1914-04-20

APPOINTMENT OF MESSENGER.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that he had directed the Clerk of the House to lay upon the table his recommendation and the report to the clerk in connection with the proposed appointment of Mr. Herbert D. Throop as a permanent messenger in the Library of Parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 155, for the relief of Bertha Hetu.-Mr. Oliver.

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

Mr. CRUISE:: 1.	What is the name of the contractor for carrying the mails between Camperville and Winnipegosis, Manitoba?
2.	When was the contract let and at what rate per year?
3.	Were tenders called for? If so, what are the names of the tenderers and the amount of each tender?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1 and 2. M. Delaronde has been performing the service temporarily since the first of January last at $520 per annum.
3.	Tenders were invited for a permanent contract and the lowest tender has been accepted. The names of the tenderers and the amounts will be given when the contract has been signed.


NORTH RIVERSIDE POSTMASTER.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Has any request been made to the Postmaster General ashing for the dismissal of Charles McPherson, postmaster at North Riverside, Guysborough county, N.S.?
2.	If so, who made the request?
3.	Has an investigation been granted?
4.	Will an investigation be granted?
5.	If any complaint has been made against this postmaster, what is such complaint?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It was represented to the department that the postmaster had been appointed by the late Administration, after its defeat at the general election, and another person was recommended for the office. It was found, on inquiry, that the facts were as stated, and [DOT] the postmaster's appointment was, therefore, cancelled, and a new appointment made to the postmastership.


GRANTON AND ABERCROMBIE RURAL MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Has a petition been received for a rural mail delivery route from New Glasgow through Granton and Abercrombie, Pictou county?
2.	If so, has it been granted?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The matter is now under inquiry and until such is completed and the inspector's report is received, the department cannot say whether or not the petition will be granted.


HAGERSVILLE POSTMASTER.
[Stage Direction]
*Mr. LEMIEUX.
1.	Has the attention of the Postmaster General been called to the fact that the postmaster at Hagersville is said to be carrying on the business of the Regal Gas Company in the same room as the post Office?
2.	If so, what action has been taken?
Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Attention was called to the fact that the office of the Regal Natural Gas Company was located in the rear of the Hagersville post office, and the matter having been referred to the post office inspector, it has been ascertained that the business of the Gas Company is carried on, as stated, in the

rear of the post office, but that no postal business is conducted over the counter which is used for the Gas Company s business, nor is the Gas Company s business transacted through the post office wicket or the money order wicket of the post office; that a partition at one time between the postmaster's private office and the pool office proper was taken out some years ago in order to make more standing room in the outside lobby of the office. With reference to the postmaster conducting the business of the Regal Gas Company at his office, the inspector cannot find that the business of the post office is in any way interfered with, and the inspector points out that many postmasters are in the habit of conducting private business in their offices and that this is not objected to so long as the post . ffioe business is not interfered with.
2.	In view of this report the department decided to take no action in the matter.
railway freight rates.


*Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Has an application been made by the railway companies for each to appeal, before the Governor in Council, the recent decision rendered by the Railway Commission concerning freight rates?
2.	Is it the Intention of the Government to grant leave for this appeal?


Mr. FOSTER:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


STB. ANNE DBS MONTS WHARF.
*Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Has a contract been awarded for the construction of a wharf or landing pier at Ste. Anne des Monts county of Gaspg, Quebec?
2.	How many tenders were received?
3.	What are the names of the tenderers and the amount of the tender in each case?
4.	Who obtained the contract?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Three tenders, two regular and one irregular.
3.	Paul Raymond, Rimouski, Quebec, $99,785.70; John Burns, Ottawa, $112,000; J. B. Gallibois, Montmagny, $139,500.
4.	John Burns. The lowest tender was not accompanied with a security cheque and was subsequently withdrawn.


PATROL BOAT HUDSON.
Mr. EMMERSON:: 1.	Did the Marine and Fisheries Department operate in its service during the past season the SS. Hudson, in what waters was it employed and what was the nature of the services or work of said steamer?
2.	Who were employed as crew thereon during said season, and at what wages respectively?
3.	When was this vessel laid up for the winter, where and under whose charge, and at what cost for the winter?
4.	Were the members of the crew in whole or in part, discharged when the vessel went into winter quarters, or were they, or any of them retained on half pay during the winter months?
5.	Is it the intention of the department to place this vessel in commission during the present or coming season? If so, will the crew or any of them be re-engaged or continued?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes, off the east coast of New Brunswick. She was engaged in patrolling these waters to prevent violation of the fishery laws.
2.	Captain C. A. Goodwin, $75 per month; Engineer F. H. Rayworth, $75; Cook A. Arseneau, $60; Deckhand A. San del, $50; Deckhand L. Trenholm, $50; Deckhand C. Petipas, $50.
3.	On October 10, at Baie Verte, under the charge of Fishery Officer Robert Prescott, after she had been blocked up clear from ice danger. Cost of blocking her up* etc., was $42.
4.	All but the captain were discharged. His services were retained until a seized boat, which was taken by the Hudson, had been disposed of. He received half pay for December, but nothing since.
5.	Yes, after being converted into a gasolene boat. It has not yet been decided who will comprise the crew.


POULSEN WIRELESS SYSTEM.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: When is the Poulsen wireless system expected to be in operation?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Shortly.


ACME AND CARBON MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	Who has the contract for carrying the mail between Acme and Carbon, Alberta?
2.	Did he secure the contract by tender? If so, how many tenders were received, who were th'e tenderers and what was the amount of each tender?
3.	Does the individual who has the contract carry the mail himself, or did he sublet it? If so, to whom and at what figure?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Alexander Hay.
2.	The department arranged for a daily service over the whole route in July last. The former contractor asked $1,235.30 per annum, but an offer was made by Mr. Hay at $1,184.62. As this price was considered reasonable for a daily service of forty-

four miles, it was accepted without inviting public tenders.
3.	The department is not aware what arrangements the contractor has made for the performance of the service. He is allowed to employ competent couriers, but is fully responsible himself, and is being paid for the service.


GIASSON POST OFFICE.
Rodolphe Lemieux: X. Did the Postmaster General receive the following petition:
'Province of Quebec,
'The undersigned ratepayers of the parish of St. Aubert beg to inform the Honourable the Postmaster General:
'1. That they are residents of the district where a post office has been recently established bearing the name of Giasson.
'2. That they never asked for the establishment of that post office, which is not needed and rather handicaps the service;
'3. That it is much easier for all the residents to have their mail delivered and sent through the office known as the Church post office, because they often go to the village to transact their business;
'4. That on Sundays they, being obliged to call at that office to get their mail instead of getting it at the Church post office, coming from the religious service, are delayed for their return home, and it interferes at the same time with the circulation:
For the above reasons, the undersigned beg 't6 Honourable the Postmaster General to abolish that office and give them the advantage of getting their mail at the Church post office, 3-s they have always been doing up to now 'St. Aubert, March 16, 1914.
'Signed: Cyrias Dub6, Joseph Bernier, Joseph Gagnon, Omer Gagnon, Aubert Fournier Prudent Daigle, DesirS Daigle, Franeois Daigle, Auguste Dubd, Joseph DubS, Phileas DubS Honors Robichaud, Wilfrid Robichaud, Xavier Robichaud, Frangois Pelletier, J. B. Pelletier Amable Pelletier, Octave Picard and Joseph Picard.'
2. What decision minister?
has been arrived at by the


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Under consideration.


THREE RIVERS POST OFFICE.
Mr. BUREAU:: 1.	Who are the two men appointed in the Three Rivers post office to replace George Frigon and Auguste Cook?
2.	What salary are they getting?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Arthur Lamy and Elzear Trempe.
2.	$500 a year.


PHILLIPS GELINAS AND RAPHAEL LAJOIE.
Mr. BUREAU:: 1.	Were Phillipe Gelinas and Raphael Lajoie, employed on the St, Maurice river in connection 
with the boom service, granted leave of absence from their work by the Minister of Public Works or any of the officers of the department, between the first and the eighteenth davs of March, 1914?
2.	If so, on what ground was such leave granted?


Mr. ROGERS:: No.


GRAND' MERE SITE.
Mr. BUREAU:: 1.	(a) Has the balance of the purchase price of the Grand' Mere site for a public building been paid? If so, when? (b) If not, why not?
2.	Does this balance bear interest, or did it bear interest? If so, at what rate?
Ja'>
Are tllere any buildings on this site? (b) If so, are they rented, to whom, at what rent per month, and (c) who are the rents .collected by?
4.	Have any plans been prepared for this public building? If so, when? If not, why not?


Robert Rogers: - 1- (a) No; (b) title not yet complete.
2.	Yes, at 5 per cent.
3.	(a) Yes; (lb) yes, to N. Javalos, $40 a month; J. A. Carignan, $12; Dr. Collins, $15, and Win. Catto, $15; (c) rents collected by Mr. J. H. Desroches.
4.	Plans are being prepared.


LAPRAIRIE RETAINING WALL.
Mr. LANCTOT:: 1.	Has the contract for the retaining wall at Laprairie been signed by Messrs. Duranceau and Poupart?
2.	If so, what is the price of such contract?
3.	Is the contract awarded at so much for the whole, or at the rate of so much per fathom for the stone and so much per cubic yard of macadam?
4.	If so, what is the price per fathom and per cubic yard?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1. Yes.
2 and 3. Schedule of prices for material, approximately $70,000.
4.	Earth filling, 40 cents per cu. yd.; reinforced concrete, $10 per cu. yd.; stone riprap, $1.50 per sq. yd.; bed road, stone foundation, $1 per sq. yd.; roadway,, broken stone and gravel, 25 cents per sq. yd.


STEAM YACHT GUNHILDE.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Has the steam yacht Gunhilde been purchased by the Government at Victoria, B.C.?
2.	If so, from whom was she purchased and what sum was paid for her?
3.	When was she built, and where?
4.	What is her tonnage?
5.	In what service is she to be employed?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1. Yes.

2.	Mr. W. H. Price for $12,000.
3.	Built in 1906 at Quartermaster harbour.
4.	18-39 tons.
5.	Quarantine service.


ST. JOHN-IBERVILLE BRIDGE.
Mr. DEMERS:: Is it the intention of the Government to have, this year, a sum of $52,000 revoted, which sum has been voted and revoted at every session for several years, being a subsidy towards the construction of a bridge between the towns of St. John and Iberville, county of St. John and Iberville? If not, why?


Mr. REID:: It is not usual to indicate
the intention of the Government with respect to items of proposed expenditure before the Estimates are presented to Parliament.	1	1


GEORGE MENARD.
Mr. DEMERS:: 1.	Was Mr. George MSnard dismissed as caretaker of dredge No. 2 on Chambly canal? If so, when?
2.	Did his dismissal follow an investigation?
3.	At whose request was he dismissed, and for what reason?
4.	Has he been replaced? If so, by whom and on whose recommendation?
Mi-. REID: George Menard, caretaker of dredge No. 2, has not been dismissed.


UNOPPOSED AND UNDISCUSSED
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Lemieux.-For a copy of all claims against the contractor of the Tadoussac wharf, sent to the Department of Public Works, and of all correspondence and papers in connection with same.
Mr. Wm. Chisholm.-For a return showing all the post offices in the several counties in the province of Nova Scotia for which a rent allowance, or a rent, fuel and light allowance is made, specifying the amount of such allowance in each case.
Mr. Turriff.-For a copy of all correspondence in connection with the dismissal of A. C. Cameron, of Fairlight, Saskatchewan, from his position as mail contractor.
Mr. Buchanan.-For a copy of all letters, telegrams, documents, correspondence, agreements of sale, and transfers of title, in connection with ranges 21 and 22 in township 30, west of the fourth meridian.
Mr. Buchanan.

For a copy of the agreement between the Government of Canada and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company at the time the special land grant was made whereby the Canadian Pacific Railway Company were enabled to get their land grant in one block for the purpose of establishing their present irrigation system east of Calgary, province of Alberta.
Mr. E. Lapointe.-For a copy of all documents, correspondence, letters, petitions, reports, etc., exchanged between Dr. C. C. James, Mr. J. C. Chapais and each of the provincial Ministers of Agriculture, in connection with the distribution and the administration of the federal subsidy granted to the provinces for agricultural purposes since the granting of the same.
Mr. Macdonald.-For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other documents relating to the refusal of the Railway Department, or any official of the Intercolonial railway to permit employees of the railway at Moncton to attend the militia camp in the last year.
Mr. Graham.-For a copy of all correspondence between the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Justice, or any other member of the Government, and .any person or persons, relating to the location and erection of the new post office in the village of Eganville, county of Renfrew.
Mr. Lemieux.

For a copy vi all papers, petitions, letters and telegrams concerning the change of site of the post office at St. Lazare,
village, county of Bellechasse, Quebec.
Mr. Macdonald.-For a copy of all letters",-papers, contracts, memoranda and other documents relative to the mail contract between Pictou post office and railway station, between the Post Office Department and Peter Foley.
Mr. Macdonald.-For a copy of all letters, papers, tenders and other documents in regard to the purchase of any car for the Intercolonial railway during the years 1912 and 1913.
Mr. Buchanan.-For a copy of all documents, letters, telegrams, papers, Orders in Council and agreements of sale, in connection with the sale by the Government of Canada of the following lands in the railway belt in British Columbia, viz.: townships 23 and 24, range 18 ; townships 23 and 24, range 19; townships 24 and 25, range 20; townships 25, 26 and 27, range 21 ; townships 26 and 27, range 22, all west of the fifth meridian.
Mr. Neely.-For a copy of all correspondence, letters, documents or other papers relating to the cancellation of the entry of R. Banna-tyne for the northwest 1 of section 24, township 35, range 18, west of the 2nd meridian.
Mr. Sutherland.-For a return showing:
1.	The date of the incorporation of the Canadian National Bureau of Breeding, Limited, with the names, addresses and occupations of the charter members of said company.
2.	The amount of capital of the company and the number of shares into which it is divided.
3.	The number of shares taken from the commencement of the company up to the date of the return.
4.	The amount of calls made on each share, the total amount of calls received, the total amount of calls unpaid, and the total number of shares forfeited.
5.	The names, addresses and occupations of the persons who have ceased to be members within the twelve months next preceding, and the number of shares held by each of them.
6.	The amount of money paid to said company by the Government in each year since incorporation.
Mr. Sutherland.-For a return showing:
1.	The date of the incorporation of the National Live Stock Exchange.
2.	The names, addresses and occupations of the charter members of said company.
3.	The amount of capital of the company and the number of shares into which it is divided.
4.	The number of shares taken from the commencement of the company up to the date 0f the return.
[Stage Direction]
5.	The amount of calls made on each share, the total amount of calls received, the total amount of calls unpaid, and the total number of shares forfeited.
6.	The names, addresses and occupations of the persons who have ceased to be members within the twelve months next preceding, and the number of shares held by each of them.
Mr. Lachance.-For a return showing:
1.	Whether the rural postal delivery service has been started in the county of Quebec; if so, when and in what parishes of said county?
2.	Whether public tenders have been advertised for such service; if so, when, how many were received and from whom, the amount of each tender and what tender was accepted?
3.	The price of the accepted tender, the name of the tenderer, the conditions of payment and the length of the contract?

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Hon. W. T. White (Minister of Finance) for the House to go into Committee on Ways and Means, resumed from Friday, April 17.
Mr. 0. TURGEON (Gloucester):	Mr. Speaker, before making any criticism of the Budget Speech delivered by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. White) on the 6th day of this month, I wish first of all to congratulate the minister on the sincere and honest way in which he made his exposition of the financial affairs of this country. After years of increasing surpluses and expansion of trade in this country the hon. minister was confronted with months of depression which brought about a decrease in trade and an increase in the public debt, and he is to be congratulated upon not resorting to mathematics to cover up the actual state of affairs. He frankly told the country that the public debt had increased by nearly $20,000,000 during the last fiscal year.
He told us that the fiscal year 1912-13 was characterized by the greatest expansion of trade the Dominion had ever known, and that the revenue in that year had been increased by $32,581,686.09-from $136,108,217.36 in 1911-12 to $168,689,903.45- and the minister reminded us that in that year he had a surplus of over $56,000,000 with which to meet capital and special expenditure. In the year 1911-12 he had been favoured with the great surplus of $37,000,000, and in the year 1913-14 he had a surplus of $36,500,000. The hon. minister admits that he has been favoured with the three largest surpluses in the financial history of Canada. The last six months of the year ended on the 31st of last month have not been so favourable, and for those

months he has had to show fast decreasing revenues. The hon. minister placed upon ' Hansard ' a tabular statement showing the revenue by months. Notwithstanding an increase during the first six months of the year, there was a decrease of $10,538,000 in 1913-14 as compared with the previous year. The hon. minister has shown that the year just ended gave a revenue of $168,000,000, but notwithstanding that there was an increase in the public debt of Canada of $19,000,000.
The hon. Minister of Finance has had in the past thirty-six months surpluses amounting to $129,500,000. That is a very large sum of money. It is enough to build the Georgian Bay canal which our departed friend the ex-Minister of Public Works (Mr. Monk) promised to the people. In the election of 1911 he told his constituents that work on the Georgian Bay canal project would be commenced the day after his party came to power. Three years have passed and the hon. Minister of Finance has had surpluses amounting to over $129,000,000 but the Government have not made a start on that great project, even if they have given it any consideration at all. I am sure that the delegation which interviewed the Minister of Public Works last Wednesday, and which was composed of men representative of the whole Dominion, found that the Georgian Bay canal had not only not been commenced but was very far from being commenced. The Minister of Public Works announced that the canal would be built only on condition that the commission recently appointed reported favourably on the commercial feasibility of the project. I can understand a Government referring the engineering side of a project to an engineer, but I cannot understand why a responsible Government put on the shoulders of a commission the responsibility of deciding as to the commercial value of any project. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) told us six or eight months ago that this country was flooded with commissions. I d'o not know whether he did anything to prevent this new commission being appointed. In my opinion, there is absolutely no reason for its existence. The 'Government of this country should take the entire responsibility for deciding as to the commercial value of the Georgian Bay canal. I regret that the Minister of Public Works stated that if the commission recommended the construction of the canal, it would be built, and that if they condemned it, it would not be built. I cannot understand how a responsible minister of the Crown

