promise now, two short years after they have been hurled from power.
I think the people of Canada will believe that they can look forward with more confidence and with more certainty, to w'hat will be done in tariff matters by a Government whose prinicples they know, rather than by a band of politicians, composed partly of long-distance free traders, and partly of mushroom protectionists.


Hon. FRANK OLIVER:: I wish to say a word, not altogether in reply to what the Solicitor-General has said, because I think we have had the good fortune to listen to him at his very best, in that he has been able to talk for thirty-five minutes and not say anything, thus carrying out to its proper conclusion the closure announcement made by the Prime Minister, when he spoke before six o'oclock. We are interested, of course, in the constitutional aspect of the proceedings now before the House. There is a saying that loyalty is the last refuge of scoundrels, and it seems to me that the constitution is the last refuge of our friends on the other side. Whenever they are in particular trouble, they at once take refuge in the constitution, and when a great question is brought up for the consideration of this House-and I take it that the purpose for which this House is created is for the discussion and consideration of great questions and decision thereon- when a great question is brought before the House for its consideration, in a manner entirely in accord with the rules of the House, the Solicitor General sprains his thinker in explaining that there is some infraction of the constitution in the course that is being taken; and that in fact, these gentlemen who were elected to support the hon. gentleman are not at liberty to think or speak or pronounce their judgment on that question; that they must not say anything; that they must- not have anything to say-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: And that they must not think.


Frank Oliver: Or, that they must keep
their thinks to themselves. I take issue, and I think all on this side will take issue with the Solicitor General and his leader on that point. We believe that the purpose of Parliament is that the representatives of the people of Canada met here shall consider these matters that are of most interest to the people of Canada, according to the rules of this House. And, if the matter is to be argued later on, I think my hon. friends opposite will find that it is a very poor defence, in excusing themselves for voting against the interests of the people of Canada, when the vote is taken, that they have followed the direction of the Prime Minister and of the Solicitor General.
After dealing with the poor old constitution, the Solicitor General next impugned the motives of gentlemen on this side of the House-he mentioned particularly, I think, the member for Moosejaw who moved the resolution-and he suggested that the leader

of the Opposition was out of the House because he did not wish to have a part in the consideration of the question. I think my hon. friend sized himself up when he made that suggestion. He has made some explanation to the House in regard to what other members have said on the question of. the duties on agricultural implements. He has not had so much to say in regard to what he himself said. And, after all, it does not matter so much what he said as what he did. In January, 1911, he moved a resolution in this House, and supported it with, I must say, a very able and well-reasoned speech in favour of reducing the duties on agricultural implements-I do not suppose he will deny that that was the purport of his resolution and the logical sequence of his speech. But when the opportunity came to him in 1911 to vote in favour of a reduction in the duty on agricultural implements, he voted against it. I presume that his action in 1911 will concur with his action in 1914. But if it does not, he is even then only following his own record. He has been challenged here this evening, he and his friends on the other side, on the point that his speech on agricultural implements and the adherence given to those remarks by his friends on that side secured their election' in a number of cases. It will be for us to judge as to their sincerity when the Budget is brought down. Whoever else may challenge the motives of speakers on this side of the House in regard to the duty on agricultural implements, I submit it is not for my hon. friend to do so.
He suggested that the members on this side had made a sudden conversion to the idea of lower duties or the abolition of duties on agricultural implements. Is the Government that we have in power to-day a Government that takes no account of conditions as they exist or conditions as they change? Is it to be really a Tory Government, one that stands by what is because it was and takes no Tegard of conditions as they change for better or for worse? What matters it to the country to-day what the Liberal party did in 1911? What the country wants to know is what the Conservative party is going to do in 1914. There were certain conditions existing in Canada in 1911 which conditions are absolutely reversed in 1914. Let the Liberal party be right or wrong in what it did then, the question is, what is the Government of the day doing to meet the conditions as they exist to-day which conditions are so radi-fMr. Oliver. ]
ealty different from what they were in 1911 and are of a character startling to anybody but a Government which, apparently, believes that the whole duty of a Government is to collect taxes and spend them.
The hour is la.te, but still I hope I may be pardoned if I occupy a few minutes in drawing the attention of the House to the change of conditions to which I allude, in which change consists the urgency of the case, and which, I think, I shall be able to impress upon the country if not upon the members of the Government. It has been said here already that the agricultural industry is the great industry of Canada. I may say that the agricultural industry of Canada is chiefly located to the three Prairie provinces.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