can make such a statement. Speaking for myself, I -may say that even if the negative report of that commission is binding on the Government of the day, it will not he binding on the Liberal party. The Welland canal would be to the advantage of the United States as well as of Canada, and of the two countries the United States might perhaps reap the greater benefit. The Georgian Bay canal, however, is purely a Canadian project. It would carry not only the products of the Canadian West but of the western states of America. It would bring a considerable portion of American trade through Canadian channels and in that respect is just the opposite of the other route. As I said, the negative report of the commission will not be binding on the Liberal party.
The Minister of Finance was forced to announce to the House that during the last six months of the past fiscal year our revenue had decreased. It is probably unnecessary for me to point out that had it not been for the action of the United States, in giving us a free market for our lumber, our fish, and our cattle, the Minister of Finance would have had to announce a still greater decrease in revenue. If our prosperity in recent months has been greater in the East than it has been in the West, that is due to the fact that the American tariff has so favoured our fishermen, in giving them free access for their fish to the United States markets, that they have been able to obtain better prices than ever before in their lives, and with their increased prosperity they have been put in a position to enjoy more of the comforts of life, and to buy more imported goods, thus contributing to the revenue of the country. The opening up of the United States market to Canadian lumber has saved the lumber trade in New Brunswick, coming as it did when the British lumber market was stagnant. But this is not due to the Conservative Government or to the Minister of Finance; in fact, it was done in spite of them. Had it not been that the tariff in the United States was reduced on some of our great natural products, the Minister of Finance, instead of having to announce an increase in the net debt of $19,000,000, would have had to announce an increase of probably $24,000,000. And notwithstanding this increase in our net debt, there has been no very remarkable increase in the expenditure on useful public works. When the Conservatives attained office the National Transcontinental railway was almost completed, and only a few
million dollars remained to be expended on it.
I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that a large portion	of
our revenue during the two years of the Conservative regime, has gone year after year in	expenditure on	the
militia, the expenditure on which has now reached the enormous	sum of
$11,000,000 per annum. And this, in spite of the fact that in 1909, when the Right Hon. R. L. Borden was leader of the Opposition, he criticised the expenditure of the then Minister of Militia, in the Liberal Government, because it had reached $6,000,000 a year. I cannot myself see the necessity of this huge expenditure on armament, considering that the only neighbours we have are the most peaceful people in the world, which is proven by the fact that we are now celebrating the end of a century of peace with them, and I hope preparing for the opening of another peaceful century. Personally, I have as great respect for my right hon. friend the Prime Minister as any member on his own side of the House, and for fear I might exaggerate his sentiments I quote his words, as reported in ' Hansard ' of March 29, 1909:
So that if you look at the amount expended on both military and naval defence, you find Canada pretty well up to the standard of all the great self-governing dominions of the empire. But, X would venture to submit that our expenditure has, to some extent, been appropriated to the wrong purpose. What is the object of our military expenditure? I know that my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden) has stated in the House that the military expenditure of this country is not larger than is necessary for the aid of the civil power. I would hardly think that an expenditure of $6,000,000 annually would be necessary for that purpose, and, while I am not prepared at the present moment to lay down any figure which would be a proper amount for the people of Canada to set apart for the purpose of defence, I do most unhesitatingly say that of the portion which the people of Canada should set aside for that purpose out of their public revenues, a very substantial portion, and, in my opinion, not less than one-half of the amount appropriated for defence, should be devoted for naval instead of military defence.
A few short years ago, the Prime Minister, when leading the Opposition, thought that $6,000,000 was too much to expend on the militia; he said that one-half of it would be enough and that the other half should be devoted to naval defence. But to-day, under his Government, the militia expenditure which was then $6,000,000 a year, has gone up to $10,000,000, and not one cent, of it goes towards naval defence for the
[Stage Direction]
benefit of the empire, about which we heard tunity of pronouncing their so much last year.
During the fifteen years of Liberal administration, hundreds of thousands of settlers were brought into the Northwest, and these settlers, consuming the products of the East, contributed to the prosperity of the country as a whole. In 1896 the population of Canada was scarcely 5,000,000 people while in 1911 our population amounted to 7,200,000. In 1896 the net debt of Canada was $258,497,000, and in 1906, ten years after, under the Liberal administration, the net debt was only $267,042,000, an increase of $8,545,000 in ten years, notwithstanding that during that decade there' was the greatest prosperity and progress the country had ever seen. From 1906 to 1911 there was a period of great expansion and railway construction. There were subsidies to railways, throughout the length and breadth of the land, and there was the construction of the National Transcontinental railway to be provided for, and although the Liberal Government spent $146,000,000 on the National Transcontinental railway yet all the expense of railway construction generally and one-half the expenditure on the Transcontinental were paid out of the ordinary revenues of the country. Notwithstanding the heavy expenditures by the Liberal Government for great and useful public works, the increase in population had lifted the burden of debt ' from $52 per' head of the population in 1896, to only $45 per head of the population in 1911. Any unbiased man who studies the record of the Liberal party from 1896 to 1911, must admit that no country in the history of the wotM bad ever equalled the progress made by Canada during these years.
It was a prosperity of which we constantly heard, and the people were happy and contented at that time. Great as was that happiness and prosperity, when my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, then the leader of the Government, attempted to enhance it, hon. gentlemen who were then in the Opposition rose on their seats and said: We are prosperous enough; leave well enough alone. Not only did they say that in this House, but they prevailed upon their friends to repeat the cry throughout the country. Well enough has been let alone, and one consequence is that the net debt of the country has increased to between $19,000,000 and $20,000,000. The people will not leave well enough alone when next they get an oppor-[Mr Turgeon. ]
opinion, but
they will do better for the country, as my right hon. friend the leader of the'opposition intended to do.
I wish to express my views upon the situation which confronts us to-day and upon tne future of the country. I will not attempt to make a dissertation upon the principles, theories and doctrines of protection and free trade. There are men better qualified to discuss these important questions in this House and in the country. My learned and scientific friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark), whom we are all so well pleased to see back in his seat, gave us his views upon the position and aims of democracy at the beginning of this twentieth century in America and in Great Britain. We heard last week from my hon. friend from Rouv.ille (Mr. Lemieux), who expressed his opinions upon these topics. We heard the other night from my hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson), who also gave us his ideas on free trade, democratic institutions and the protection of the people against the privileged interests. Therefore it is not necessary for me to enter into a dissertation of that character.
We all know that the goal and ambition of all nations should be free trade with one another, not only because the principle is sound as a matter of economics, but more particularly because it is the principle which is most conducive to the moral elevation of the people inhabiting the different countries, makes for universal peace, friendly intercourse and brotherly feeling between nation and nation and benefits mankind generally. It must be remembered that free trade in its various forms has always appealed to the most thoughtful men of the great Christian naoions, and has found powerful advocacy on the part of those who have been known as the leaders of freedom-freedom for the masses of the people in the exercise of their mentality and religious principles. It is a doctrine which appeals to men and to nations in proportion to their moral standard, brotherly feelings, charitable inclinations and high ideals of civilization. This truth is strikingly exemplified at the beginning of this twentieth century by the fact that the greatest free trade nation today is also the most Christian of the world -the great British nation. If I wished to take man as a standard in order to illustrate the view which I am endeavouring to

put forward upon this subject, I would point to the great Napoleon, who proved himself to be not only an able general but a wise economist, and who devoted his energies in the intervals between his military campaigns to making treaties of commerce which were nothing else than offers of free trade to those powers which he regarded with a friendly eye. If in these efforts to establish free trade relations the great general of the time omitted England, it was because he did not want to make treaties or establish commercial relations with that nation. Napoleon hated England and his selfishness overcame his better feelings. You can judge men as nations and here you have that groat conqueror of modern times offering free trade to the nations he loved and erecting a protective wall against the one nation that he abhorred. Free trade is synonymous with generosity, brotherhood, humanity; protection.' means selfishness and egotism. That is the nature of the one principle and that is the nature of the other.
I admit that with the conditions that prevail in this country, that with the nations around us, either close to us or far away, and because we raise our revenue by indirect taxation, this country cannot have absolute free trade with the nation® of the world, but, nevertheless, it remains the duty of every Canadian, every member of the Government and every party in this country to see that free trade in its direct sense he extended more particularly to the masses of the people, whether on the farm or in the city, who devote their time and energies to the' production of those natural commodities which are necessary to keep body and soul together.
But we are told by hon. gentlemen opposite, and by some of the Tory papers which I have time to look at once in a while, that we are advocating free trade to-day, whereas, when we were in power, we did not advocate free trade. I say that from the day the Liberal party came into power in 1896 the leader of the late Government and his party showed their inclination to change the condition of things as rapidly as possible. Without spending any time over the individual items in the tariff which were changed, I will merely stay in a general way that it was reduced in a great many instances ©specially on many articles which are the necessities of the mass of
the people. The tariff was reduced to a considerable extent and especially with the object of extending to the mass of the people a great privilege which had been denied to them up to that time.
The one great effort of the Liberal party in the direction1 of 'free trade was the inauguration of the British preference of 25 per cent and which was increased during the following year to 33i per cent. Although our friends on the other side of the House wished to .make little of the British preference, I say that it has increased our commercial relations with the mother country and it has' also given to the workingmen of Great Britain' millions of dollars every year by way of additions to their income derived 'from the goods that we have purchased from them. Our friends on the other side of the House have been opposing the principle of the British preference. They claim a monopoly of loyalty but when you want to do something that will help the millions of workingmen of Great Britain, these hon. gentlemen rise up and object. They want to have free trade with Great Britain, but on the one condition that Great Britain shall put a tax on the workingman's food imported from other countries in order to allow our products to enter Great Britain free of duty and thus enjoy a preference in the British market. They want Great Britain to hamper the trade relations which she has established with other nation® and to restrict those influences of civilization which must impress themselves on every nation that has the privilege - of dealing with her. They tell us that when we were in power we did not do much to bring about the removal of customs duties. But there were obstacles in our way. While the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) was in power he was willing to extend the principle of free trade as far as possible in the interest of the .masses. Yet everybody knows that he was handicapped by the fact that the markets of the republic to the south of us were closed against us. For instance, it would have been unwise to remove the duty on agricultural implements at that time, because the United States maintained prohibitive tariff duties. And so it was with many other things. But the right hon. gentleman looked forward, as had all Canadian statesmen up to that time, to the establishment of reciprocal trade relations between Canada and the
[Stage Direction]
United States. And when the offer of reciprocity came from the United States, the right hon. gentleman accepted it. And I need not take up time to show that for all practical purposes the offer made by the United States to Canada was exactly that which that great leader of the Conservative party, Sir John Macdonald, had made to the United States, placing it upon our statute book' as a standing offer of reciprocity. And it is well known that just before his death Sir John Macdonald declared that while he had not been able to secure the opening of American markets for Canada, he hoped the time would soon come when that condition of affairs would be brought about. But before this offer from the United States came, my [DOT] right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) was justified in not humiliating Canada by taking steps towards reciprocity which our previous experience led us to believe would not be cordially received. Practical experience compelled the statesmen of the United States to see that they could not go on expanding while keeping their markets closed against the goods of other nations. And when the offer of reciprocity came, who will say that the leader of the Government of that day was not justified in accepting it? I ask any man in this House, Liberal or Conservative, if it is not strictly true to say that up to that time there was but one sentiment on that subject in Canada, and that was in favour of reciprocity. So the right hon. gentleman accepted that offer and asked the people of Canada to ratify it. It was not ratified. For one, I greatly regret the result of that appeal to the people. A mistake was made, not by the leader of the Government of that day, bat by the majority of the people of Canada. But I am confident that the people of Canada are prepared, at their first opportunity, to undo their mistake and to accept the offer made them of freer trade relations between this great country of ours, which soon should have a population of fifteen millions, and the great nation to the south of us.
The changes that have been 4 p.m. proposed, and that have been made, have brought about a different condition of affairs from that which existed under the late Government, and we cannot see the case in its true light if we do not change our point of view with the change of circumstances. The offer of reciprocity, if accepted, would have meant that our farmers would have had [Mr Turg-eon.]	.
free access to the markets of the United States with wheat, rye, oats, barley, and other grain. They would have had free access to that market for their horses and other live animals, for cheese, butter and other dairy products. There would have been reciprocal free trade also in fish and lumber. We have free fish and free lumber to-day by the action of the United States Congress, but the farmers of the West have not free wheat. Hon. gentlemen opposite may say: Wheat is reduced 10c. a bushel. But that 10c. a bushel is enough to shut the wheat out of that market. Had the farmers of Canada ah opportunity to sell free from that duty of 10c. a bushel, the difference would be all the difference between a profit and no profit. And the western farmers especially would be encouraged to carry on his farming with greater enterprise and vigour by reason of the profit which this 10c. a bushel would represent. And so with oats. There is a duty of 6c. a bushel on oats, and the removal of that duty would mean a profit and an encouragement to the Canadian grower. Under the reciprocity pact, the farmers of Ontario and Quebec would have had free access to the markets of the United States with butter and cheese as well as with milk and cream. To-day milk and cream are free, but there is a duty on butter of 2-}c. per lb., and the same with cheese. And what is the position for the implement manufacturer? Under the reciprocity pact there would have been a reduction in our duties of 2} per cent. Hon. members opposite are claiming great credit to this Government for having reduced the duties on certain agricultural implements by 5 per cent. But the Americans have taken off their duties on these goods, thus opening their markets to our manufacturers. Under reciprocity all the benefits secured would have gone to the farmers, but at present the one to benefit is to the manufacturer. The farmer to-day cannot buy agricultural implements free of duty, but the Canadian manufacturer can exploit free of duty the American markets with its hundred million of population. When I speak of the farmers, I include the farmers of the East as well as of the West. Although the farmers of the East do not cultivate their land to as large an extent as the farmers of the West do, they are progressing from year to year, but upon the prosperity of the western farmers largely depends the progress and development of the East. Our friends on the other side claim that they are giving a great

benefit to the farmers of the West by reducing by 5 per cent the duties upon mowers and two or three other implements used by the farmers of the prairies, but I would point out that the duties upon these articles would amount to only one-third of the tariff collected on the various other articles-rakes, spreaders, and so on-used by the western farmers. Intelligent Canadian farmers will not look upon this reduction as a benefit; they will look upon it with shame as coming from a Government which should have more generosity, but which has as its policy the protection of the manufacturer. For the last fifteen years the manufacturers of agricultural implements in this country have had the benefit of a drawback when they have exported their products; under the tariff which has existed in Canada they have been able to compete in the different markets of the world. In spite of a tariff of 15 or 20 per cent they have been able to compete with the United States; they have been able to compete with the manufacturers on the market of Australia and on the market of Great Britain. Yet they say that they cannot exist unless there is a wall between the farmers of western Canada and the people of the United States. I say it is high time that the people of Canada opened their eyes to the situation; it is time that hon. gentlemen of this House realized that the farmers of the West should have free wheat and free agricultural implements as well.
Our friends say that free wheat and free flour must go together and that we should not accept the offers made by the United States. I wish to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that under the patriotic administration of Woodrow Wilson the United States last year put into force a tariff to benefit the masses of the people; to benefit the farmer and the millions of workingmen in the cities. In doing this they left open to the other nations of the world an offer of reciprocity if those other nations would remove the duties. In the matter of wheat and flour they have said not to Canada only but to >any nation which has imposed a duty upon these products, that if they take such duties off, the United States will open its markets to them. Argentina, another farming country producing large quantities of wheat, lost no time in accepting that offer of the United States; in taking the duty off wheat and getting the benefit of the large market of the United States. In doing this Argentina has surely shown no lack of loyalty; nor would we show any lack of loyalty in accepting, for the benefit of the
western country, this offer which was made to the world at large. We produce 500,000,000 bushels of grain; the time is coming when Canada will produce over a billion bushels of grain and we will need larger markets for that enormous production. Is it not a wonder that there are in this House and in the country gentlemen who are so much concerned with private interests that they say: We should not trade with the United States; we want to preserve oar fiscal independence. How would the Canadian lose his fiscal independence by taking advantage of the offer made toy the United States? The Englishman is a businessman all over the world; 'he goes across every ocean and trades on every soil and in doing so he lacks no loyalty to Great Britain, and does not fail to recognize her greatness.
Our friends say: We will have to instruct the farmer and wait until he gets the benefit of our instruction. I am for instruction all the time in every branch of activity. Technical education has no stronger advocate than the modest member for Gloucester.
I hope-particularly after having read the report of Dr. Robertson on technical education-that some day Canada will have a realization of the necessity of education in every walk of life. Our friends say they will educate the people with the $1,000,000 a year given by the Minister of Agriculture, and the $12,000,000 given by the Minister of Militia for the purpose of teaching the children of the nation how to kill their neighbours. That is a great education for the farmer. We want education, but we want it in the right way, we want to have it exerted in the proper direction.
Our friends on the other side say:	If
you do not give protection to the manufacturer we will have destitute homes in our cities. I would like to ask the hon. member for North York (Mr. Armstrong) who made that statement if these agricultural implements are for the use of the workingman in the city? They aTe for the use of the farmers and the wider market the farmer has the more implements he will use. The way to benefit the manufacturer of agricultural implements is to open the markets of the world to the farmers. The farmer, having a larger market for his products, will then use more implements, and the manufacturer will reap the benefit. The rejection of reciprocity by the people two years ago resulted not only in the farmers of the West losing $20,000,000 upon their crop but in the manufacturer losing the benefit of the larger demand for implements
[Stage Direction]
on the part of the farmer which would have resulted had reciprocity gone into effect. The manufacturers of Toronto, who are demanding a protective tariff and who do not want to see the markets of the United States opened to the western farmer, would have benefited by the increased demand for agricultural implements. And what loss would our country suffer by the free admission of flour? Our home market is, of course, necessary for the farmers; but we must also seek markets in other countries. If our producers were satisfied with the home market they would not have the opportunity for expansion of trade which is essential to their prosperity. It is the right and the duty of farmers and producers to seek an entrance to the markets of the world.
Mr. BURNHAM:: Hear, hear.


Mr. TURGEON:: I am glad to be supported by the hon. member for Peterborough. He has both producers and manufacturers in his constituency, and he has intelligence and patriotism enough to appreciate and acknowledge the force of what I have said. Flour i3 used by every man, by the poor workingman just as by the rich man; and if you have any feeling or sympathy for the hard-working man in the cities, in the factories, on the railroads, in the ships which carry the product of farms to the market, the hard-working men of the eastern provinces as well as of the west, you should give them free flour. The farming section of the community must, of course, be looked after, but we must also care for the working men in the Targe cities. We know that during the year 1912-13 $10,000,000 has gone into the treasury of Canada from taxation upon food entering this country. If that $10,000,000 had been saved to the tax-payers of this country, if it had been left in the pockets of the people, more particularly those in the cities who toil for their daily bread, it would have been a great benefit to the masses of the people. It must be remembered that this tax on food is collected chiefly during the hard season, the winter, when Canada does not produce either eggs or vegetables. It presses hardest on the workingman, because he requires more on his table than the rich man, and it is generally the poor man who has the large family. The loss to the revenue need not stand in the way of this necessary reform. Piling up a large surplus is of no benefit to the country, as is [Mr Turgeon.]
illustrated by the record of the present Government. The Minister of Finance had surpluses for the first two years, but this year he adds $20,000,000 to the public debt, so that we are no better off than if we had not had the surpluses in the other years. Other countries not so great as Canada have seen the necessity of removing the duty from food products. The little colony of Newfoundland last year, moved by the same spirit that animates the Liberal party in this country to-day, in order to help their workingmen, in order to help their fishermen, took the duty off a great many articles of food which were most necessary to the fishermen of Newfoundland. They lost last year a revenue on these articles of $360,000, which is as much for that little colony, with a population about equal to that of the province of New Brunswick as $10,000,000 for the people of Canada. Nevertheless, last year the shortage of revenue has been only half that amount and the colony of Newfoundland has been able to close her fiscal year with a surplus of $115,000, equal, in proportion, to the great surpluses of our Finance Minister in Canada. I wish to read a brief despatch from St. John's, dated February 25:
In the assembly to-day the Finance Minister presented the colonial Budget, showing that the revenue for the fiscal year ended last June was $3,920,000, giving a surplus of $115,000, while for the current fiscal year duties totalling $380,000, having been removed last session from tea, sugar and salt beef, the customs revenue now shows a shortage of $130,000, or much less than expected.
What has taken place in the little colony of Newfoundland where the people have removed the duties from the necessities of their working men at the expense of a decrease in the general revenue is surely an example to us. The removal of- the duty on these foodstuffs has not produced a very serious decrease in the general revenue, and living has been made cheaper for the people of the island.
It has been said that wheat and flour are not in the same position because, in the proposed reciprocity agreement, a duty had been left on flour on account of a corresponding duty on coal in favour of the Maritime provinces; but to-day the same condition does not exist, as bituminous coal is admitted free to the United States market. Therefore it is said there is no necessity for us to consider that arrangement farther and that if the United States is willing to make our wheat and flour free, we should accept their offer in accordance with the-

persistent agitation of the farmers of the West. When I ask for free wheat, I, coming from the Maritime provinces, ask it because I know that it will be to the general interest of the country as well as to the particular interest of the provinces of the West. Our prosperity depends upon the prosperity of the West. Our harbours are enriched by the commerce of the West, and the greater the prosperity of the West the greater the prosperity of the eastern people.
Much has been said of the bounties on iron and steel. The Liberal party paid bounties on iron and steel during fifteen years, decreasing the amount on a sliding scale so that the bounties eventually ended in 1911. I admit that it may have been necessary to give such bounties during a certain length of time; and the period of great prosperity which we enjoyed under Liberal rule was probably an opportune time to give assistance to this great industry, particularly in view of our close proximity to the market of the United States.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether this industry, which has been receiving aid from the people for about twenty-five vtars, is not now able to support itself? Sir John A. Macdonald when he introduced the National Policy said that protection was for the infant industries of this country, and it was his hope that after a certain number of years those industries would grow up and he able to take care of themselves. Suppose I brought a man of the age of thirty years to my scientific friend from Souris (Mr. Schaffner), who is always smiling in his wisdom, and said: This man has been nursed and protected for thirty years, but he cannot live without further protection. I am sure my hon. friend would be apt to class him as an incurable who ought to be sent to the state hospital. Why should our people be called upon to give further bounties and protection to industries that have created so many millionaires? What the producers of to-day want is larger markets rather than protection. Larger markets would enable the farmer to sell more, wear more and buy more. We on this side of the House are not the only ones who have been trying to get reciprocity agreements. My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce made an agreement with the West Indies. We ail like to see trade agreements with British possessions, but the result of that agreement is not to be compared with the increase of trade that we should have had under the reciprocity agreement with the United States.
The Minister of Finance has taken it upon himself to give certain benefits to the importers of stone; he has reduced the duty on rough stone to five per cent. The hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) has already referred to that, and I just wish to corroborate what he has said. In my county, as well as in other parts of New Brunswick, there are large stone quarries having a market in Montreal and other Canadian cities. These quarrymen claim that the reduction of the duty on rough stone will be to the great disadvantage of the stone producers and even the stone cutters of Canada. They say it will benefit large building contractors but that it will not benefit the stone cutters because these contractors use stone cutting machinery doing away with the labour of the stone cutters. I, therefore, enter my - protest against changing the duty on stone.
I wish to say a few words about iron ore, which was the subject of debate in this House some time ago. The Minister of Finance in his budget gives no idea of what he intends to do. He says he is referring the matter to a commission under the Department of Mines. I do not think that a high tariff on steel or iron products would benefit to a great extent the iron ore producer in this country. In Bathurst we have a large iron ore deposit, perhaps the most extensive in Canada. It is considered of great value. The owners have spent a large amount of money in developing the property and have already installed a concentrator, to which I would like to direct the attention of the Minister of Finance if he were in his seat. Our importation of iron ore is small as compared with the amount of iron ore in Canada. It is true that the report of the Department of Mines for the year 1913 shows that a large amount of ore was imported, namely 1,942,325 tons valued at $3,877,824. It must be remembered that out of that 1,942,000 tons, 1,605,000 tons came from the Newfoundland mines, and was chiefly used by the Sydney people. It would perhaps benefit Newfoundland if she kept her ore and manufactured it within her own borders, but this ore comes to us from a British colony, which I hope will be part of Canada before many years have past, and so I do not consider it in the same light as foreign ore. Notwithstanding the many difficulties there are to-day in the way of Newfoundland joining Confederation, I firmly believe that not many years will elapse befcre the ancient colony will find it to hex own benefit, as it will be to the benefit of Canada and to the benefit of the British

Empire, to enter the Dominion. The Minister of Finance told us that Canadian ore was supposed to be inferior to ore obtained in the United States, but I call attention to the fact that the Bathurst iron ore is of the ve^y highest quality and is now being sent to the American market in increasing quantities every year, until last year the export to the United States amounted to 86,000 tons. I would point out to the Minister of Finance that the heads of the Mining Department, such as Dr. Haanel and others, are well aware of the quantity and quality of the ore from the Bathurst mine. I trust when the Minister of Finance appoints the commission of mining experts, he will see to it that that commission shall take measures to compare the quality of the Bathurst iron ore with that produced elsewhere. I would remind the Minister of Finance that the Canada Iron Ore Company has established at Bathurst a concentrator which has proved most beneficial, and the ore, after treatment, is now shipped to the Philadelphia market and is used in the manufacture of the most refined steel and iron products. That concentrator has cost the company $130,000, and the Bathurst ore is treated in this concentrator, so that only the pure ore is shipped to the American market, thus greatly lessening the cost of transportation. I would urge on the Finance Minister that if our iron ore industry is to be developed in this country, he should provide railway and shipping facilities, co that the cost of transportation may be reduced as much as possible. I ask permission, Mr. Speaker, to place on ' Hansard ' a description of the Bathurst concentrator, which would be of great benefit to the members of this commission, when they are looking into the question of the treatment of Canadian ore.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The practice of placing on * Hansard ' extracts which have not been read is usually objected to, and without the unanimous consent of the House it cannot be permitted.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The other day the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Wilcox) was allowed to print certain statements in ' Hansard ' without their being read, and nobody objected.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I remember some days ago that a request was made by an hon. member to place a number of tabulated statements on ' Hansard,' and when they were shown to me afterwards it was decided that they should not be printed.


Onésiphore Turgeon: Of course, without the unanimous consent of the House I cannot place the description of the concentrator on ' Hansard,' but I would mention that it is to be found in a publication of the Department of Mines entitled, ' Austin Brook Iron-bearing District, New Brunswick,' by Einar Lindemann, M.E.
In conclusion, after having reviewed the condition of Canada from 1896 to 1911, under the Liberal Administration, and having pointed out our position in this year, 1914, I say it is my firm belief that the policy advocated at the present time by the Liberal party is most conducive to the continuance of the prosperity which existed in the country before the Conservatives came into power. I assert with confidence that the policy of the Conservative Government offers no benefit to the masses of the people, to the farmers, or the workingmen, and it cannot, and will not, in my opinion, receive the endorsation of the people. I trust that before long the people of Canada will be given an opportunity to change their verdict of 1911, and if they should do so, I believe that a new era of prosperity will again dawn on this country.


Mr. WILLIAM SMITH (Ontario South):: I have listened carefully to the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Turgeon) who preceded me, but it appears that the issues he raised have so long since been settled by the people of Canada that it will be unnecessary for me to refer to them. My only excuse for taking part in this discussion is that I have the honour to represent a riding that is perhaps as deeply interested in agriculture of all kinds, in grain-growing, in stock-raising, and in manufactures, as is any constituency in the Dominion. Some phases of the changes which were made touched that fining, and they are already having their effect. But I have to remember that that riding is not all of the province of Ontario, and I have to ?o a step farther and remember that the East is not the West, neither is it all Canada, and neither is the West all Canada. Canada is a fairly hard country to govern, covering large distances from one ocean to the Jther, and with a sterile section between the East and the West. I take it that the duty of the Government is to do as much as they can for as many people as possible.
I have taken the trouble to look over some of the ' Hansards,' and I find that some of the gentlemen who have preceded me took the ground that the tariff was


APK1L 20, 1914
[Stage Direction]
practically the same under the Conservative party from 1879 to 1896 as it was under the Liberals from 1896 to 1911. I think they were correct, but there was such a very great difference between the conduct of the two parties that I must allude to it this afternoon. Some of us can remember the very serious depression previous to 1878, when there was a change of Government. We can remember that the Government elected in 1878 tried as far as possible to carry out the pledges that they had given in Opposition, and that the moment the telegraph wires were able to tell the story of the changes made in the tariff by Sir Leonard Tilley a new life sprang into the breasts of the people of Canada. I came into Parliament in 1887; I had the honour of sitting upon this side of the House then, and I heard the leaders of the Liberal party talking about that tariff during all the years that I was in Parliament previous to coming back in 1911. What was their course, what was their conduct? They decried it in every possible way. They told this House and the country that it was doing the people an injustice. So much did the people believe it that those engaged in manufacturing, and those with a certain, amount of wealth, were afraid to invest a dollar.
The Conservative party was defeated in 1896, and practically the same policy was continued from that day until 1911. We have been told that we had prosperous years during the reign of the Liberal party. I agree with the Liberals in saying that never perhaps in the history of Canada was there a greater period of prosperity. Why? It was because the Conservative party were loyal to their principles in Opposition as well as in power, and they stood at the back of the Liberal party when they were in power. Those who had money, those who had wealth, .manufacturers principally, invested their money without stint, which accounts to a great extent for the prosperity we had during those years.
I have listened with some interest to the story told about the farmers. I happen to be one myself, and I have some knowledge of what I am talking about. I take the ground that as farmers we have as much right as any other class in Canada to contribute a fair share of the taxes of the country, and when we are told that we should have free trade in agricultural implements and wheat, 1 say let us be
men enough to say that we are prepared to bear our fair share.
In regard to free wheat, it iB perhaps generally understood that we cannot have free wheat without free flour. I think we have arrived at a period in the history of Canada when we are likely to grow more wheat in the West in the years to come than we have in the years that are past, and the chances are that the price of wheat will go down. What we want in the West is a levelling up such as we have had in Ontario. I happened to receive a letter the other day from a western gentleman in which he says:
The crowd on the prairie that are shouting for * free wheat ' are a class of Americans who hardly knew Canada was a country until a few years ago. Constituted principally of men with local ideas, they seem totally unaware that the ultimate goal of Canada's wheat is Britain and that it is there the prices of Chicago and Minneapolis are set. If they were offered free wheat the probability is they would want an annexation rider attached to the agreement. As yet there lies before the leaders of Canadian thought the task of Canadianizing those people and this will not be accomplished by pampering to their local Ideas, or fostering their attachment to the country south of us.
The other day the hon. member for Assi-niboia (Mr. Turriff) trotted out a star witness. He impressed me with the idea that this man was wise in his day and generation. He stated that he had opposed the hon. member for Assiniboia during all the years they were together. That I could understand. The next point was that he was interested in an elevator, not in Canada, but across the line. Why did he want free wheat? Because he wanted to help the elevator in which he was interested. That was the star witness of the hon. member for Assiniboia.
I would like to refer to a statement made by the hon. Minister of Finance in his Budget Speech which appealed to me, and which appears to be the right position for the Canadian people to take. My hon. friend said:
We believe it to be the true policy for Canada and for every part of it if we are to regard as desirable stable business conditions and a deversified national life throughout the Dominion. It means the development of our natural resources, the maintenance and extension of our industries, a fair wage standard for our artisans and a stable and profitable home-market for our farmers, thus justifying its name as a national policy.
The hon. the junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) in criticising the statement of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, said that the farmers of the North-
[Stage Direction]
west would have a good deal more purchasing power if they could sent their wheat in free to the United States. Grant, for the sake of argument, that that statement was true, where would they buy? Would they buy on the other side or would they buy in the eastern provinces? I have no hesitation in saying that they would form business alliances with the people to the south of us and would trade with them and make their purchases from them instead of from the East. It appears to me that if. there is one thing we want more than another, it is not reciprocity with the United States, but it is reciprocity between the different provinces of this country. What the farmers want more than anything else is that they shall control their own home market. If the manufacturers are in a position to pay their help a fair day's wage for a fair day's work and keep them at it all the time, that is very nearly all the protection that the farmer wants. If he controls his own market he has accomplished almost everything he may set out to do. I listened with a great deal of surprise to some of the statements which have been made in regard to agricultural implements. The point to my mind is this: are they to be made in Canada or shall they be made in the United States? I happen to live a short distance from a considerable manufacturing town in my own riding, the town of Oshawa.
After listening to these bon. gentlemen I have tried to reason it out in this way: would my farm and the other farms near that town be worth as much money if the Malleable Iron Works were done away with, if the Piano Works were removed, if the McLaughlin Works were closed, if the gas fitting establishments were taken away? If all this should happen, where would be our home market? It does appear to me that there is the answer to the whole argument in connection with agricultural implements-whether they shall be manufactured in' one place or the other. I am bound to confess that my observations ini the West leads me to believe that it will not make a great deal of difference whether they have free agricultural implements or not.
In this connection I believe that the hope of the West to-day is in mixed farming and not in growing grain. Why, to-day, it is reported they are sending hogs by thousands of dollars' worth to the East. That could not have been done a few years ago.
Mr. WAKNOCK:: They are (Sending more to the United (States.


William Smith: I was to going to make
(another statement in connection with the feeding of hogs, and I make that statement on the authority of a farmer who has been living in the West for a number of years and is engaged in hog raising. He says that at 7i cents per pound live weight for hogs, he can make oats worth 67 cents per bushel. Surely there is an opening for the people of the West, and it might be a means of using a portion of their wheat as well. The hope of the West, at any rate of many sections of it, so far as I can see, is in raising live stock to supply the shortages which at times arise in the East, thus affording a basis of reciprocity between the provinces. I do not look forward with hope to selling a great many horses in the West as we have been doing. But We will turn or twist in some way, striving iand hoping to be on top. I have said the hope of the West is in mixed farming; I say also the hope of the West is in better farming. I have always been- impressed in visiting the West at harvest time to see the difference in the crops upon the land which is properly cultivated and the crops upon the land which is not properly cultivated. They start with virgin soil and with land, perhaps, better than that of Ontario; but still the time must come, sooner or later, when something must be done to keep up the fertility of their soil, and in order to do this they will find it necessary to go into mixed farming. And with mixed farming they will avoid the mistake of having all their eggs in one basket.
The statement of the Finance Minister, it seems to me, reasonably meets
5 p.m. the wishes of the people of this country and affords as much good as possible to as many as possible. That being the case, I for one am .prepared to stand by it. Looking to the future and trying to size up this country, I do not fail to realize that Canada and the United States lie side by side,-and parallel lines we are told, can never meet-and, speaking for myself and only for myself, I hope the day is far, far distant, when any foreign country shall dictate the tariff policy of this Dominion of Canada. During 1911 we discussed all the phases of reciprocity; and it appears to me that the Liberal party now is asking us to do what they themselves did not do during the fifteen years they were in power. The tariff duties were

higher in some cases when they went out of office than when they came in. Had they been honest during these years, it appears to me, they would have followed exactly upon the line they are asking us to follow to-day.
So, Mr. Speaker, I have given my view of the Finance Minister's statement, and especially have I tried to explain my opinion on free wheat and free agricultural implements. Some may say that my position is an unwise one for a farmer to take in the province of Ontario. But I hold that the man who has not an opinion of his own upon questions of this kind is not worthy a place in public life. I would rather go down to-day than be false to what I regard as the best and highest interests of our country.


David Warnock: Mt. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the speeches made in this debate, and I can assure you it has been a great pleasure to me to observe the active interest taken by hon. members to your right. I do not know whether this is due to the absence of the Prime Minister and the greater leniency of the acting Prime Minister, but I must congratulate hon. members on the Government side upon their emancipiation from the rule of enforced silence so successfully carried out last session.	[DOT]
I am pleased indeed to have the opportunity of following the hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Smith). I know that he is an excellent judge of stock and a well-known stock-btreeder, and I always like to meet a man of that kind. But I think I would rather depend on his judgment in matters of live stock than in questions of the tariff. I have to refer to many remarks made by hon. members who have preceded that hon. gentleman, and I will deal with what he said in connection with the several subjects as I come to them in the course of my address. But I wish, in the beginning, to deal with one remark of the hon. member. He said that the farmers in the West who were calling for free wheat were a class of Americans. I wish to tell him that thousands of those who are calling for free wheat are repatriated Canadians who were driven out of this country under the Conservative Government before 1896, and who have come back to the land of their birth, or they are the sons of such men. The hon. member also spoke about reciprocity between the western provinces. Surely we 171
1 -
have reciprocity amongst all the provinces. But what is the good of reciprocity in wheat between Saskatchewan and Alberta ? It is another market that we are looking for.
The hon. Minister of Finance's Budget speech has created a feeling of intense disappointment among the people of the West. I desire to say also that the farmers of the West now realize that the sending of delegations to Ottawa is utterly useless. While mentioning this I should like to give my impressions regarding a large delegation that was here last week in connection with the Georgian Bay canal. I was in the Chamber when one gentleman, Mr. White, of Pembroke, I think, was speaking on that question, and I heard him say, in substance, this:
I feel that delegations of this kind have little effect: we are just like bees buzzing around. But I have been a lifelong Conservative and an active supporter of the Conservative party, and I warn this Government that if they do not almost immediately begin the construction of the Georgian Bay canal at both ends and in the middle, something unpleasant will happen at the next election.
With the exception of the hon. Minister of Public Works, these remarks of Mr. White did not seem to have very much effect upon the members of the Government who were receiving the deputation. But the Minister of Public Works, who has a very deep appreciation of the value of votes, turned in his chair and gave Mr. White a keen, scrutinizing look in an effort to find out whether he was joking or speaking in earnest. I believe that the western farmers have formed exactly the same opinion of the value of the delegations as Mr. White expressed on that occasion, and I think it will be a long time before another delegation of western farmers visits Ottawa. But they are not going to sit down quietly under existing wrongs; they are taking steps to protect themselves. At the present time cooperative farmers' assocfations are being formed in Alberta and Saskatchewan for the purpose of mutual protection in the purchasing and ma-keting of their products, and I believe that, at the next election this co-operative movement will be carried to the point of selecting and electing candidates who will be pledged to further, by their voice and vote in this House, the interests of the western farmer. Enough members will be elected at the next election from the prairie provinces to compel the Government, no matter what party may be victorious, to take some cognizance of the demands of the western farmers. We recognize the



fact that under the present Government a half dozen manufacturers can come to Ottawa and have more influence in shaping the Government's policy on the tariff questions than a delegation of 20,000 farmers could have. I repeat that the farmers of the prairie are preparing to protect themselves by sending to Parliament representatives pledged to further their interests. They are tired of representatives who will talk in favour of a measure and then vote against it.
The member for North Essex (Mr. Wilcox), speaking a few days ago, gave the Conservative party great credit for constructing the Canadian Pacific railway, and also for the part that party has taken in the development of the western provinces. Credit may be coming to the Conservative party for the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway, but absolutely no credit is coming to them for any part they took in the development of the western provinces. The Conservative party built the Canadian Pacific railway and then they went to sleep, having not the remotest idea of inaugurating a policy which would populate and develop the great western provinces. Let me give you a short history of the prairie provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, or the Northwest territories, as they were known in 1896. I should like to preface my remarks by saying that I have lived in Alberta for twenty-four years, having come to that province from Scotland in 1889, and I have a very intimate knowledge of its development from the time that it was a purely grazing arSa until it became the great grain growing province that it is today. What were the conditions there in 1896, under the former Conservative Government? From 1889 until 1896 it was practically impossible for a settler, or the man with the plough, as they used to call him in the West, to get a foothold in Alberta. That province, particularly the southern portion of it, was almost entirely given over to large ranching companies. The directors and managing directors of these large ranching companies were nearly all members of the Conservative party, and they were allowed to control practically the whole of the province. They bad immense grazing leases at a rental of two cents an acre per annum-even then some of them did not pay the rent-and they absolutely forbade settlers from encroaching upon them. I have seen settlers' shacks pulled down about their ears by the employees of some of the large ranching companies; I have seen the settler walked

off the range and told not to come back there; told to go into northern Alberta, the only place for the man with the plough. These are actual facts, Mr. Speaker, not hearsay assertions. I was present and saw these acts committed by managers of the large ranching companies, on instructions received from Montreal.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT:: Was there any lease granted in Alberta larger than the Blood Indian reserve lease, and was it granted by the late Government?