Frank Oliver: Well, I will say that at any rate. And I do not think my hon. friends, if they consider the matter for a moment, will contradict the position, In these Prairie provinces we have disposed of 154,000,000 acres of land, the greater part of it having been selected because of its fertility and suitability for cultivation-an area greater than that of the Empire of Germany, nearly as great as that of the Empire of Austria, equal to that of the Republic of France. Out of that stupendous area, 17,500,000 acres was in cultivation in 1911. In 1901, the area under cultivation was 2,500,000, and the increase of the area under cultivation from 2,500,000 acres in 1901 to 17,500,000 acres in 1911 is what has created the condition of advancement that did exist throughout Canada in the year 1911. The crop of 466,000,000 bushels of grain last year, worth, according to the statement of the Bank of Commerce, $180,000,000, constitutes the agricultural industry of the western provinces-I speak of the grain-growing merely-by far the largest factor in the creation of wealth in this Dominion of Canada. It is because of the rapid increase in the creation of that wealth during the ten years from 1901 to 1911 that Canada has achieved the position that she has achieved, commercially, industrially, financially, and in other ways.


Mr. SMITH:: How much has Canada increased industrially ?


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend will excuse me; just at the moment I have not all the figures he requires under my hand, but I am giving the figures as to the increase of agricultural production in the period that I have mentioned. I say that

that production could not exist; that wealth could not be created, without its having an enormous effect upon the general welfare, prosperity and progress of the country. We had, I say,	a production
of $184,000,000 worth in the prairie provinces last year-occupying only 12 per cent of the area of land that we have disposed of for development. There are, therefore, before the Dominion of Canada the possibilities that would necessarily and naturally flow from the continuation of cultivation until the whole 150,000,000 acres is occupied and improved. There is the possibility of making Canada as great in population or in wealth as any of the great countries of Europe, with their forty, fifty and sixty millions of people and their hundreds of millions of dollars of wealth. But in order to do that we must have continued increase in that cultivation, and in order to have continued increase in cultivation there must be profit to the producer from that cultivation. From the year 1911 to the present time, because of a lack of profit to the producer, the area of production has been decreasing. The demand for land has gone down, and this country is face to face with a condition not of expansion but of contraction. It means that this whole country stands in danger of commercial paralysis because of the failure of the crop of the prairies to give a profit to the producer.
Up to a certain point the price of wheat was rising on the world's markets; since 1910 the price of wheat has been going down on the world's markets. This Government cannot control the world's markets, but it can take measures to reduce the costs of production and transportation, thereby securing a measure of profit where otherwise no profit would exist. To reduce the cost of production it is proposed to reduce the cost of the implements with which the production is secured, and it is because there is an urgent necessity in the interests of the whole Dominion of Canada that this cost of production shall be brought down so that a profit may accrue to the producer, that the proposal to abolish the duties on agricultural implements is placed before Parliament. There is only one market for the surplus wheat of the world: in Great Britain, Germany, and some of the smaller European countries. To fill that marfcet there aTe the exporting countries, amongst which are Argentina and Australia, where the conditions are similar to those in our own prairie' west,
and where vast areas, just as vast as ours and measurably as productive, await development. If we are not prepared to produce from our western plains at a rate that will enable us to reach the European market in competition with Australia and the Argentine, not to mention the rest of the world, Australia and the Argentine will develop and Canada will stand still, just as Canada stood still under the policy of high tariff from 1884 until 1896. Our homestead entries have gone down; they were 10,000 less in the year ended March 31, 1913, than they were in the year ended March 31, 1911. Land sales have gone down from 19,000,000 acres in 1911 to 9,000,000 acres in 1913. That is a matter that will interest even my friend the Minister of Finance and those who are associated with him. The security for their money is being depreciated by present conditions. There must be a policy of taking the burdens off the farmers' backs or they cannot produce at a profit, and if they cannot produce at a profit they cannot produce at all, and this whole country of Canada loses that vitality that has flowed through it from those prairies during the	ten
years of which I	speak,	and the
consequence must be stagnation such as we had in Canada in those former years. The idea seems to have been that because the country was settling up rapidly, because production was increasing rapidly, that therefore the farmer was getting rich, and everybody was in line to take a bite out of him. It was not only the agricultural implement dealers. The farmer of the West has to buy a large part of the food that he uses. Although he raises wheat he has to buy flour. Fruit he does not raise, and therefore he has to buy it in whatever form he can get it. It may interest some of our friends to know that as a result of a break in the price of canned goods prices have come down so that tomatoes, which sold last year at fifteen and twelve and a half cents per can, are now sold for ten cents or three cans for a quarter. Peas, which sold last year for twelve and a half, fifteen and twenty cents, are to-day sold at fifteen cents for first quality, and three for twenty-five cents for second. The prices have gone down this year, but the prices were up last year as a result of the operations of the canners' combine, and have been a. load to be carried by the farmer of the West, increasing the cost of his living and decreasing the profit of his operations.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Are you finding fault with the price of canned goods this year?