David Warnock: The Blood Reserve
lease consisted, I think, of 240,000 acres. The Walrond Ranch Company had a lease, granted under the former Conservative Government, of 350,000 acres. I know that because I was manager of the Walrond Ranch Company for ten years.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. gentleman has not answ'ered my question. Was the Blood Indian reserve lease granted by the late Government?


David Warnock: Yes.


William Humphrey Bennett: Was there a larger lease than that of the Blood Indian reserve?


David Warnock: Yes, much larger. The Walrond lease of 350,000 acres was granted by the Conservative Government previous to 1896.


William Humphrey Bennett: How many years before?


David Warnock: In 1883 or 1884.


William Humphrey Bennett: There were not many settlers around then.


David Warnock: 
Mr. COCKSHUTT:: Would the hon. member tell me when I made that statement?


David Warnock: I have not it by me.


William Foster Cockshutt: I think the hon.
member will have trouble finding it.


David Warnock: I made that same stater ment when I spoke on the navy last session, and he did not challenge it.


William Foster Cockshutt: Probably I was not present. I do not think the hon. member can show that I ever made such a statement, and if he cannot he should not attribute it to me.


David Warnock: I must accept the hon. member's denial if he says it is not correct, but I shall make it a point to look the matter up. He made a statement a few day,s_ ago in his speech on the Budget which was just about as bad. He said, as reported at page 2634 of ' Hansard ':
Let me tell him (Mr. Turriff) how his friends the Americans will treat him if he ever gets into their hands, because we know with regret that when we deal with Uncle Sam we have to go in with a coat of mail and with shining armour if we hope to come out again with a whole skin.


Mr. FOSTER:: That was figurative speech.


William Foster Cockshutt: I was speaking on the trade question.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Perhaps he is going to start armour works next.


David Warnock: Perhaps that is the
reason that the Minister of Finance put a duty on steel rods; he may anticipate the

!
r2704
founding of an armour factory. If that statement of the hon. member for Brantford is correct, then there must be a lot of eastern Canadian farmers who are wearing coats of mail to-day because our export trade, particularly from Ontario and the eastern provinces as well as from the western provinces, into the United States, is growing from month to month, and our farmers seem to like it. If the hon. member for Brantford will ask the Americans who bought Canadian stockers in Ontario* last fall what they think, I believe the American cattle men will tell him that it is the American, who needs the coat of mail when he deals with the innocent Ontario farmer. The American cattle buyers who bought Ontario stockeTS last fall found that many of them were worn-out cows that were no loss to Canada. The hon. member for Brockville (Mr. Webster) I believe will admit that many of the stockers sold to the United States buyers were worn-out cows and inferior stockers.


Mr. WEBSTER:: I would like the hon.
member to show me in ' Hansard' Where I made any statement about that. He may find that statement in the speech made by the hon. member for Chateauguay (Mr. Morris).


David Warnock: I did not say that the hon. member said so; I said that I did not think lie would dispute it if I said so. I am sure I do not want to annoy the hon. member for Brockville; he has a great reputation. Many of the Americans who bought cattle in Ontario and Quebec last fall are losing a lot of money on these investments to-day. As I said before, the American cattle buyer does not get any the best of it when he runs up against the canny Ontario farmer. The hon. member for Brantford, when speaking about the British market, was interrogated by the hon. member for Rouville:
Mr. Lemieux: What about our cattle?
Mr. Cockshutt:	I do not think we have
many cattle to send over there at this time. Our meat would probably bring a very good jtrice in Great Britain, but judging from the prices now prevailing in the home market, I think every one will agree that we should keep most of our cattle at home to feed our own people.
These sentiments are all right, but they do not work out in practice. The United States market is taking thousands of our beef cattle, while the British market is not taking one. Why? Because our cattle do not work out in practice. The United We have shipped a great many cattle to
[Mr. Warnock.1
Great Britain, but why are they not going there now? For years the cattlemen of Western Canada have shipped their cattle -not all of them-to the United States market, paid the duty and made a handsome profit and they are doing that today. If they had sold to Canadian buyers they would have been compelled to accept only about 60 per cent of the value of the cattle. We .shipped those carttle to the United States in face of the opposition of the Canadian beef trust in Winnipeg. They did everything to hinder us. Sometimes they got an option on all the Canadian Pacific railway cattle oars, and we were compelled to drive the cattle across the line and ship from American stockyards oveT American roads. Those are facts. The hon. member for Brantford also made this statement in reply to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) :
Ship your cattle over the border and, as soon as you begin to get a market established, quarantine and the tuberculosis test will do the trick. My hon. friend would not be sending his wheat into the United States for more than a month or two before the Americans would find smut in it, or that it was not properly classified.
When it comes down to impeding the shipment of Canadian cattle by quarantine, how does the United States compare with Great Britain? There has been an embargo on Canadian cattle entering Great Britain for over twenty years. Our cattle were unjustly, I say, shut out of the British market. If cattle are shipped to the British market they have to be killed at the port of debarkation. That embargo was imposed at the time When contagious pleuro-pneumonia was prevalent amongst United States cattle, and the British authorities thought they had found a few cases in Canadian cattle. They said: There is only an imaginary boundary line between the United States and Canada and .if United States cattle are diseased. Canadian cattle must also be diseased. The Canadian authorities sent inspectors to England who held many post-mortems on cattle slaughtered on the other side, but they never succeeded in finding a case of disease. Even when the British authorities were petitioned by the Scottish farmers and the cattle feeders of England to remove the embargo, they steadily refused, and it exists to-day. That is another reason why so many of our cattle go to the United States market. The embargo was absolutely unjustifiable, and if the hon. member for Brantford would forget his imperialism for a moment and take a common

sense view of the business of the Canadian farmer, he would not make so many mistakes.
What did the hon. member for Brock-ville (Mr. Webster) say ? He was regretting that so many stockers-I think he was referring more particularly to Ontario and Quebec cattle-had gone to the United States market. I have shown that many of those stockers were no loss to Canada, and I have the authority of the live stock commissioners and other well-informed gentlemen for that statement. I believe it would have been a God-send to the live stock industry of Canada if some Ontario and Quebec farmers had shipped all their stock across the line and then made a fresh start with healthy cattle.


John Webster: That is not the case in Ontario.


David Warnock: I will give my hon. friend a little information if he waits. I know what I am talking about. The hon. member said:
What do these cattle consist of? To a large extent of young stock, one-year olds and two-year olds. That is a mistake that our farmers made. They shipped as high as thirty-five or forty in one car, and we saw carload after carload going out of our country. To-day many farmers regret that they sold that stock, for they could sell It in the home market to-day, in Saskatchewan or British Columbia, for more money.
The hon. member admits that he is correctly reported ?


John Webster: Yes.
Mr. WARNOC'K:	The Ontario farmer
could not do anything of the kind, and I will prove it to the hon. member. He knows-perhaps he does not, but others know-that these stockers brought more money from American buyers than they were worth to any buyer in Canada. Some of us who were buying cattle about that time bought them through agents in Ontario and had them shipped out West, but when they landed in Alberta we were so disappointed with them that we did not want any more. That was just before the Underwood tariff came into effect. We were wired by our agents in Ontario that the duty was removed and that American buyers were in the country and that our agents could sell cattle to these buyers at considerable profit. We wired them to sell, and they sold the cattle to American buyers. They were worth a great deal more to them than they were to us. The hon. member for Broekville says that these cattle could have been shipped to British Columbia or Saskatchewan. Let us see. I do not want to convey the impression that tuberculosis is rampant in Ontario or Quebec, but there is more of it than there should be. The Minister of Agriculture will admit that it is one of the hardest problems with which he and his live stock commissioner have to contend. Let us see what the position is in British Columbia. We hear so much about the home market and its value to Canadians. I just wish to quote from the last report of Mr. Richardson, secretary of the Alberta Cattle Breeders' Association:
One of the most important conditions in connection with the cattle industry has arisen during the past two years as a result of animals not being allowed to be imported to British Columbia from other parts of Canada without first satisfactory passing inspection for tuberculosis.


Mr. BURRELL:: Is that stated there without any qualification?


David Warnock: Permit me to continue:
During the past few days this menace has been more forcibly brought home to the undersigned through the fact of a considerable shipment of cattle having been brought from Ontario for British Columbia The shipper was not aware that the animals had to pass a veterinary examination for tuberculosis until the shipments arrived at Calgary, where they were tested. Practically all of the shipment reacted for tuberculosis, and were sold locally in Alberta.	,	...
The following resolution was passed at the last annual meeting
That is the meeting, I presume, of the Alberta Cattle Breeders' Association:
That the Dominion Government be petitioned to put in force the same regulations for Alberta as are in force for British Columbia in respect to inspection for tuberculosis, of all pure-bred animals coming into Alberta, and that the inspection shall apply to grade dairy cattle being imported into the province as well as pure-breds.
Whatever may be the best method of handling this problem in the general interests of the Dominion of Canada, the fact that there is such an inspection in force for British Columbia makes it absolutely imperative that a similar inspection should be in force in Alberta, and no doubt when enforced in Alberta, the seriousness of the problem will be at once apparent to the residents of Saskatchewan.
Mr. Richardson read communications from Hon. Duncan Marshall, Minister of Agriculture, which showed that the department was determined to do everything possible to promote the success of these tests and thus protect the people from meat contaminated by tuberculosis.


Martin Burrell: Permit me to point out that the justification for that is the fact that British Columbia, unlike Alberta, has
on its statute books an Act which pro-

vides for destruction of and compensation for all animals having bovine tuberculosis, by which they have reduced it to about two per cent, and of course that makes the circumstances different in that province. It is the only province in the Dominion that has done that.


David Warnock: I think Alberta has also taken steps of that kind. I know that in the city of Calgary and other cities all dairy cows are inspected, and a great many of these cows have been found to be infected with tuberculosis, and their milk is not allowed to be sold.


Martin Burrell: There is no compensation?


David Warnock: There is no compensation, but it is illegal for a dairyman to sell the milk of a tuberculous animal. These are some of the points I want to deal with in connection with the statements of the hon. member for Brockville (Mr. Webster), and these are some of the situations that Ontario and Quebec farmers will have to face at a very early date. I heard some remarks made in the Agricultural Committee on this very question by the hon. member for Brockville and the hon. member for Dufferin (Mr. Best), who seem to be very strongly opposed to the application of the tuberculin test, but I can assure you it has got to come. It is one of the problems facing the Minister of Agriculture to-day, and I believe he and his veterinary director-general are taking steps to meet that situation; at least I hope they will take such steps.
The western provinces are not prepared to accept the culls from Ontario, and before we will do that we will do as we have done in the past: we will go down to Mexico and import cattle from Mexico and pay the duty on them. One gentleman from southern Alberta was in Mexico a few weeks ago, but owing to the unsettled conditions in that country he could not buy cattle. However, many thousands of cattle have been brought in from Mexico in the past few years, and we will bring in more of them; they are adapted to our range conditions, and they do not require a great deal of care in the winter.
As regards free wheat, I have already given my views on that question in this House, but I would like to say this further: that I heard the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Aikins) the other day state that he was glad the Minister of Finance had not 
closed the door to free wheat. I think, however, the hon. gentleman will have a great deal of difficulty in persuading his constituents that the Minister of Finance has not closed the door to free wheat. I . doubt very much, however, if the hon. member for Brandon knows very much about what the Minister of Finance purposes doing. I believe that we will get free wheat before the next election, and if we do I think it will be through the efforts of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers). As I have already said, that hon. gentleman has a very keen appreciation of the value of votes, and he does not want to see the western provinces vote solidly against the Conservative Government; not he, and he will bring some pressure to bear on the Minister of Finance before the next election to get him to pronounce in favour of free wheat.
On the question of agricultural implements, since the hon. member for Moose-jaw (Mr. Knowles) moved his free agricultural implement amendment, we have had many statements made by Conservative speakers in this House and outside of it, and statements made in the Conservative press to the effect that the reduction in the duty on agricultural implements granted in the present Budget is more favourable to the western farmer than that which was proposed under the reciprocity pact of 1911. I have gone through this matter very carefully, taking the figures, the retail cost, the duty, the customs valuation, and the duty collected, and I have also made the same comparison on the basis of the duty set out in the reciprocity treaty. It is estimated that the average equipment of agricultural implements, required by a homesteader, would cost about $1,200, and the duty he paid on these implements, which he absolutely requires came to $153, under the duty existing before it was changed by the recent reduction. Under the proposed reciprocity agreement, that amount of $153 was reduced to about $124, or a saving of $29.42. But under the reduction now granted in the present Budget, the amount is only reduced by $7.50 against the $29.42 as proposed under the reciprocity treaty. Since the hon. member for Moosejaw moved his amendment, I have seen references in the eastern press to -what they describe as the tax dodging western farmer. The hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Smith), speaking this afternoon said that free agricultural implements would not be much good to settlers, but if it would save each settler from $150 to

$154, that would mean a very great deal to him; it might mean the difference between the success or failure of a homesteader.
I must refer again to the coat of mail and shining armour that the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) spoke _ about, and I must .say if there is any man in Canada who needs a coat of mail it is the western farmer when he gets into the grasp of the Canadian manufacturer of agricultural implements; and to prove this I shall relate a few instances of what has taken place in my part of the country during the past year.
During the past few years the agricultural implement manufacturers and their agents have made themselves very obnoxious in Alberta and, I believe, also in Saskatchewan. I may mention one case that occurred in the month of November last. A young farmer had a team seized which had cost him $500 the year before, and sold at public auction at forced sale by one of the implement companies for $265. I will mention another case. A farmer came from one of the eastern provinces six or seven years ago with a considerable amount of capital and settled in the province of Alberta. He did very well for a year or two, but then he got some threshing machines, ploughs and such things, and got into the hands of the implement men. He wras closed out last November and eight or ten head of horses were seized and sold for less than sixty,per cent of their true value.


Mr. CURRIE:: Would free implements
have saved him from that?


David Warnock: If the farmer was allowed to buy where he chose he would not deal with ian implement firm who treated him in that way. He would have another chance; he would have competition. These are the complaints that are prevailing in the West, not only in Alberta but in Saskatchewan also. I desire to read a few' excerpts from the address of Mr. J. A. Maharg, president, at the thirteenth annual convention of the Saskatchewan Grain Growers Association held at Moosejaw on February 11, 1914. Mr. Maharg said:
Why are farmers poor?
Although the present year yielded a bountiful harvest of excellent quality over the greater portion of our province, we are forced to admit that the financial condition of a large number of the farmers of Saskatchewan is very unsatisfactory. This condition should not be allowed to exist, and would not exist were justice and fair-dealing the rule of all those with whom the farmers must do business.
He instances a few cases and proceeds:
My position In our movement, especially in connection with the Co-operative Elevator Company, brings me in closer touch with the financial position of the farmers than possibly that of any other individual in Saskatchewan. I have made careful inquiry along this line, and almost invariably the cases of real hardship that I have investigated have been caused by the implement firms forcing collections. I consider they have taken a very unfair position in this matter-a position which has cost the farmers of this province at least $6,000,000 on the price received for their grain, as well as being indirectly responsible for throwing thousands of men out of employment. This is a question which is of vital interest to every resident of our province, regardless of their occupation, as the prosperity of all is absolutely dependent upon the prosperity of the farmers.
- Hasty marketing and unemployment.
In mv address two years ago you will remember I stated that should any years crop be practically all marketed during a few months in the fall, the result would be that thousands employed by the transportation systems would lose their employment. The possible condition outlined then is an actuality now, and because of its far-reaching effect, it is essential that all citizens of the province, whatever their occupation, should join hands in an effort to

Changing implement note dates.
We have tried to arrange a conference with the Manufacturers' Association to see, among other matters, if a change in the due date of notes given for machinery could not be made in order that farmers might not be forced to market their grain so hurriedly. However, up the present we have not been able to arrange for this meeting. Should we not he able to arrange for the changing of the due date of implement notes, then there is only one thing for us to do, and that is to take the matter in our own hands and deal with it ourselves.
I have mentioned already that farmersout there are forming co-operative associations for mutual protection.
This may take considerable time, but nevertheless, we can do it if we only go about it in the right manner. I feel very keenly on this matter as some of the practices that have come under my notice recently have been nothing short of outrageous.
I can corroborate what President Maharg says in this respect.


Mr. BRADBURY:: How would you correct that?


David Warnock: Do you not think that free implements would help?


George Henry Bradbury: No.


David Warnock: I think it would. In
the province of Alberta they took some steps to correct it. At the last session of the provincial legislature a Machine Act was passed, and I want to show what effect that *had. A constituent of mine, who had a very promising crop last summer ordered, at the solicitation of one of the implement firms,


David Warnock: At six o'clock I had just finished my remarks on free agricultural implements, and I now desire to say a word about the increased duties on steel rods and other articles of steel. But first I desire to refer to the fact that the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Coekshutt) challenged certain statements which I attributed to him. I had not ' Hansard ' with me, but I have looked the matter up since, and I desire to quote just what the hon. member did say. I quote from the debate on the 16th of January, 1913, as reported at page 1634 of ' Hansard '. The hon. member was speaking in reply to Mr. Pugsley:
What did the Government or which my hon. friend was a member, do? Under the Rush-Bagot treaty the Americans were allowed to have two war vessels on the Great Lakes and these of about 100 tons each, but by the permission of the Laurier Government they got through our canals nine war vessels, some of 1,300 tons instead of 100.
Mr. Pugsley: Only training vessels.
Mr. Coekshutt: But they will have their guns trained on us and we have not got a boat to defend ourselves when the trouble arises.
So, I was correct in what I attributed to the hon. member. Now, as to the changes in the duties on steel: I have had many letters from gentlemen in the West strongly objecting to steel bounties or any tariff on steel. The Minister of Finance has seen fit to raise these duties, and the opinion of the West is that this will have the effect of very materially increasing the price of nails and many articles used by the farmers and settlers in that country. I noticed a few

days ago the financial statement of the Steel Company which it is understood these changes in the tariff will most affect, showing the business done during the year and the profits on that business. That statement goes to indicate that these increases in duties on steel rods and other articles are quite unnecessary, for the company has had a profitable year and is doing very well.
Now, as to the question of the Canadian Northern railway, I agree to a great extent with what was said by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Buchanan) the other night. But I am content to wait until the Government brings down its proposition in this matter and then I shall endeavour to judge the case on its merits. We want more railways in the West, there is no doubt of that. There are many lines of the Canadian Northern railway projected in parts of Alberta and also of Saskatchewan, and if we do not get these lines, we shall probably have to wait a long time before other companies will build the roads. Mr. J. A. Calder Minister of Railways in the Saskatchewan Government was interviewed in Toronto on the 11th instant, and I desire to quote what he has to say on this question:
' People who talk about putting on the brakes and stopping work are totally unfamiliar with conditions,' said he. ' These lines are required not to open up new territory, but to supply railway facilities for settlers who took up the lands years ago. The purport of the decision of the Board of Railway Commissioners on the freight rates case clearly indicates that these branch lines are urgently needed and must be proceeded with. Unless this is done not only will settlement and development be retarded, but thousands of our farmers who are completely disheartened will pull up stakes and leave the country. This represents the real situation, a situation that eastern Canada is interested in just as much as the West. If we are to hold what we have and if we are to secure annually the increase in crop area which we should expect it is imperative that railway facilities should be provided in all the large settlements in the West where the farmers are compelled to haul the grain a greater distance than from ten to twelve miles to market. Wherever this haul reaches out to twenty miles or over grain-growing is unprofitable, and will not be carried on.'
Mr. Calder was referring particularly to Saskatchewan, but conditions in Alberta are practically similar. But, as I have said,
I am prepared to wait until the Government brings down its proposal in relation to the Canadian Northern railway question, and then to judge their proposal on its merits. With regard to immigration questions,

Mr. Calder made some remarks on that question also, and these I desire to read:
' While the West has been receiving its share of the newcomers to Canada, the percentage of those who go on the land is comparatively small,' said the minister.
' The ever-increasing tendency has been to crowd into our cities, and, as a direct consequence, conditions are arising that are unhealthy and undesirable, to say nothing of the fact that agricultural development, the real backbone of the country, is more or less at a standstill.'
Here again his remarks are appliable to Alberta. We also have been getting a great many immigrants, but only a small percentage are going on the land. Yet it is of the utmost importance that we should get settlers on the land, settlers who will cultivate and produce, whose increase of crop and extension of crop area will help to sustain the many villages, towns and cities that have sprung up in the West. In my opinion it is only by giving the farmers of the West a wider market for their products, not only for wheat, but also for oats, barley and flax, and so encouraging them with a profit on their capital and return for their labour, that we will make them content to stay on the land.
We have had a great deal of advice, particularly from people in the East, that we should go into mixed farming. But those who give that advice overlook the fact that many areas in the West are not adapted to mixed farming. It may be because of scarcity of water, or it may be for some other reason, many of our farms are not adapted to stock raising and mixed farming. There must always be a surplus of wheat and other grain to ship out of that country, and for this a market must be found. I am satisfied, and in this I voice the opinion of the farmers of the West, that that market is to be found south of the boundary. Several hon. members on the other side have endeavoured to belittle the value of the United States market. Now, I wish to show just how that market has benefited us in one article within the last two months. This is quoted from the press, and it is practically correct:
Owing to the removal of the United States customs tariff, the sheepmen of Southern Alberta sold their 1914 clip at an average of 3 cents or 4 cents per pound over what could have been secured from Canadian buyers. One Boston firm purchased a million and a quarter pounds for $215,000, which is $80,000 more than the sum paid by Canadian buyers for practically the same amount last year.


Mr. MORPHY:: With the hon. member's permission, I desire to ask him a question. For what reason was the tariff removed from wool by the American Government?


David Warnock: I presume because they wanted it.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Won't the same thing happen with wheat?


David Warnock: Let me explain that. The United States miller, I believe, does not want our wheat on any other conditions than those on which he gets it to-day. If the United States farmer buys wheat in Canada for purposes of milling and exporting, he gets a drawback of ninety-nine per cent on the flour exported; he is practically in just as good a position to-day as he would be under free wheat-but our farmer pays the duty. He says to the Canadian farmer: there is a tariff of ten cents a bushel on that product; you will have to take that much less. Take our cattle to-day; the large American packers are opposed to our cattle going into the United States; it is the smiali independent packer of Seattle, Tacoma and other western cities who are buying our hogs and cattle. In the same way if you let wheat, for consumption in the United States, go into that country duty free, the small independent grain buyer will come into Canada and buy grain, and you will get the best of the large American miller. The American millers will fight the United States president if he ever proposes to remove that duty. They do not want it removed: they are in a better position today because they have the ninety-nine per cent drawback. Many farmers in my own constituency are shipping their wheat, barley and flax to the United States market, paying duty, and making a handsome profit. If they can do that under the United States tariff, they could make a very much larger profit if they had free entry for their wheat into the United States market. That is why we want free access to the United States market, and I believe that the reason we do not get it from the United States Government is because of the opposition of the American millers.


Mr. W. G. WEICHEL (North Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, very seldom do I attempt to take up the time of this House, and I do so now only because I feel it my duty to take part in this debate-because I feel deeply conscious of my own responsibility to the riding I represent and to the country I serve. In view of that responsibility,

I have taken some pains to place my views on the fiscal policy of Canada before this House, and I hope my remarks will be considered as emanating from a man who has lived in Canada all his life and who has observed with pride and satisfaction the progress that the country has made; and I trust that they will be received as the honest and well considered views of a Canadian business man.
I listened with a great deal of pleasure to the able address delivered by the Minister of Finance when delivering his Budget speech. I followed his remarks very closely and now take this opportunity to	congratulate him for the
words of	good cheer and optimism
that rang throughout the whole length of his remarks. Although the country has met with a slight reverse; although pessimists were ready to cry blue ruin, the statement shows that Canada again has passed the billion dollar mark, a fact that is hailed with delight by every optimistic Canadian citizen. We have made the grade, and the lessons learned during the past year or so will have a beneficial and lasting effect upon all of us. Good management, prevention of waste, the adoption -of good business principles and methods, and a desire on the part of our banking institutions to further legitimate enterprises, will have their effect on the future prosperity of -Canada, and let us hope that before long the nightmare of financial distress will be a thing of the past and only a fleeting memory.
Before entering the House of Commons as a duly-elected member, I had my doubts [DOT]and misgivings regarding the utterances of members on the fiscal policy of the nation.
I often came to the conclusion, while perusing the columns of the newspapers, that the insinuations aimed at certain members were groundless and biased and that they had been wilfully misquoted. These illusions of mine have, however, been sadly shattered since I listened to speeches of hon. gentlemen comprising the Opposition, many of whom think less of the principles of free trade than I do myself. They make the claim that Providence was with the Liberal party from 1896 to 1911. Many and varied were the speeches delivered by these hon. gentlemen deploring the downfall of the- Liberal party in 1911. My late oppon

ent declared in most emphatic terms, at a

banquet given in his honour in the city of Berlin, that the factory whistles did not blow and the factory bells did not ring at eight o'clock in the morning -and at five o'clock in the evening when the Liberal paity was in power prior to 1911, and, of course, as usual, blamed it on the present Government and its policy relating to the tariff. Was prosperity, Mr. Speaker, achieved under free trade from 1896 to 1911, or was it achieved under protection? Did hon. gentlemen make many -changes downward while they were in power during that period? Certainly they did not, and because of that -foresight the people kept them in harness for fifteen years until the free trade bug got ini its deadly work and then what happened? Th-e people took a hand in the game and the results were disastrous-and they were not what the followers cf the Manchester School anticipated.
-Many matters of great moment have been brought to-the attention of the country through the speech of the Finance Minister. One matter in particular which attracted my attention during the delivery of the speech should not be overlooked in this House. It is a matter with which I am fully conversant, as it belongs to the business which I follow from one end of the year to the other in my home town- and I wish to congratulate the minister upon the change he made in this regard, which will be so beneficial to the farmers. The House will excuse me, therefore, if for a short time I refer to this particular matter. It is with regard to the item relating to No. 9 fence wire, which is under the present tariff admitted duty free. This No. 9 wire is used in the manufacture of ready-made wire fencing. Customs inspectors are furnished with what is known as a notch gauge, the width of the notch or opening for No. 9 size- being 144/1000 in. The opening for the -next smaller size, No. 10, is 128/1000 in., a difference of 16/1000 in. The wire that is found too large to pass into the No. 10 notch in the gauge is classified as the next size larger, which is No. 9, one of the duty free1 sizes. This permits of a great variation in the size of No. 9 wire, all of which passes customs duty free. A reduction of from 8 to 10 points in the size of the wire means a saving of from 8 to 10 per cent in the weight of material used, where this scant material is converted into

woven fencing and sold by the rod, which is the basis on which the farmer buys it. The opportunity for the maker of fencing to rob his customers arises out of his practice of buying goods by the pound and selling them by the rod. I have been in business too long not to know what has been done in this country with regard to the No. 9 gauge wire used in fencing. The practice with some makers is to order American No. 10 size, which is 135/1000 in., but duty free, as I explained before. The farmer has no means of gauging the size of the wire in his fence when he makes a purchase, and it is very difficult even for the trained eye to distinguish between No. 9 and 10 sizes. Let me illustrate the difference :
One lb. of wire, 144/1000 in. diameter stretches 17| ft.; 1 lb. of wire 135/1000 in. diameter stretches 204 ft. This extreme variation in the size of material used in the different kinds of fence, has made the fence question a confusing one for the farmer and he has been led to 'believe that he will get fully No. 9 gauge wire in his fence; and, without provision for testing after taking his material home, he believes that he 'has got what he paid for. Confinihg the size to be admitted, duty free, more closely to the standard of 144/1000 in. adopted by the Canadian Government in their specifications for the National Transcontinental railway, allowing a variation of not more than a few points below the standard, which has been done by this Government, should not work any hardship t-o the manufacturers of woven-wire fence, who desire to give their customers the size and measure of material which they advertise. This will undoubtedly benefit the farmer who to-day buys and pays for No. 9 gauge wire to be used in fencing. All we ask for in justice to the farmer, is that those manufacturers who advertise wire as No. 9 should be absolutely compelled to furnish exactly what they advertise. Advertising is conducted, in many instances, in a barefaced and bold manner in this country, and something should be done to curb this evil, which to-day has assumed large proportions. By this means money is being .-taken out of the pockets of the buying public, who, in my estimation, should be protected by some law governing advertising methods as is done in Germany.
I -stated before that I was an optimist regarding Canada and her future. Of course, I am a believer in moderate protection, and, while I have the opportunity, I wish, for a short time, to make some comparisons between free trade England and protected Germany; and -perhaps my friends on both sides of the House will give me credit for at least giving them facts which I nave taken great pains to collect, and which I am not giving to this House with a view of lauding Germany, hut simply to show what I believe, in all fairness, to be a great victory for the principles of protection These facts, which are thoroughly reliable, should open the eyes of all Canadians to the danger of free trade, a policy which would mean utter ruin and annihilation to the manufacturing artisan, and agricultural interests of Canada. Some time ago a considerable number of representatives of British workingmen's societies travelled through Germany with a view to discovering whether the workingmen fare better under protection or under free trade. Their reports were very interesting and teemed with interesting -and valuable facts. Germany introduced protection in 1879. Let us for a short time, compare Germany and British industrial conditions, taking as a starting point 1880.
The great productive industries are four in number, namely, mining, manufacturing, agriculture and trade. Germany, like Great Britain, mines principally coal and iron ore. The production of these has progressed as follows in the two countries, -according to the Statistical Abstract for Foreign Countries, published late in autumn,. 1911:
Production of Coal and Lignite.
Great Britain, Germany, tons.	tons.
1S80	
59,118,000	146,969,0001890	
89,291,000	181,614,0001900	
149,788,000	225,181,0001909	
217,433,000	263,774,000
Now, let us turn to the production of iron ore:
Great Britain, Germany, tons.	tons.
1880	
7,239,000	18,026,0001890	
11,406,000	13,781,0001900	
18,964,000	14,028,0001909	
25,505,000	14,980,000
In 1880, therefore, Great Britain produced 150 per cent more coal and 160 per cent more iron ore than Germany. What a marvellous change -since then! In 1909 Great Britain produced 60 per cent less iron ore than Germany, and her superiority in the production of coal has shrunk to a paltry 20 per cent and threatens soon to be a thing of the past.
Great Britain exports 60,000,000 tons of coal a year, whilst Germany exports only 10,000,000 tons. Therefore, Germany, has already overtaken Great Britain in the con-

strengthen her possessions. Do we realize that we are competing to-day with other countries who are striving for supremacy by every means in their power? Let us not forget that, as a nation, all classes within the Dominion prosper or fall together; that the farmer is dependent on the manufacturer and workingmen, and vice versa; that if one is destroyed the other suffers as well. This country is ready for business and more business.. Free trade talk in Canada, when money is scarce, when men are walking the streets by thousands in the big American cities out of work, with manufacturing plants over there ready to dump their surplus products into Canada-the man talking such rot just now should be examined as regards his sanity.	[DOT]
But we hear certain hon. members of the Opposition deny the free trade sentiments within the party. The utterances of the leader of the Opposition in many of his former speeches and the element which brought the 1910 Administration to its knees, now dominate the Liberal party, and in my opinion there is no room for a protectionist if he holds honest views, within their ranks. His counsels go for nothing, and he is regarded simply as an obstructionist. The Liberal party is committed to free trade, and they cannot fool the people any longer. For some time the Globe has argued that there is no way out ' Short of the root and branch abolition of all protective duties.' No protectionist is now recognized as a loyal member, and the Liberal leader is now absolutely in the hands of the free trade extremists. The voters will find no fault with them if they act like men and come out boldly with their policy. Why try to hide behind this and that subterfuge? State your policy, gentlemen, so that the country will know what you have in mind. We are waiting for the amendment.
I, for my part, believe in a moderate policy of protection, and I am ready tomorrow to appeal to my people on this issue. Public revenue must be raised in one fashion or another; if not by a custom tariff, then by direct taxation. If our tariff system were abolished to-morrow, we would have to raise ninety to one hundred millions or more by direct taxation.
Another amusement feature that has Deen put on the screen by our Liberal friends, who certainly know that it pays to advertise, has been the policy ' of the moment,' originated in Hamilton-I am sorry for Hamilton-and expressed in glowing terms

by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition.
What a contrast between the two parties! The Conservative party in power in 1878 declared for moderate protection and have never veered from that policy to this day. In season and out of season, in power and out of power, they have had faith in the great resources of our country, hoping and believing that protection, to enable our people to utilize these blessings, was necessary to build up a great, thriving and bustling community.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: Did not the
Conservative policy of 1878 include reciprocity in natural products?


William George Weichel: Possibly it did.


Michael Clark: Well, then, why complain
Df US?


William George Weichel: One of our friends
answered that question this afternoon.


Mr. MACDONALD:: What did he say?