Frank Oliver: I am finding fault with
the prices to which my hon. friend put them up last year and the previous year; and we do not thank him for their being lower this year; they are lower because he cannot help it.


William Smith: Why?


Frank Oliver: I cannot say why, I am only saying that it is the case that he cannot help it.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Have crop conditions got anything to do with it?


Frank Oliver: I do not know.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: You do not know anything about what you are talking about.


Frank Oliver: The crop conditions had nothing to do with the prices the previous year.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I think they had all to do with them.


Frank Oliver: Then we disagree. It was the fact that the hon. gentleman and his friends formed a merger of the canneries of Ontario, they had watered the stock and were intent upon earning a dividend on that watered stock and the farmers in the West had to pay the price. The reason the prices are lower this year is because the independent canners have
1 a.m.	bucked the combine.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Take the duties off and they will go down further still.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I may inform the hon.
gentleman that we are selling canned goods to the United States.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Then you would be willing to take the duty off?


Francis Ramsey Lalor: He says that the combine is robbing the people of the West, and I tell him that we are shipping to the United States.


Frank Oliver: They certainly have been robbing the people of the West, and I say that if they are not doing that now it is because their power was broken by the independent canners, according to the authority I have here. But it is not only in the West that this condition exists. I have here an article by a gentleman whose word will not be questioned as being an expert in the matter. Mr. J. W. Elavelle, has been enlightening the people of Canada in regard

to matters concerning food, and I am sure everybody will agree that nobody knows more about it than Mr. Flavelle. In the course of a long article he says:
The census of 1911 as compared with that of 1901 shows that there was a decline of 96,000 in the number living upon the farms in this province.
It is not only in the western provinces that the agricultural conditions have been unfavourable; they have been correspondingly unfavourable in the eastern provinces. There are fewer people on the land in the province of Ontario to-day than there were ten years ago, according to Mr. Flavelle.
Mr. WM. SMITH: Bead the whole of it.


Frank Oliver: We have not time. It is all very interesting and I recommend my hon. friend to read it. It is published in Saturday Night of February 28.


William Smith: Bead the whole of it.