William George Weichel: It is not necessary to
answer a question twice in this House. The Liberal party, out of power in 1878, cried for unrestricted reciprocity, commercial union, and when in power in 1896 they snugly entrenched themselves behind the National Policy until in an evil moment for them they listened to the voice of the free trade siren, and the result was ignominious defeat. To-day, out of power, they are advocating a policy of free trade, although they do not want everybody to know it. It is to be a secret for a while to lull to sleep the suspicions some of their Liberal manufacturing friends have displayed during the past few weeks. Pul us back; we won't hurt you, they say to the manufacturer, and yet they wish to destroy our iron industry in Waterloo, manufacturing agricultural implements, which employs two hundred hands, mostly men with families. And, to disarm suspicion, ' Free food ' is introduced into the arena. It was heralded on that memorable evening, and gradually lost its brilliancy, until to-day many advocates of Liberalism wish that some other opportune thought had entered the subtle brain of their leader. ' Free food '-who does not like the words?-they sound well; but sounds leave only an echo, and that is about all that is left of the Hamilton announcement.
Mr. Speaker, economic thinkers in the world to-day agree that the tariff is not responsible for the high cost of living, and

the theory that the abolition of customs tariff will lower prices and better the condition of the masses has been found wanting. Britain has had free trade for more than sixty years, and yet the cost of living in the United Kingdom is going up by leaps and bounds. Holland and Denmark are low tariff countries, yet they pay more for their food-stuffs than do the people of high protectionist countries like Germany and France. But, since Europe is far away, let us come nearer home. Why is it that the abolition of food duties under the Underwood tariff failed to lower the cost of living in the United States? Why, Sir, without going into details, the result has been that in the three months since the new trade policy has been in force, the cost of living in United States has not only not decreased, but has actually increased at as great a rate as during any equal period of time during the past ten or fifteen years. Some of the leading newspapers in the United States have been mercilessly exposing this policy, and they refer scornfully to the Canadian Liberals as opportunists.
Where will the free food come from when there is no cheap food outside Canada to buy? Living is high in all countries today. The United States will not buy foodstuffs from us at high prices and ship them hack to us at low prices. They abolished the tariff to get cheap food, and therefore, are not in a position to sell it. Not from England, Scotland and Ireland, because they import their food.
Where then will we get it .from? The farmer is told he will have better markets- better prices; and the workingman is told that he is to have cheap food. If the Canadian farmer is to get higher prices, then where in the name of common sense does the workingman come in? And if the workingman is to be benefited, where does the farmer come in who produces the food that we consume in Canada to ia large degree. Free food means free trade in natural products, and this means the removal of the corner stone of Canadian national prosperity. The National Policy aims to benefit the farmer and the workingman first; it benefited them by causing industries to be built up throughout the country, creating a demand for labour and a home market for the farmer. It has been successful and has made Canada a hive of industry, where the Cana-172	'	-*[DOT]
dian farmer gets good prices, and the workingman good wages.
Let the workingman of Canada consider well and realize that under free trade our industries would have to compete with cheap labour in the factories of Europe and with low standards of Asiatic and European living. I realize with all others that living is high, but I also realize that I could do with a great many things less than I am doing now, and thus reduce my living expenses. To be honest with ourselves, we must confess that we have been going at a pretty fast clip for the last fifteen or sixteen years, and that it is hard to get out of a rut. Twenty to thirty years ago living was not so high, and it does not require the services of an expert to determine the reasons. Luxuries in many forms, modern inventions, the awful and sinful extravagances in dress, styles, fashions, fads, changing in rapid succession with the moon, the world going mad trying to imitate Paris, New York and London, and rising next morning with a headache and an empty purse-these are the things that increase living expenses, and no amount of legislation will undo the evil unless we receive a check such as we received during the last year. That seems to be the only-remedy, and no doubt an all-wise Providence takes a hand in the game of life once in a while and guides the ship into the harbour of common sense and security. We, therefore, Mr. Speaker, believe that Canada has again made the upward turn, and that from now on there will be steady improvement. This great country of ours is just beginning to realize its capacity and power-its tremendous possibilities. Our resources are to-day the envy of the world, opportunities galore face those who boldly and intelligently strike out for a stake in its broad and fertile lands.
In the struggle for the trade of the world Canada will occupy the place for which the bountiful resources of nature and the efficiency of the people have equipped her. The intelligence, enterprise and co-operation of the people and Government, therefore, must be applied to maintain and strengthen her position. As I said before, taxes must be imposed in some way, for we must have revenue to carry on the affairs of Government and to build railways and canals and other public works. If not raised by customs tariff they must he taken out of the pockets of the people by tax collectors. The aim of the Conservative party is so to adjust the tariff that, while yielding sufficient revenue, it will encourage the establishment of



home industries, furnish varied occupations for the people and create a home market f-or farm products.
What do the people of the United States think about the tariff? I wish to read an article from the Iron Age, of April 16, 1914, entitled, ' Our Losses from Canada's Steel Tariff.' It is as follows:
We have already referred to the 50 per cent falling off in iron and steel exports from the United States, in the first two months of this year. While Canada's statistics of iron and steel imports in the two periods are not yet published, it is fair to assume that the business depression there, in the past year, is responsible for the poor showing in shipments from this side in recent months. Canada, as is well known, is the best customer of our steel industry.
It has been pointed out repeatedly that the preference granted Great Britain in the Canadian tariff amounts to little in comparison with the inducements to Canadians to do business with manufacturers in the United States. Canada's enormous steel trade with the United States might well quiet the fears of those who saw orders for European steel going out from this country as soon as a margin of, say, $1 a ton showed in the foreign manufacturer's favour under our new tariff. Canadian buyers of our steel have found out that it is worth more than one or two dollars a ton to be so close to their source of steel supply that shipments could be traced, that required deliveries could be met, that claims could be promptly adjusted, that the telegraph and telephone could give hourly contact with the producer, with mail connection a matter of over night. They have not underestimated, moreover, the advantage of the credit relations established with large manufacturers on this side of the line. It is these things that have kept Canada from placing more than about 10 per cent of her steel orders in Great Britain.
But what the preferential tariff could not do for British steel makers who coveted the Canadian market and have complained of the lack of loyalty that denied it to them, Canada is now to do for herself as fast as her steel manufacturers can get ready to benefit by the increased duties on iron and steel products. Only actual trade developments will permit of measuring the loss of trade the duties just announced will Inflict on American steel manufacturers. Our wire rod exports to Canada, which have been about 60,000 tons in each of the past two years, will be practically all cut off by the new duty of $3.50 a ton, as Canada's wire rod capacity is now ample to take care of the home demand. Wrought pipe shipments from this side will be cut down, particularly in the smaller sizes. It will probably be some time before any impression will be made upon the structural steel trade our mills have had there; but the Canadian duties on these products will be raised as capacity develops there to supply them. Such development is to be expected, as diversification of Canadian steel products will be forced by the decline in rail demand, for the great railroad building programme across the border is nearing the end. In a number of lines little loss will come to our Canadian trade for some years, though it is quite certain that the total of $120,900,000 worth of American iron and steel and machinery products shipped to Canada in the fiscal year

ended March 31, 1913, will long stand as a high record. Steel making has not yet been profitable to the larger Canadian companies; it will take years for the industry to become seasoned against such competition as may develop from this side, particularly in times of depression here. In the case of the largest Nova Scotia plant there is the steady handicap of distance from Canada's best consuming district, to which American works have easy access.
So far as concerns the United States Steel Corporation which does a large part of our steel business with Canada, its disabilities under the increased tariffs will be removed when it builds its own works on the other side of the border. Yet there is some food for thought in the transplanting of industries and pay-rolls from the United States, now a low tariff country, open to competition from every quarter, to a country which sees wisdom in so framing its duties that the manufacturers within its border are assured of their home market.
Mr. Speaker, my trade doctrine is moderate protection for our industries and a home market for the farmer, and I am willing to take up the gauntlet on this matter and fight it out to-morrow. Berlin, Waterloo. Galt, Preston, Guelph, Hespeler, Elmira, Brantford, and other towns in the great commercial belt fed by hydro power want no free trade talk. We want and ask for no more favours from foreign countries than we are giving to them. Let us stand united as one people, filled with loyalty and enthusiasm towards our common country, Canada, which, under protection) has reached the point where it is the coming country of the twentieth century.


Mr. D. B. NEELY (Humboldt):: Seldom has Parliament heard a franker statement of questions of policy as they affect the West than was made by Mr. J. A. M. Aikins, member for Brandon, in the Budget debate to-day. It was free from partisanship and showed deep study and thorough understanding of conditions.
The second next paragraph reads:
Mr. Aikins showed that nothing had been done for the West by the late Government. They had delayed the construction of the Hudson bay road and even now were hostile to that enterprise.
I at least can show in my observations on the Budget speech as little partisanship as was shown by the hon. member for Brandon as quoted in the Winnipeg Telegram. I suppose it is the universal delight [DOT]of Finance Ministers, when they make their [DOT]annual statements to representative bodies, to boast of surpluses. That is natural as it would be for the Minister of War to boast of the number of armouries he had built and of the efficiency of the militia. But I *cannot always see th'at a surplus spells prosperity for the country whose Govern-has been able to obtain a surplus by taxing the people. I can understand the condition where a surplus is advisable in times of great material prosperity among the people. In that case a surplus is like the storing up of the corn in the fat years; but when the Minister of Finance, as my hon. friend did the other day, comes to the House and makes the statement that he has the proud distinction of announcing to the House and to the country that there is a surplus of revenue over expenditure and in the very next breath tells us that not for some years has there been such commercial and financial stringency in the Dominion of Canada as there is at the present time; then, Sir, I say that a surplus is not an advisable proposition because it simply means that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance admits that his Government were taxing the people sufficiently heavily to have a large surplus of revenue over expenditure while admitting that there is material distress throughout the length and breadth of the land. I think the greatest surplus that any country can have is a surplus of material prosperity and wellbeing amongst the people. The Minister of Finance says the worst of the hard times is over, but he probably has, made prophecies before which have not come true, and we shall have to await the course of events, because whatever knowledge the Minister may have of future events, he certainly is not ommicient.
IMr. Neely.]
We do not know that the worst is over, but we do know, and even my friend from North Waterloo who boasts of his optimism, has said to the House that he knows that conditions have not just been all that they possibly could be in the commercial and industrial life of the country. He knows that fact, and he knows that the people to-day are feeling more than they have done for the last fifteen or eighteen years the burden of taxation. What is the remedy that my hon. friend proposes fox this condition of affairs in the country? I say the remedy that he proposes is to add some more burdens to the taxpayers of this country. They are not taxed enough now, they are not burdened heavily enough, and my hon. friend is going to remove the financial stringency and to clear up the difficulties of the situation by adding to the taxes of people who already have too heavy burdens' to pay. That may be sound economics, but I do not think it is. I think it is the most indefensible sort f economics that any Minister of Finance [DOT]could present to the House and to the country.
The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Aikins) told us that the Minister of Finance had an open mind on questions of tariff and probably on the question of whether or not the people of the West should be granted the boon of free wheat. I am glad that is true, but I have an awful suspicion that if the Minister of Finance has an open mind it is open only on one side. It is open, but the eye that looks upon the needs of the farmers and the ear that listens to their demands, that eye is blind and that ear is deaf. But the senses of sight and hearing on the other side of his mind are abnormally acute where the interests of the highly organized privileged classes of this country are concerned. I must say that so far as the people whom I represent in this House are concerned, the people of a western constituency, the tariff proposals of the Budget speech delivered by the Minister of Finance some days ago are the most bitter disappointment, the most bitter pill to swallow that the western farmer has had placed at his lips for many a long year. My hon. friend from Souris (Mr. Schaffner) can afford to laugh, he has an established future, but there are gentlemen on the other side of the House who have not that established future and who cannot afford to laugh. They know that what I say is true. I noticed the Solicitor General (Mr. APRIL 20, 1914
ATeighen) paying particular attention to the Minister of Finance as he read the long list of tariff changes, and while thore was applause both here and there I noticed that the Solicitor General kept very mum and looked just as mum as he kept. There were others on that side of the House in the same frame of mind. I did not hear any applause from the Minister of the Interior. The Minister of Public Works did applaud once. That was when the Minister of Finance announced that he was going to increase the duty on building stone in order to benefit the stonecutters of Canada. His applause was feeble, it is true, but in that respect at least he showed that he was in accord with the Government of which he is a member. These tariff changes were not altogether a surprise to members of this House. The Minister of Finance as we all know has a political history. He claims that at one time he was a follower of the Liberal party. If that be the case all I can say of his present situation is: how have the (mighty fallen! From the moment of his taking office the Minister of Finance has proved to this House and to the country by the methods he has adopted and the policies' he has pursued that while he is a friend of .certain interests in this country, the farmers and the great consuming masses have absolutely nothing to expect from him.
What was the first thing thing this Government did when they came to office? A lumbermen's deputation came from the fair West. Certain kinds of lumber, which under the Liberal Government bad for many years been coming into, our western prairies free of duty was taxed $2 a thousand by some strange interpretation of the statute on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite. The homesteader who wanted to build a shack on the prairie consequently had to pay $2 extra a thousand. The Supreme Court, I believe, reversed their interpretation, so that the farmers of western Canada who need lumber-and they all need it more or less- have the Supreme Court and not the Government of Canada to thank for saving them $2 a thousand on their lumber. That is only one item. We have heard of other items concerning the far East and all along down the line.
I must, however, give my hon. friend credit for cutting in two the duty on cement in the summer of 1912. I am not going to repeat the arguments that have already been made that this particular reduction
happened to synchronize, to use the minister's own word, with the Saskatchewan provincial election. But to those gentlemen who argue that protection has. nothing to do with the high cost of living I would say that if that is the case why did the Minister of Finance give the people of the West that reduction in the duty on cement in the summer of 1912? They may answer. To give us a larger quantity. Very true. But if the Minister of Public Works were in his seat, he would not deny that speaking to the people of Regina and through them to the people of the province of Saskatchewan, he boasted that this reduction of the Government would reduce the price of cement throughout western Canada. If a cut in the duty on cement helps to lessen the cost of building homes on the prairies, helps to lessen the cost of living, surely the same argument ought to apply to food-stuffs, to agricultural implements or to anything that hides behind a high protective wall.


John Hampden Burnham: Do I understand that the hon. member wants to see all these things pouring into Canada free ?


David Bradley Neely: I am afraid that I have a slight attack of deafness, and I believe it is in my left ear. I cannot answer just now a question that would take up perhaps half an hour, but I will try to answer it as
I go along.	_ ,	.
The minister's statement on the Budget was to the effect that the National Policy introduced by Sir John A. Macdonald was a policy of protection that was not subject to variations. That is what I understood him to say. That is not my view of the National Policy. The Minister of Finance and the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Weichel) ought to read up the political history of their own country. If they would read the speech of Sir John A. Macdonald in introducing the National Policy they would find that one of his chief arguments was that Canada must build a protective tariff wall in order to force our nearest neighbour to give us better trade terms than we had hitherto been able to obtain. Does the Minister of Finance or any other hon. member of this House say that the reciprocity clause of the National Policy tariff was not just as important a part of that tariff as any other clause it contained ? If the minister reads that speech of Sir John A. Macdonald s he will find that protection was but a means to an end, and that end was to obtain free entry to the United States market for the products of Canada. But it evidently does

not suit my hon. friend's purpose to go back so far in the history of Canada. The hon. member for North Waterloo did not dare to answer the question put to him by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark).
I am not on my feet to discuss, as the hon. member for North Waterloo has done, the difference between protection and free trade. To those members of the Government who obtained office by opposition to the reciprocity agreement I would say that while many of us on this side of the House may be believers in the doctrine of free trade we are not the iconoclasts that they endeavour to make us out in the eyes of the people. We recognize that this country is situated under peculiar conditions and has been since Canada became a nation. To the south of us we have a country of 100,000,000 of people who have for many years been in favour of the policy of high protection. Surely we in Canada are not going to admit that we are behind them in our forwardness of thought on the trade question. The Minister of Finance-I have read his speech carefully from end to end while extolling the policy of protection for Canada,	never made a	single
reference to the trend of thought in the great republic to the south; never called attention to the fact that in these days the people of the United States and whatever may be our prejudices against that country we must admit that the American people are a great people- have come to the conclusion that they were deceived in their views, and that to-day the President and the Government of that country are setting about to see how rapidly they may do away with that protection, which they consider has ceased to be a benefit even to their manufacturing industries.	"
I have said that the tariff proposals in the Budget were a great disappointment, and I reaffirm that statement. There is no question of doubt, that the members of this Government understand very clearly and very thoroughly what are the views of the people of the West on the questions that are dealt with in the tariff proposals of the Minister of Finance. I can say to the hon. gentleman, that there will be no question in the minds of the people of the West just what he meant as to these tariff proposals, because when you take the whole list of proposed changes, what do you find? You find one small item of comfort thrown out as a sop to the farmers of western Canada, and you find 
every other reasonable demand they have made on this Government, along tariff lines, absolutely refused, while on the other hand a great many changes have been made to increase protection on the manufactured products of this country.
Some people say that the farmers of the West do not want to pay their fair share of taxation. That is an absurdity, and. more than that, it is a slander on the people of western Canada. They are willing to pay their fair share of the taxes, but they want a square deal from this Government or from any other Government. If this Government proposes to legislate for certain sections of the country, then the sooner the sections that are to be left out in the cold become aware of that fact, the better it is for them. Here are the farmers of the West, men who have gone out as pioneers to break up the virgin soil, arid who have endured hardships and privations of all sorts, and, in many oases, hunger, and want, and cold. There are many of those settlers who have gone forty miles, fifty miles, yes one hundred miles, beyond any available railroad, hoping that some time in the future means of transportation would be provided for them. These men have toiled and waited patiently for the advent of better things. To-day, we have in many cases, better transportation facilities, but what do we find? We find that after these men have gone through all this period of privation and hardship, there comes a time when they are able to hitch their team to a wagon, fill that wagon with the finest wheat grown in the world, and send it to market; but when they get that far, they find that the price they receive for the wheat barely pays for the cost of production. And yet, because there are a few buildings erected a few miles east of Winnipeg, with a certain amount of more or less valuable machinery in them, and because certain wealthy interests from the eastern part of Canada have come up there for the purpose of making money out of the milling of the farmers' wheat, the Minister of Finance says to the farmers: these men who have gone from the East and established their mills to mill your wheat, tell me that it will not be to your advantage to give you free access for your grain into the markets of the United States. True, Sir, these millers are few and the farmers are many in number, and the farmers have expressed, practically unanimously, their desire for free wheat, but the Minister of Finance and the Government bow to the wishes of the millers. I would not take up the
APR.iL 20, 1914
time of this House for one moment, discussing the pros and cons of the question, were it not that I simply wish to ask the House: Who should be the best judges as to whether or not they should have a market in the United States for the product of their hands, and for the result of their toil, year in and year out, if it is not the farmers who produce the wheat by the sweat of their brow and the labour of their hands? I venture to say that if a referendum on this question of free wheat were taken in western Canada-including the cities, taking Winnipeg, Regina, Moosejaw, Edmonton and Saskatoon-ninety-five per cent of the people of the prairie provinces would vote in favour of free wheat. And yet, because of a few mills down farther east than the city of Winnipeg, the owners and operators of which paid last year dividends of from thirty to sixty per cent; because these men come to the Minister of Finance and say: We do not want the farmers to get free access for their wheat into the markets cf the United States, the Minister of Finance says to these gentlemen:	All right, you
seem to have made out a good case, I suppose I shall have to give you what you want.
This is not a political question, by any manner of means. I am stating the case plainly and strongly, because I feel it strongly. I know what the conditions are in the West to-day, and I know that they are extremely unsatisfactory. If this be a party question let the Minister of Finance tell the House what the Manitoba legislature meant on the 12th of January last, when it passed a unanimous resolution in favour of taking the duty off wheat and wheat products. What did the Manitoba legislature mean by that? My hon. friend from Souris (Mr. Schaffner) will not say that his political chief in the province of Manitoba is not a patriot. Sir Rodmond Roblin was knighted by the King not long ago for being a patriotic broad-minded Canadian citizen, and surely he would not havc-this House legislate for the West against the East, or for the East against the West, and yet the Manitoba legislature unanimously resolved that free wheat should oe given to the farmers of the prairie provinces.
I brought this matter up in the House on the occasion of the Address, and I was told it was not the proper time and place to mention it, and I just casually mention the fact again, because I was told then that this would be the proper way to present, the subject before the House. I regret to say that I have not met with any more satisfaction now than I did then. And why? I maintain that we in the West have been
giving too much credit to our representatives from that part of the country, who are members of and supporters of the present Government. We had thought that the farmers of the West would get justice, with the assistance of the Minister of Public Works, of the Minister of the Interior, of the Solicitor General who is an able supporter of this Government if not a member of the Cabinet, of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Aikins) and the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett), from whom we expected great things in this House, which have not materialized yet, although we are	still	living in	hopes.
We expected great things from the hon. member for Calgary. He was going to ficrht for natural resources, but he has not started that yet.	He believes in free
wheat; I understand he told his electors so last summer. We have heard nothing of that yet. But there are other things on the way, and then perhaps we will hear the lion roar. Every one of these gentlemen, the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner), the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Sharpe), the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett), and the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. McKay), all supporters of the Government, are perfectly aware that what I say about the sentiment in the West is absolutely true. If my hon. friends do not believe it, just let them read the editorials in the Winnipeg Telegram, which, as everybody knows, is not a Grit organ, but the official Conservative organ in the province of Manitoba. Let them read, for instance, the editorial of the 13th April, and what will they find there? They will find words to this effect, and I think this editorial expresses very fairly the viewpoint of the people of the West on this question:
There is no undue sectional spirit in the West. If there were, it would display itself in resentment at the refusal of the Government to grant a more substantial reduction in the taritt on agricultural implements.
Further on:
But much of the discussion on free wheat sounded strangely like a confusion of ' eastern interests for ' national ' interests. A predominantly western issue has been decided by siderations of the East, rather than of the West, or from a strictly national viewpoint. Free wheat is the desire of the western farmer, who is the great wheat producer of this country It is now within his reach, without the evils that would follow from a compromising of the country's fiscal independence as was proposed under reciprocity. The western farmer believes that free entry for his wheat into the

markets of the United States would be an advantage to him.
This much is not denied in the East, but it is argued that the milling industry and the transportation interests ' might be adversely affected,' and these interests the West cannot avoid feeling are essentially eastern interests. Nor can the western farmer well avoid asking why the West should be expected to maintain the prosperity of these purely eastern interests, by the retention of a tariff that not only does not protect him. but that shuts him out from a great and profitable market? The West, it must be remembered in this connection, already pays a heavy toil to the prosperity of the transportation interests in a higher standard of freight traffic than are in vogue in the East.
The editorial writer of the Winnipeg Telegram can find absolutely no reasonable ground or excuse for the action taken by the Government in refusing the farmers' demand for free wheat. This organ states as openly as words can state that this refusal means nothing more or less than a concession to the milling interests which are essentially eastern interests.
We on this side of the House are accused of raising issues as between the East and the West. We are not attempting to do anything of the kind. If any such issues have been raised they have been raised by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House,
10 p.m. because the Finance Minister knew very well how his announcement that the western Canadian wheat grower was not to be given free access to the United States market would be received on this side of the House. What has he done in this debateP^pnt up members representing the rural constituencies in Ontario to tell the farmers of the West how they ought to farm, to give us not free wheat, but a lot of free advice on matters about which many of these gentlemen knew nothing? They glibly talk about mixed farming when they do not know the situation in many regions of the West. They are put up to do so, and to say that the West has received very fair and equitable treatment up to date from the East, and so on. That sort of discussion is far from being profitable discussion. It is a species of discussion that should not be heard on the floor of this Parliament. We believe in the West that Canada is one united country, we want to remain a united country, and for that reason we think that this Government, especially in view of the fact that it is giving, or proposes to give, to eastern manufacturing interests very important concessions in the matter of increases in

the tariff, and by inserting new tariff items where they have not enjoyed the benefits of the tariff before, might have gone the length of giving the farmers of the West the one thing that they most desire at the present time, and that is free access for their wheat to the markets of the United States.
We think they might have done that because, while there were objections raised to the reciprocity agreement on account of the fact that it was a sort of treaty between two countries and there might be international complications and disagreements and that sort of thing, all this Government had to do to give the farmers of the West the benefit of the United States market for their wheat was, when the tariff proposals were brought down, to authorize the Finance Minister to say simply: We propose to remove the duty-on wheat and wheat products entering the Dominion of Canada. Ipso facto onr wheat and wheat products would go free into the markets of the United States. What is the situation? We are told that our wheat should not be allowed to go to the United States. Some of it is going there already. As for other cereals that we grow, oats, flax and barley, what is the condition of affairs? This country refused reciprocity, this country would not endorse it, but what is the condition? I want to appeal to the members of this House from the province of Ontario who won their election by appeals to national and patriotic sentiment. Under the Wilson-Underwood tariff the duty on oats was reduced to six cents a bushel on the 3rd of October last year. What has occurred in western Canada since that time? Up to the close of navigation 20,000,000 bushels of western oats went down and were sold in the United States market, mostly for consumption in that country. Since then between 5,000,000 and 10,000,000 bushels more have gone. Every bushel of these oats paid into the United States treasury six cents. Taking the quantity at 25,000,000 bushels, there is $1,500,000 that the farmers of western Canada paid into the United States treasury this year on account of the oat crop alone. That is not the principal crop by any means in western Canada. Is it patriotic, is it conducive to patriotism, is it conducive to strengthening the bonds of empire that we hear so much about from imperialistic gentlemen like the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) and from other hon. gentlemen in this House, to compel our fellow countrymen to ship their oats and other cereals across the line and pay very liberally for the privilege

into the coffers of the United States? Take the item of flax, for instance. The Underwood Tariff, I understand, reduces the figures on flax to 20 cents per bushel. Everybody in the West knows that the great percentage of our flax goes to the United States, no matter what it has to pay, because there is where the demand is. Now what particular benefit to Canada is there in compelling the flax grower on the western prairies, if he had the privilege of saving that 20 cents a bushel on his flax-


Mr. BLAIN:: Will the hon. member allow me to ask why the late Government put a duty of 10 cents per bushel on flax?


David Bradley Neely: I cannot see any point
to the hon. gentleman's question.


Richard Blain: I did not wish to interrupt, but I wished to get the information.


David Bradley Neely: I may say that there are
members of the Government present, and they could be better able to give the hon. gentleman information.


Richard Blain: Members of the late Government?


David Bradley Neely: I mean of the late Government. I was not a member of that Government any more than the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) is a member of this. I can imagine-though I have not been told-that the late Government put a duty on flax for the same reason that they removed the reciprocity clause from the tariff-in order that they might some day be in a position to make terms with the United States when the United States were willing to consider a reciprocity arrangement. I cannot see any other reason. But I think that the reciprocity agreement proposed in 1911 is the answer to the hon. gentleman's question. Because in that agreement it was proposed to remove absolutely the duty on flax and other cereals, and had that been carried out the western Canadian flax grower would be getting 20 cents per bushel or thereabouts more for his flax in the United States than he can get to-day. Of course, in relation to these items of flax, barley and oats, we have to put up with conditions as they are, because the Wilson-Underwood Tariff is not subject to this Government or the people of this country, it is a tariff made by the United States. But in regard to the item of wheat we are in a different situation, for there they still hold out the offer of reciprocity in wheat and wheat products. The
Minister of Finance, when he became a member of this Government attempted to make it plain to the people of this country that his duty would be to see to it that every interest in this country should be fairly treated and that he would do his best to see that the people were not oppressed and ill-treated by the trusts and wealthy interests of this country. How has he carried out that proposal? Why, free wheat, as he knows, means that the millers will have to pay the farmers a little more for their wheat while the consumers will get their flour at a great deal cheaper rate. Yet the Minister of Finance not only refused the requests of the western farmer for free wheat, but I believe that in this Tespect he has refused the request of his own followers in this House. So, you see, while the Minister of Finance is exceedingly sensitive towards the accusations levelled against him in this House and out of it, that he is a member of the Government representing a certain interest in this country, that he is, as it were, the hired man of certain interests, the position he takes on this question of free wheat, is to my mind absolutely conclusive evidence of the atttitude he holds towards the great mass of farmers not only of the West but of the East as well. For we must admit that it makes no difference whether a man farms east of the Great Lakes or west of the Great Lakes, there is a community of interest. I notice that in the province of Ontario to-day many of the farmers who were deceived and deluded into voting against the reciprocity agreement, are not averse to taking a higher price for their cattle and hogs which to-day they are shipping across the line into the markets of the United States. They are doing this right along the border, in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime provinces. There is no difference amongst people when it comes to a question of dollars and cents. Since the advent of this Government we have had very pronounced warnings of the terrible dangers that would beset us if we had entered into that reciprocity agreement. But what harm has been done to the country by placing our farmers in a position to send their cattle, hogs and sheep into the United States for sale?


George Henry Bradbury: Under reciprocity?


David Bradley Neely: Is the hon. gentleman
afraid that if we take the duty off wheat this country will be flooded with wheat from the United States?


George Henry Bradbury: The hon. member wa3 talking about cattle a moment ago.


David Bradley Neely: Yes, and I am talking
about cattle still. Is the hon. gentleman afraid that cattle would come in? If he will take up his western papers, he will get some light on that subject. For instance, I have here a copy of the Calgary News-Telegram, a western Conservative paper. 1 find in this paper a statement that during last month $750,000 worth of cattle and hogs were shipped to points, most of them southerly in the United States.


George Henry Bradbury: Stockers.


David Bradley Neely: Are the hogs stockers too? The Calgary News-Telegram, though, as I have said, a good Conservative paper, finds no fault with this arrangement. The hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Smith) talked about dangers of business alliances with the people in the country to the south. In the name of common sense how are you going to stop them if the United States want to take the duties off oats, barley and wheat? This puny talk about granting of free wheat to the farmers of the West destroying Canadian industries, Canadian railways and transportation companies, is the talk of little Canadians and not of men who have the right conception of the possibilities of the great West of this country.
I have under my hand an article published in the official organ of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, known as Industrial Canada. I shall not read the article, but it is headed ' Free Wheat.' After saying that the farmers of western Canada first wanted a Hudson Bay railway and now want free wheat, the article goes on to argue that the two things are incompatible; that if you build that railway and then give the farmers free access for their wheat to the markets of the United States, you are not going to have any traffic foT the railway. What an absurdity that is, in view of the fact that 10 or 12 per cent-certainly not over 15 per cent-of the agricultural soil of western Canada is under tillage to-day. If you can show the people of western Canada and the people across the line who would become settlers in our West if they were assured of its future; if you can show them that they are to have the benefit not only of good transportation facilities for the exporting of their products to Great Britain and the other markets of the world, but also a free access to the market of 100,000,000 people to the south of us. I say
[Mr. Neely. 1
that the production will increase by such leaps and bounds that the railroads in western Canada will have all the business they can take care of, and probably a great deal more. When the Minister of Finance talks about waiting for the completion of our transportation systems before we make any experiments in connection with the abolition of the duties on wheat and wheat products, I say that the minister has not a true conception of the possibilities of the country over the affairs of which he and other hon. gentlemen opposite preside.
As I said, I am not going to argue the question of free wheat. I know that argument is probably of little effect at this time because the Government has made up its mind-which is, as I say, open on one side and closed on the other. I do not see any reason why we should beat our heads against a stone wall. The question has been settled by the statement of the Finance Minister and I suppose, notwithstanding the fact that there are a number of western members on the other side of the House, that when the question comes to a vote these gentlemen will line up behind the Government in refusing to grant the request of the farmers. If they did not do so; if they would vote as they think, we would give the Government a mighty close call on this question, but I am afraid they will not vote as they think. I want to tell my friends the members from the West who are supporters of this Government that it is not a mattter of very much concern to hon. gentlemen on this side how they vote. They themselves know, every one of them, that a large percentage of their constituents will be watching the newspapers very closely during the coming days to see whether or not their representatives in this Parliament are going to give allegiance to their party rather than meet the wishes of ninety or ninety-five per cent of their electors.
The issue is clear and plain; the Finance Minister has told us that we have to wait until our railroad systems and transportation routes are completed. I am afraid that by that time conditions in western Canada, if they continue as they have been during the past two years, will have become so serious that our country will have gone back to a position similar to that which it occupied in the year 1896 when the Liberal Administration came into power.


Mr. W. H. SHARPE:: A few moments ago the hon. gentleman spoke about some of the milling companies of Canada making as

high as sixty per cent on their capital. I would like to know what authority he has lor making that assertion.


David Bradley Neely: In the Montreal Standard of April 14, 1914, a correspondent of that paper makes the absolute assertion, without contradiction, that the Lake of the Woods and Ogilvie Milling Companies last year made from 30 to 60 per cent on their capital. I presume that the Montreal Standard is a fairly reliable authority.


Mr. SHARPE:: Does the assertion appear in an editorial?


David Bradley Neely: No, it is in an article on
the second page.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Who signed it?


David Bradley Neely: The name of the contributor, although not given here, must have been given to the newspaper, and must have been considered sufficiently reliable to warrant publication of the article. The article is signed Canadian Consumer.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: It should have been Canadian Liberal.


David Bradley Neely: The Montreal Standard
is a Conservative newspaper, and I am sure that if the information were untrue, it would have been contradicted, because the Montreal Standard and other good Tory papers throughout the country know that on the question of the high cost of living this Government has its troubles just at this time.
In dealing with the question of the duty on agricultural implements I will be brief, because I had the privilege of touching on that subject in connection with the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles). As I understand it, the main object of a tariff is to give infant industries, as they are called, a chance to become established in the com-.munity where they rightfully belong, so that they can bear competition with similar industries in other countries.
In looking through ' Hansard ' of 1906-07 the other day in search of a reference, I came across a very excellent definition of protection made in a speech delivered during the Budget debate of that session by the member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt). Ever since I first read about the Halifax platform of the Conservative party in which they used the words ' adequate protection ' I had wondered just what was meant by that particular expression. I have' here a
definition given in the speech delivered by the hon. member. He said:
I do not claim to be a high protectionist, but I stand for adequate protection. I have sometimes been asked to define what I mean by adequate protection and I have replied that adequate protection is a protection that will protect. What I mean by that I explain in this way. If you ask me what clothes I am going to put on to-day, I ask you what kind of weather you are going to have and if you tell me I will know how to dress for it. If it is a cold day I will put on a heavy overcoat-; if it is a moderate day I will put on a light overcoat; and if it is a warm day I will go without an overcoat. So it is with the tariff.
That is the definition given by my hon. friend of adequate protection. If it is a cold day he will put on a heavy overcoat, if it is a moderate day he will put on a light overcoat and if it is a warm day he will go without any overcoat-and I suppose if it is a very warm day he will go in his shirt sleeves. That sounds like a very reasonable proposition. Would the hon. member for Brantford, having that definition in mind, tell us wl^en he considers it is going to be warm enough in this country to permit the Government to abolish the duties on agricultural implements? What kind of weather does he want? How* warm has it to be? Will it have to foe equator weather or, as my hon. friend behind me suggests, would we have to leave this world altogether to find weather warm enough to suit my hon. friend from Brantford. That I think, after all, is a rather fair illustration, if we are going to have a protective tariff at all, of what ought to be its object. The Minister of Finance told the member for Assiniboia the other day that if he,were consistent and were going to advocate the abolition of duties on agricultural implements, he must go further and pronounce himself in favour of absolute free trade. That does not follow, in my judgment. It absolutely does not follow the definition of my hon. friend for Brantford of the meaning of the term ' adequate protection.' Adequate protection simply means that you wear >an overcoat as long as you need an overcoat and just the minute the weather is warm enough so you can dispense with the overcoat you dispense with it. When does my hon. friend think it is going to be warm enough for the agricultural industry of the Dominion of Canada to go without an overcoat? The charge is laid at the door of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House that because we are

in favour of the abolition of the duty on agricultural implements we are in favour at the moment of the abolition of duties on everything else. I deny that accusation. Whatever my theories, whatever my principles of economics may be, I recognize that we must consider conditions as they exist in Canada to-day and govern ourselves accordingly. But does any gentleman in this House, in view of the fact that members on this side have moved for free agricultural implements, undertake to say that the agricultural implement industry is not in a totally different position from any other manufacturing industry in this country? Why have we a tariff wall around this country? To protect us, very largely, from importation from the United States without the corresponding privilege of exporting to that country. What has the Wilson-Underwood tariff done? Among the manufactured articles placed on the free list by that tariff are agricultural implements. They are absolutely free, so that whereas to-day the Canadian farmer, by what is practically an export duty, is prevented from selling his surplus wheat in the United States, he is also compelled to pay duty on the implements he uses, notwithstanding the fact that the people who manufacture these implements have not only the home market in Canada open to them, but the market of one hundred million people right alongside of the international boundary. Is that market of no advantage to the manufacturers of this country? My hon. friend for some years, I do not know for how long, sent very considerable shipments from his own factory across the international boundary and paid fifteen per cent duty, and a farmer near St. Paul could buy a plough a great deal cheaper than the Manitoba farmer, notwithstanding the fact that that plough had paid on it fifteen per cent duty to get across the international boundary line.


William Foster Cockshutt: Who paid the duty in that case?


David Bradley Neely: I care not who paid the
duty, that is an old friend, we have heard it often. The essential point is that the American farmer got the plough cheaper than the farmer in Canada after somebody had paid the duty on it. Whether it was my hon. friend or the interest who bought the plough from him makes no difference. My hon. friend was making a profit, and the people who sold the implement in the United States were making a profit, and fifteen per cent duty was paid into the

coffers of the United States Government, and yet the American farmer got the plough cheaper than the farmers of this country. My hon. friend must be congratulating himself on the removal of that fifteen per cent duty, because whether he gets a profit or not somebody must. He says it is a poor market. Is it a poor market? How then is it that the Massey-Harris Company or the controlling interest in that company went over two or three years ago into Batavia, New York, and purchased -a controlling interest in a large harvester work which they operate and control at the present time? If the manufacturers of agricultural implements in Canada to-day are at some disadvantage in reaching their ultimate market in western Canada on account of long freight hauls, what about the advantage they have acquired by getting free access into eastern United States for the products of their factory so that their products enter that market without one cent of duty? Some of these gentlemen say: You ought to solve this question if you put agricultural implements on the free list you ought also to put on the free list the raw material that enters into them. What have we on this side of the House to do with that question ? We are not the Government of the day. What we want the Government to do is to admit the principle that the farmers in Canada, in view of the fact that the United States have given free entry to the agricultural implements of this country, have borne long enough the burden of a customs duty on every implement they use on their farms. It is not our duty to say what shall be done in regard to the raw material. We on this side of the House do not want any manufacturing industry in this country injured. If it is an industry indigenous to this country we want it to flourish. Eight years ago the hon. member for Brantford boasted in that same speech that the agricultural implement industry of this country was in such a flourishing condition that even at that time they could compete in the open markets of the world. If they were able to do that then, surely after eight years of continued prosperity they can do it now. I do not attach so much importance to the question of free agricultural implements as I do to the question of free wheat. The Government have refused one proposition, we appeal to them to give us the other. They have given a five per cent reduction on mowers and binders, but all the operations of farming are not carried

on by means of these two implements alone. First of all, the ground has to be ploughed in the spring or in the fall. The Minister of Finance told us the other night that he had looked into the agricultural implement industry so far as binders and mowers are concerned. I wonder why he did not go a little farther in his investigation and consider the question of ploughs, cultivators, seeders, and other implements. I do not know that we have very far to go to find the reason, but whatever it be let me tell the minister that if all he is prepared to do is for the farmers of Ontario, of Quebec, of the Maritime provinces-I will put the farmers of the West last in this case-is to give a reduction of five per cent on binders and mowers, I am afraid that so far as any particular benefit is concerned-especially political benefit-my hon. friend might just as well have left the tariff as he found it.
There is just one other item to which I shall refer, and then I am through. Within the last few days-I presume my experience is similar to that of many other western members-I have received numerous letters and petitions from the different interests in my constituency, farming and otherwise, protesting against one particular tariff proposal, that is, the tariff on iron and steel products. I had looked into this subject a little before receiving these communications, and had come to the conclusion that if there is one indefensible feature in the Budget it i.s the proposal to place a tariff on wire rods entering this country. As the House knows, and as the Minister of Finance told us the other night, there are only two large iron and steels plants in this country manufacturing wire rods. These rods are the raw material for wire products, such as nails, screws, etc. The two companies are the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, and the Steel Company of Canada which is situated, I believe, at 'Hamilton. The Steel Company of Canada is a merger of a number of companies. I have some figures here which go to show that while the authorized capital of this company amounts to the sum of $35,000,000- $10,000,000 in bonds, $10,000,000 preferred stock and $15,000,000 common stock-the actual amount of capital of all the companies participating in that merger was only in the neighbourhood of $10,000,000- $10,000,000 real capital, $25,000,000 worth of watered stock, that is what it amounts to. No doubt the same is true of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company. That company has an enormous capitalization, somewhere
in the neighbourhood of $45,000,000. I do not wonder that these two great companies with their enormous capitalization and limited output find it necessary to come to the Parliament of Canada to have a tariff placed upon wire rods in order that they may pay a fair dividend on their common stock. The Minister of Finance explained the situation frankly and fully. He said that during the last fifty years small independent concerns had established themselves in -different parts of Canada, at Toronto, Hamilton, and other points for the manufacture of wire products from wire rods which were then free of duty. These independent companies were able to establish themselves because of the fact that the Dominion Iron, and Steel Company which, until a year or two ago was the only manufacturer of wire rods in this country could not dictate prices. The United States Steel Company at Pittsburgh enabled these independent concerns to get their wire rods at reasonable prices, and they could consequently make a profit in manufacturing the wire rods into the finished product. About four or five weeks ago a delegation representing these independent companies visited Ottawa and interviewed the Minister of Finance.
They presented their case, I understand, as thoroughly as they could; they stayed here some days, and they told the Minister of Finance that if he gave a bounty to the manufacturers of wire rods, or if he put a tariff on, which would practically have the same effect, he was placing power in the hands of these two companies, viz., the Dominion Iron and Steel Company and the Steel Corporation of Canada, by which they could put every independent wire manufacturing company in this country out of business. In the past, if the Dominion Iron and Steel Company or the Steel Corporation of Canada said to these independent concerns: You will have to pay a bigger price for your wire rods, all they had to do was to send their orders to Pittsburgh and get their raw material from the United States. But, the effect of this new arrangement is that these independent concerns are no longer able to import their rods from the United States. Even yet, under this tariff) some of them will have to import wire rods, made from Bessemer steel, for certain kinds of finished products, but in the main they will be compelled to purchase their wire rods from those two companies, which are the only manufacturers of wire rods in Canada.