Frank Oliver: I was pointing out that a condition which affects the welfare of this whole country is imminent and calling for legislative action without delay; that action is necessary in the interests, not of the western farmer but in the interests of this whole country; that the condition to-day is absolutely reversed from what it was in 1911. Up to that time we had a continual increase in cultivation, in settlement, in homestead entries, in everything that related to the progress of the country. Since that day we had a continual decrease in cultivation, in homestead entries, in values of land. Is the Government not going to recognize that condition? Are they not going to recognize the necessity of reducing the cost of production in the West, and in the East as well, by any and every means that lie to their hand. Instead of giving interesting disquisitions in regard to the shortcomings of members on this side of the House, it is in order for our hon. friends to busy their minds with the necessities of the country and to make provision for meeting those necessities. It is no doubt of great interest that Mr. So and So on the Liberal side said such and such a thing at such and such a time, but it is very much more interesting to know that the members of the Government and the members who sit behind them have a just appreciation of the facts and conditions as they are, and are prepared to take adequate measures to meet those conditions. And before leaving this, let me suggest that to read an extract from the remarks made in the House by an hon. gentleman may or may not convey a correct

impression of the ideas which he was giving to the House at the time. It depends upon how the extract is taken out.


Arthur Meighen: Has that any special
reference?


Frank Oliver: It has a very special reference to the suggestions that my hon. friend was putting before the House tonight in regard to the remarks that he read from speeches made on previous occasions, and to his remarks in regard to the action or inaction of the Liberal Government in regard to reduction of duty at the time of the reciprocity agreement.


Arthur Meighen: What did I leave out?


Frank Oliver: The reciprocity agreement covered a vast field of interest and endeavour, and when my hon. friend takes one particular item and says you did not do so -and so in regard to that it is true we did not, but we were doing something else in regard to other matters. We were giving a free market in the United States to the Canadian producer for everything that he raised. I am not so sure, if my hon. friend would make that arrangement for us to-day, that we would not accept a moderate reduction in the duty on agricultural implements. But the trouble is my hon. friend will not give us the market for our products, and I am afraid he will not give us a reduction on implements either. We have no apology to offer for the reciprocity agreement in any particular. It was an arrangement intended to meet conditions as they then were, in regard to markets for our western producers and in regard to the cost of living to the people of Canada. It is true that at that time those questions were not so pressing as they are to-day but they were in sight, and the Government of that day proposed to deal with them. It is not a question of prospect to-day, the problems are here, facing us, and demanding the attention of the Government; and I say that the electors of this country will not clear the Government of responsibility because of clever suggestions and quotations by my hon. friend or his leader. They have a responsibility, they have to provide for the welfare of this country, and the shortcomings or faults of their predecessors have nothing to do with the case. They have a responsibility and an opportunity and they will be judged on how .they discharge that responsibility and how they take advantage of that opportunity, and not on what they say about us.


William Henry White: I propose to bring some matters to the attention of the Government which have not yet been touched upon. I did not have an opportunity to speak when the question of free wheat was being discussed, but I do not propose to let this opportunity pass. As this question is of great importance I think it is up to every western member to state where he stands on this matter of protection. I was surprised to hear the Prime Minister complain that this question bad been brought in, in the manner it was, but I can remember, and you can remember, Mr. Speaker, that in the year 1910, just before what was described as ' The Invasion ' of Ottawa by the western representatives and the organized farmers, you yourself, Sir, brought in a resolution which will be found on page 1196, asking for the same thing that the western delegation came here to secure. You brought in a resolution asking that something be done towards establishing cold storages and other things. The Prime Minister complains that this resolution has been brought in before the Budget, but that resolution to which I referred was brought in on the 13th December, many months before the Budget was brought down.


Mr. WILCOX:: What has that to do with the tariff?


William Henry White: If my hon. friend will wait I will tell him. The Prime Minister complains that the resolution of my hon. friend from Moosejaw has been brought in before the Budget. I -say that the hon. gentleman who is now the Speaker of the House brought in a resolution in advance of the presentation of the Budget and that it was supported by the present Prime Minister, then leader of the Opposition. He voted in favour of that resolution which was brought in many months prior to the bringing down of the Budget by the Government of the day. I am not going to argue as to the merits or demerits of the resolution which was then brought in by the hon. member for North Grey but I will say that there is nothing irregular about the resolution brought in by my hon. friend from Moose-jaw. Keeping in mind other resolutions which have been brought to the notice of the House, and which have been promised consideration by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. White) on behalf of tne Government, I think that every hon. member representing an agricultural constituency in this House has a good reason for supporting the resolution brought in by my

hon. friend from Moosejaw. The western farmers, and I am a western farmer, have been advised by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) that he should go into mixed farming. This resolution has a good deal to do with going into mixed farming. Every man who knows anything about it must know that wheat farming and mixed farming are almost two different occupations. A wheat farmer can get along with 160 acres of land and one wagon, whereas if he is a mixed farmer, he will probably use two wagons. This necessitates an increase in his expenditure and the matter of duties is one of very great concern to him. The duty is 25 per cent on wagons and if a man is obliged to buy two wagons instead of one because of the extra amount of hauling that will be necessary in the feeding of cattle, it will cost him an extra $40 instead of $20. The Minister of Trade and Commerce tells us that we are ruining the land, that we should go into mixed farming and that we should fertilize the land by putting more cattle upon it. The man who embarks upon mixed farming would require to purchase a manure-spreader, a very expensive implement which, under the tariff, pays a duty of 20 per cent. It costs in our country about $200. There is $40 of an outlay that has to be made by the mixed farmer that the wheat farmer is not called upon to make. Therefore, if we follow the advice of the Minister of Trade and Commerce we have to purchase an extra wagon and a manure-spreader. If the advice of that hon. gentleman is good we will have to put stock upon the land which will produce fertilizer and that naturally will necessitate a machine to distribute that fertilizer.
The difference in the price of a wagon manufactured in Canada and one manufactured in the United States is about $35. Those who have had experience in the matter find that it is better to pay $105 for an American wagon than to pay $85 for a Canadian wagon. The Canadian wagon makers do not attempt to come up to the American standard at all. They put a cheap wagon on the market and the lower price attracts a good many purchasers, the workmanship is as good in one as it is in the other, but the material in the Canadian wagon is not as good as that in the American wagon notwithstanding the fact, as was pointed out by my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), that the wood used in the manufacture of this wagon 
comes in duty free. The Canadian manufacturer takes advantage of the tariff which enables him to manufacture a cheaper article and one which he can sell for $85. The two wagons are the same as far as the layman may be able to judge but while one sells for $85 the other is sold for $105. Tne American wagon at $105 is the better of the two. I have had both of these wagons on my farm. I do not wish to name any particular make of wagon but I have found that it is cheaper to buy a wagon at $105 than to buy a wagon of Canadian manufacture at $85. Therefore, if we adopt the advice of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and go into mixed farming it necessitates the purchase of another wagon which will cost us from $20 to $25 extra on account of duty. Then, as I have said, a manure-spreader costs about $200 in our country and the duty on. a manure-spreader is 20 per cent. Therefore, the farmer who takes the advice of the Government of the day will have to pay $40 or more in order that the Canadian implement manufacturers may be protected. I am told by American citizens that they can buy a manure spreader in the United States for from $50 to $60 less than we have to pay for the same implement in Canada. If we are to take the advice of hon. gentlemen opposite as a panacea for the troubles and hardships that we have to encounter in the West we will have to pay out $50 or $60 for the protection of the manufacturers of Canada in addition to what we would have to pay if the proposition of my hon. friend from Moosejaw were adopted.
A lot of money has been expended on agricultural education since this Government came into power, and in sending out their pamphlets from the Department of Agriculture, they have recommended the use of packers in western Canada, but packers cost to-day in Canada $60 more than they cost in the United States. Here are three articles required in mixed farming: wagons, manure spreaders, and packers; and why should the Canadian farmer have to pay to-day so much more for these implements than he would have to pay in the United States? During the reciprocity debate in 1911, it was a strong argument of the Conservatives that whether reciprocity came into force or not it would make no difference in the price of farm machinery, because the American combines would force the prices up. About the only election pamphlets that were sent out in Alberta, contained a statement from the Hon.