This deputation, representing these interests, visited the Minister of Finance in this city, and they presented their case to him. Of course, the Minister of Finance has assured us that he will see to it that the smaller independent concerns get fair treatment and are not put out of business. That is all very fine, but I insist that, if his tariff proposals become law, he is putting every independent wire nail manufacturing company in this country in the hands of these t-wo concerns-and why? Both these companies, as I understand it, propose to go in for the manufacture of the finished products. What then will be the effect of this tariff? It will he, that these two companies can say to the independent concerns: you must pay so much for your raw material; and, if these two mergers want to go ultimately into the manufacture of the finished products of nails and wire, after raising the price of raw material to independent concerns they can drop the price of nails and wire, to such a point that they absolutely will compel every independent concern in this country to go out of business. Does the Minister of Finance deny that, untrammelled and unhindered by his influence or some other, that cannot, be done under this tariff proposal? The Minister of Finance does not answer. He may have the utmost faith in the good intentions of these two companies, but it is a very strange thing that the other manufacturing concerns who interviewed him do not possess the same confidence in them. I believe there was a proposal for an arrangement between these two concerns and the independent concerns, that if the tariff were to be put on they would not raise the price of the raw material, but my information is that an agreement was not reached on that point, and yet the Minister of Finance calmly asks u, to support this proposal. And Sir, so far as the consumer is concerned, the ultimate effect of the tariff is, that if these two great mergers put the independent concerns out of business, the consumer will have to pay the higher price in the end. I listened very carefully, and I have read carefully, what the Minister of Finance had to say on that subject, and while he did say something to the effect that he would see that no injustice was done, he did not say that if this proposal became law, these two companies would not enjoy the power I have mentioned. I make this protest here, because the matter has been brought to my attention by a large number of my own constituents.
In closing, I desire to say that I listened

with more or less surprise to certain statements that were made in this House by my hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Aikins). That hon. gentleman, who, I am sorry is not in his place to-night, is not a very happy individual these days. He is, I believe, one of those who are not entirely pleased with the tariff proposals of the Minister of Finance. The hon. member for Brandon is a very loyal Conservative; he is what you would call a real good Tory at heart, and, not wishing to attack the Government of which he is a supporter, he turned his attention to an attack on the late Administration, and he gave us a review of the history of the West. I am not going to follow him in that review, except to say that the hon. member for Brandon has lived in the West for a great many years; he has seen the changes which took place in that country previous to 1896, and for the fifteen succeeding years, and it was a source of surprise to me . to hear him lay the blame at the door of the late Administration for the serious conditions which confront the people of the West to-day. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Aikins) is one of the respected citizens of Winnipeg, and I believe he has become wealthy in the practice of his profession. He has seen, under the Liberal Administration, his own city of Winnipeg develop from a place of very small dimensions until it is to-day the third city in this great Dominion. He has seen the West populated; he has seen the transportation systems grow throughout the length and breadth of that country. During the fifteen years of the Liberal Government he has seen two new provinces carved out of what years ago was trackless prairie. He has seen other changes, he has seen many things done in the interests of the farmers of the West by the Liberal Government, and finally the hon. gentleman owes his position in this House as a supporter of the Government, and not a supporter of an opposition, owing to the fact that the Liberal Administration went down to defeat in support of an issue that primarily had for its object the benefiting of the great masses of the people of this country, the farmers and consumers. He said we had done nothing and he reminded ns of what the present Government had done. I regret that among the things he took credit for was the reduction of the freight rates in western Canada by the decision of the Board of Railway Commissioners. If there is one body in this country that I would deplore seeing brought into the arena of partisan discussion, it is the Board of Railway Commissioners, be-

cause the moment that is done, in my judgment, the usefulness of that board is impaired. Surely the Government does not support the view taken by the hon. member for Brandon that any credit is due to it for that decision? My recollection of the documents in connection with that case is that shortly after the present Government came into power the Winnipeg Board of Trade instituted an inquiry or made a complaint to the Government and to the Board of Railway Commissioners. They took up that complaint, and, as I understand, by order of the Board of Railway Commissioners, this investigation was prosecuted. The provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta appointed a counsel to represent the people of the West before that commission. In the prosecution of the case no one took so active a part on behalf of the people of the West as did the counsel who was appointed to represent the two provinces. I am very much surprised that the hon. member for Brandon should be in such a bad case that in order to put something down to the credit of this Government he had to bring the Board of Railway Commissioners into partisan discussion.
I	have spoken somewhat longer than I had intended to and I have spoken because I feel the responsibility of expressing plainly, and as honestly as I can, the views of the people whom I represent in this House. I am free to say that the tariff proposals are a great disappointment to the people of western Canada. I suppose it is too late for a change or for any remedy, but I do wish that that open mind of the Minister of Finance would open for a little while on the other side and that
at least, when he brings down
II	p.m. another Budget Speech, it may
have more cheer, more hope, more promise in it for the future welfare and well-being of the people west of the Great Lakes than anything I can find in the proposal with which he so recently favoured us.


Mr. W. A. CLARKE (North Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to occupy very much of the time of the House at this late hour. I would like to compliment the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) on his oration. I feel that he has, considering the length of the speech which he has delivered, done remarkably well. I sometimes feel that members from the western provinces take up a very great deal
of the time of this House, and at other times I feel as if the members from the Maritime provinces take up a great deal of time. It seems to me that the condition of affairs in the province of Ontario, is sometimes neglected by those of us who are responsible to the poeple there whom we represent. We do not occupy the time in debate that we should, and I feel that it is my duty representing a rural constituency, to make a few remarks upon this question.
I do not intend to try to answer the speech of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. I do not feel that I could answer that speech, and I feel satisfied that he has possibly done what he felt to be the best he could in the interests of the people he represents. I do not know whether, when he asked the question: What is meant by adequate protection? he expected to get a reply. I do not think it would be possible for any man to make a reply to the question as to what is adequate protection. But I would like to advise the hon. member for Humboldt and other hon. members on the opposite side of this House of the fact that the moment they swerved from the National Policy as it existed during the regime of the Conservative party and adopted the policy of free trade that they tried to present to us in 1911, they found out from the electors very decidedly what inadequate protection meant.
Coming, as I said, from a purely rural constituency, I feel that I must give expression to my opinion in connection with the tariff as it will affect our county when applied in accordance with the announcement contained in the Budget speech of my hon. friend the Finance Minister (Mr. White). I was somewhat surprised the other day to hear the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie)-and I am sorry he is not present this evening-when he spoke upon the reduction or abolition of duties on farm implements. He made the remark that he was sorry that some of his colleagues representing neighbouring ridings were not in their seats in order that they might give expression to their opinions. He undertook to state what the existing condition of affairs was in his riding. What he said can be seen in ' Hansard,' and therefore it is not necessary for me to read it, but his observations were to the effect that he had made inquiry and found from the electors of the agricultural portion of his constituency that they would be pleased

to have the duties removed from farm implements. I was not surprised. If any member of Parliament would go to the agricultural electors in his constituency and say to them: We are going to remove the duties from farm implements and we feel that you will get your implements cheaper, he would naturally get a reply to the effect indicated by the hon. gentleman if they thought they were going to save a little money. I have been going up and down at intervals since the session began, and when I arrived in my county I did not hear of any of the agriculturists there complaining about a money stringency or depression. After reading the speech of the hon. member for South Wellington, I felt that it was my duty, when I had gone home for the Easter holidays, to inquire into the state of affairs that existed. I started on this expedition of inquiry, and met farmers of North Wellington and of South Wellington. One farmer living close to the town in which I reside, when I asked him how he thought the new tariff was going to affect the farmers, said he was surprised at the criticism and that he thought the farmers had no reason to complain. He said: I brought into town two teams of farm horses for which I found a buyer at $1,200. That is equal to $300 per head for horses. Well, I feel that if the farmer can raise agricultural horses and take them into a neighbouring town and sell them at $300 a head-he has not much reason to complain. I got into conversation on the train, some time ago, with -a gentleman who is one of the best friends the hon. member for South Wellington (Mir. Guthrie) 'has. We were discussing the abolition of duty on cattle going into the United States. I knew he was a big stock dealer and .so I said: I suppose you will be selling a lot of cattle. He said: I have 103 head to sell. I said that would represent quite a sum of money, and he agreed that it would for he was to get 8 cents per pound. I said that he would receive great benefit by the removal of the duty from cattle going into the' United States, His answer was, ' Unfortunately, in the interest of my party, the 103 head of cattle for which I am receiving 8 cents a pound and which are to be shipped this week are not going to the United States but 'to Montreal.' They were not the quality of cattle which the people of the United States wanted from Canada and from which they had removed the duty. The United States

seem to know pretty well what they want; they wanted cattle which they could use for almost any purpose. The people of Canada made one of their greatest mistakes in reducing their stock of all kinds for what I feel was nothing more nor less than a bait. And when the time came that the people of the United States felt that they had enough of this cattle imported not only from Canada hut from the Argentine-because they had opened their m'aiket3 to others besides ourselves-they immediately applied the tuberculine test. They did not need to apply their test to Canadian cattle, but they applied it fox the same reason that they applied the test for diseased hogs when they felt that they had received enough of the Canadian product. When that was the position, they did what every Government should do-arrange so as to protect their own people first.
Last session I was surprised to hear a proposition laid down by the hon. member for South Wellington. That hon. gentleman and I are very good friends, and I have a great respect for him, for I feel that he is an able representative of one part of the county, a part of which I also represent. So, I am not saying anything in his absence that I would not say if he were present. Last session he spoke of the county of Wellington as being the greatest producing county in live stock. Of course it is a great producing county in live stock. He explained, and I believe he was conscientious about it, that in years gone by we had found in Buffalo a splendid market for our lambs, and that Buffalo was the natural market for lambs shipped from Wellington. On looking up the record of the markets of this country and the United States for the last three months, I find that many carloads of lambs had been shipped from Buffalo and other portions of the United States into Canada. And so the hon. gentleman's argument does not apply at this time. I find that the highest price paid for lambs in Buffalo on Saturday was $8.40, as compared with $9.85 paid in the city of Toronto. These are matters that affect directly the people of the county I represent, and such are the matters I deem it my duty to discuss.
I have been somewhat surprised that one of the members of the Opposition nas not offered an amendment in the course of this debate. We have been waiting to hear what their views are, and hoping to have an opportunity to speak on their

amendment. I feel it is just possible that they are not agreeing among themselves possibly as well as they would like to. It has always been the policy of the Liberal party when in Opposition in this House to advocate free trade. I do not think that any Liberal member who has been in the House for any length of time will deny that. In 1891, when the present leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) was in opposition, before he came into power, he was calling for 'free trade as they have it in England,' and for unrestricted reciprocity; and the Liberal party had the orators of Canada and the United States going from one part of this province to the other advocating what they thought was right at that time. But at the same time I felt that the leader of the Opposition of that day did not have any faith in it. However, after the Liberal party came into power in 1896 they did not make any such changes in the tariff as they are advocating in this House at the present time. Even their reciprocity agreement did not go as far the present Minister of Finance has gone in the reduction of duties on farm implements. I feel sure that we as representatives of the eastern portion of the Dominion of Canada can go to our people without any sins to answer for, and tell them that the hon. Minister of Finance has made-if they feel that it is a benefit- greater reductions in the duty on farm implements than the reciprocity agreement would have given them had it been put into effect in 1911.
Although some hon. gentlemen opposite have come out pointedly and in a straightforward manner for free trade-and I give the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), my namesake, and the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) credit for doing so-I think that if hon. gentlemen desire to advocate free trade in agricultural implements and in wheat, they should be men enough to stand up in a body and advocate free trade. Then, 'if they go to the polls on a free trade platform and come back victorious, we will see what effect it will have upon this country.
We have heard a great deal about the tax upon foodstuffs, which hon. gentlemen have denounced as being a very great burden upon the people. I have felt it my duty to endeavour to get information upon which I could come to the conclusion as to the effect of the duties on foodstuffs upon the high cost of living in Canada. In this connection I found the following article in the press the other day:
Speaking in support of their policy of ' free food,' opposition members are making much of the argument that it would lift the ' burden of food taxation, under which the people are groaning.' The contention looks good upon the surface, and no doubt makes an attractive appeal, but it will scarcely stand the test of a careful examination. Meats, poultry, eggs, fish, dairy products, and bread-stuffs, are the commodities which go to make up the dinner table of the average Canadian. The amount of customs duty collected from the import of these, last year, should form the fairest possible index of the extent to which our food is taxed. According to the latest available information in the reports of the Customs Department, the amount of duty collected on meats and poultry brought into Canada in 1913, totalled $1,040,547. Divide this among the population of the Dominion and it will be found that this * terrible taxation ' of meat, amounted in a year to the sum of thirteen cents per head -the cost of half a pound of steak.
The duty collected from the importation of eggs for 1913, amounted to $327,123. Divide it among eight million persons, and it amounts to a fraction more than four cents per head, or to the retail cost at present, of two eggs.
On fish last year the amount of duty collected was $361,116. Divide it among the population of the country and there is disclosed the tax of four cents per head.
Duty collected on imported bread-stuffs last year totalled $261,409. Divide it among eight million persons, and the * crushing burden ' amount to a fraction more than three cents per head.
It will, therefore, be seen that the total amount of duty collected on meats, poultry, eggs, fish, dairy products, and breadstuffs for the whole of 1913 amounted to under thirty cents per head of population, a sum which does not seem to much warrant the assertion that we are ' groaning ' under a * terrible food tax.'
The question of the reduction of the cost of living is one which a great many people have tried to explain, but to my mind those who have endeavoured to explain it are nearly as far away from a conclusion as they ever have been. I think it would be a benefit to us or to any people to get as closely allied with the consuming centres as possible. The improved means of transportation that we have are beneficial as far as the cost of living is concerned. I think the hon. member for Brandon was on the right track the other night when he said he believed that if the waterways of the West were properly developed an impetus would be given to the milling industry that would make it more than ever a world competitor. What applies to the West certainly applies to the East as well. The members of this House will remember that a few weeks ago a delegation of 2,000 persons came here from the province of Ontario. The members of this delegation were interested in trying to exact from this Government subsidies for hydro-radial railways



to be built in the province of Ontario. I am not in a position to say what conclusion the Government of the day has come to in that regard, but, as a resident of the province of Ontario, I feel that we are not too well supplied with railways. It may be a surprise to some of the people who are clamouring for transportation in the West to know that there are people living in the thickly-populated portions of our riding who are fifteen or twenty miles from the nearest railway station. These people have been highly taxed; they will sooner or later undertake the construction of hydroradial railways, and when these railways are constructed the people will be placed in communication with the great markets; the country will be built up under a policy of protection and the people will be induced to come back on the land.
There has been quite a decrease in the rural population of some of the western Ontario counties. Many of our people have gone out to our great West and we know and are delighted that they have prospered. But the people who are left here to till the soil in the old province of Ontario, those who came in in the earlier days a great many years ago, and had to endure many hardships are entitled to some consideration. I feel that if the Government, as I hope they will, see fit to give some help towards the construction of hydro-electric railways throughout that part of Ontario, and with or without aid these railways must come sooner or later, the farmers in the sections removed from the stations on the lines of the steam railways will be able to send their products in small quantities more rapidly into the splendid market centres in our manufacturing towns. They will then be in a better position than they are to-day even under the new tariff with the great reduction of 5 per cent on agricultural implements.
I shall not speak further to-night, as a further opportunity for discussion will be afforded during the debate on the amendment of the Opposition. I do wish to state, however, that I, as a humble follower of the present Administration, after making inquiry from the people in my county and in the surrounding counties, can assure the present Administration that they are giving what the people consider perfectly satisfactory government. I would like to compliment the Minister of Finance on the splendid Budget speech which he delivered, and at the same time to congratulate him on his restoration to health. I can assure him that the electors of North Wellington .are

satisfied that if he does not know exactly how to arrange the tariff in the interest of all the people in this country, he must have the credit of having made,- as he has done in every Budget speech since the Government came into power, an enlightened guess as to what would suit the people throughout the Dominion of Canada. After what he has done in the present Budget, I, as one of t e humble followers, will be pleased to go back to my constituency when the time comes and to pin my faith to the Minister of Finance-, as to the other members of the Government and our leader (Mr. Borden) who has endeared himself to the whole Dominion of Canada.
On motion of Mr. Sinclair, the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Bogers, the House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.
Tuesday, April 21, 1914.