Clifford Sifton that if reciprocity came into force we would become the back yard of Chicago, and he stated that if we were to take the duty off farming implements we would get into the clutches of the American combine, and would have to pay more for them than we do at the present time. The same argument was used by these gentlemen with regard to the duty on cattle going into the United States, but when the duty on cattle was removed by the Americans, the farmers of the West got a bigger price for their cattle by at least $10 per head. I take the following statement from the Calgary Herald, a well-known Conservative organ, which ought to be accepted as an authority by gentlemen on the other side:
Alberta's Cattle Trade.
The total number of live stock handled by the railways last year in Alberta was 634,400 head, in 1912 it was 401,500 and in 1905 it was only 164,000. Only once has the number of cattle shipped in Alberta last year been eclipsed, estimates the Calgary Herald-namely, in 1910, when 158,000 was total against the 153,150 of 1913. The following is a summary of Alberta live stock exports for the year 1913 :
Shipped to Winnipeg and the east.. ..	3,300
Shipped to British Columbia	51,150
Shipped to United States	 5,950
Total	 60,400
Local consumption	 65,000
Moved from summer to winter feeding
grounds	 27,250
Total shipped by railway companies. .153,150 Value of shipments.
British Columbia, 51,150 head at $81.$ 4,143,150 Winnipeg and east, 3,300 head at $81.	267,300
United States, 5,950 head at $91. . . .	541,450
Total shipped out of the province. .$ 4,951,900 Local consumption, 65,500 head at
$68	 4,454,000
Total value to farmers and ranchers	$ 9,405,900
Value of hogs and sheep.
275.000	hogs at $15 per head	$ 4,125,000175.000	sheep at $15 per head. . . .	875,000Total	$ 5,000,000*Grand total	$14,405,900
We were told by the Conservatives during the campaign in 1911 that if our cattle were allowed free into the United States markets it would not increase the price to the farmers, but here we find from the figures published in a newspaper friendly to the Government, that the cattle sent from Alberta to the United States brought
ten dollars a head more than the cattle sent to British Columbia and to Winnipeg.


Oliver James Wilcox: Why didn't they all go to the United States P


William Henry White: I will tell you why: it is because the removal of the American duty on cattle did not come into force until near the end of the year, and if it had come into force before, the prices of Alberta cattle in Winnipeg and British Columbia would have been $91 a head instead of $81.
I believe that the statements we on this side of the House make to-night to the effect that if the duty is taken off agricultural implements they will be purchased at a lower price by the western farmer than they can be purchased to-day, will be as true as the statement we made in the campaign of 1911 that if the duty were removed on cattle going into the United States, and if reciprocity came into force, our farmers in the West would realize higher prices on their cattle. I know men in the West who have friends coming from eastern Canada and from the eastern States, who are buying their machinery in eastern Canada and using it for a certain length of time there, and then shipping it to the West, and making considerable money on the transaction. There are a lot of small implements used on the farm that people from the United States settling in the West find it more profitable to buy in the United States even though they have to pay the duty. Speaking as a western farmer, I submit to the House that if we have to compete in the world's market to find buyers for what we produce, it is up to us to start fair in the matter of production. Everybody knows that agricultural implements in the United States are cheaper by just the amount of the duty. If it were not for the duty our American friends who are settling on the prairies to-day would send to the United States for 'their agricultural machinery. It has been shown here to-night that the Canadian manufacturer is able to compete m foreign markets, and that being so, he should certainly be able to compete at home. This Parliament has no right to take the money of the farmers whose industry has been rightly described as the foundation of the economic structure of the country, to bonus others who are engaged in a business which everybody knows to be more profitable than farming on the plains. The Government knows the facts as well as we do, and I think there is nothing to add to what has been already been said.

House divided	on the proposed amendment of Mr. Knowles.
 YEAS: Messieurs	
Boivin,	McCraney,
Bourassa,	McMillan,
Buchanan,	Marcile (Bagot),
Cardin,	Michaud,
Champagne,	Molloy,
Clark (Red Deer), Nesbitt,	
Cruise,	Neely,
Delisle,	Oliver,
Emmerson,	Pacaud,
Ethier,	Papineau,
Fortier,	Power,
Gauvreau,	Proulx,
Hughes	Reid (Restigouche),
(Kings, P.E.I.),	Seguin,
Knowles,	Sinclair,
Kyte,	Thomson
Lachance,	(Qu'Appelle),
Lafortune,	Tobin,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Truax,	
Law,	Verville,
Lemieux,	War nock and
Maclean (Halifax), White (Victoria Alta.),	
MacNutt, McCoig,	-44.
 NAYS: Messieurs
Achim,	Lgsperance,
Alguire,	Lewis,
Armstrong (Lambton), McCurdy,	
Armstrong (York,	O.), McKay,
Arthurs,	McLean
Ball,	(Queens, P.E.I/),
Barnard,	Meighen,
Barrette,	Merner,
Bennett (Simcoe),	Middlebro,
Best,	Mondou,
Blain,	Morphy,
Blondin,	Morris,
Borden,	Morrison,
Boulay,	Nantel,
Bowman,	Nicholson,
Boyce,	Northrup,
Bradbury,	Paquet,
Broder,	Paul,
Burnham,	Pelletier,
Carrick,	Reid (Grenville), [DOT]
Clark (Bruce),	Robidoux,
Clarke (Wellington), Roche,	
Cockshutt,	SchafTner,
Coderre,	Sevigny,
Cromwell,	Sharpe (Lisgar),
Crothers,	Sharpe (Ontario),
Elliot,	Shepherd,
Fisher,	Smith,
Fripp,	Smyth,
Garland,	Stanfield,
Gauthier (Gaspe),	Steele,
Girard,	Stevens,
Glass,	Stewart (Hamilton),
Green,	Taylor,
Guilbault,	Thompson (Yukon),
Hanna,	Thornton,
Hartt,	Webster,
Hazen,	Weichel,
Henderson,	White (Leeds),
Hepburn,	Wilcox and
Lalor, , Lavall6e,	Wright-82. PAIRS:
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Rogers,	Pardee,
Chabot,	Beland,

Cochrane,
Kemp,
Lancaster,
Jameson,
Munson,
White (Renfrew). Ames,
Rainville,
Clements,
Hughes (Victoria), Nickle,
Foster (N. Toronto), Walker,
Bristol,
Wilson (Wentworth), Marshall,
Rhodes,
Fowler,
Bennett (Calgary), Forget,
Burrell,
Edwards,
Sutherland,
Brabazon,
Maedonnell,
McLeod,
Thoburn,
Beattie,
Tremain,
Doherty,
Stewart (Lunenburg), Baker,
Foster (Kings), Perley,
Rexsmith,
Aikins,
Clare,
Davidson,
Graham,
Robb,
Guthrie,
Pugsley,
Boyer,
Lanctot,
Turgeon,
Demers,
Lapointe
(Kamouraska),
Lovell,
Charlton,
Devlin,
Loggie,
Bickerdike,
Wilson (Laval),
Ross,
Macdonald,
McLean (Sunbury), Bureau,
Martin (St. Mary's), Douglas,
Gordon,
Clark (Essex), Brouillard,
German,
Carvell,
McRea,.
Richards,
Chisholm (Inverness), Marcil (Bonaventure). McKenzie,
Kay,
Carroll,
Murphy,
Martin (Regina), Turriff,
Cash,
Chisholm (Antigonish),


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am paired with the
hon. member for Ottawa. Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am paired with the hon. member for York, N.B. Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. CAROLL:: I am paired with the hon. member for Kings, N.S. Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. McCREA:: I am paired with the hon. member for North Lanark. Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: I am paired with the hon. Minister of Agriculture. Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


George Perry Graham: I am paired with the hon. Minister of Railways. Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. GERMAN:: I am said to be paired with the hon. member for South Toronto. Had I voted I would certainly have voted for the amendment, with pleasure.


Mr. DOHERTY:: I am paired with the hon. member for Bonaventure. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. PERLEY:: I am paired with the hon. member for Russell. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.
Amendment' negatived and main motion agreed to.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Borden, the House adjourned at 1.57 a.m. Thursday.
Thursday, March 12, 1914.