1914-01-28

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Customs) presented the following report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report, with all convenient speed, lists of members to compose the; Select Standing Committees of the House during the present session:
No. 1
ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS. Messieurs
Aikins, .	Kay,
Barker,	Bar'ortune,
Barnard,	Bamarche,
Bennett (Calgary),	Bancaster,
Bennett (Simcoe),	Bapointe
Blondin,	(Kamouraska),
Borden,	Bemieux,
Boys,	Maclean (Halifax),
Bristol,	Marcile (Bagot),
Bureau,	Munson,
Carvell,	Nickle,
Charlton,	Northrup, .
Chisholm (Antigonish).	Porter,
Coderre,	Rainville,
Crothers,	Robidoux,
Demers,	Ross,
Devlin,	Sevigny,
Doherty,	Thomson (Qu'Appel'.e),
Fowler,	Tremain, and
Fripp,	Wilson (Baval).-40.
German,	
No. 2.	
ON RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH	
LINES.	
Messieurs	
Achirn,	Banctot,
Aikins,	Bapointe
Armstrong (Bambton),	(Kamouraska),
Arthurs,	Bapointe
Baker,	(Montreal, St. James),
Barker,	Baw,
Barnard,	Bemieux,
Barrette,	Besperance,
Beland,	Macdonald,
Bellemare,	Macdonell,
Bennett (Calgary),	Maclean (York, O.),
Bennett (Simcoe),	MacNutt,
Bicker dike,	McCraney,
Blain,	McCrea,
Boivin,	McCurdy,
Boyce,	McKay,
Boyer,	McKenzie,
Boye,	McBean
Brabazon,	(Queens, P.E.I.),
Bradbury,	McBean (Sunbury),
Bristol,	McBeod,
Bureau,	Marshall,
Buchanan,	Martin (Regina),
Carroll,	Middlebro,
Cash,	Molloy,
Chabot,	Monk,
[Stage Direction]
i
Charlton,
Clare,
Clark (Red Deer), Clements,
Cochrane,
Cockshutt,
Cruise,
Currie,
Delisle,
Devlin,
Douglas,
Edwards,
Elliot,
Emmerson,
Ethier,
Fisher,
Forget (Sir Rodolphe), Fripp,
Gauthier (GaspS), Gauvreau,
German,
Girard,
Gordon,
Graham,
Green,
Guilbault,
Guthrie,
Hartt,
Henderson,
Hepburn,
Jameson,
Kemp,
Knowles,
Lachance,
Lalor,
Lamarche,
Lancaster,
Morphy,
Murphy,
Neely,
Nesbitt,
Nickle,
Northrup,
Oliver,
Paquet,
Pardee,
Porter,
Pugsley,
Rhodes,
Schaffner,
Sevigny,
Sharpe (Lisgar), Sharpe (Ontario), Smith,
Smyth,
Stanfield,
Stevens,
Sutherland,
Taylor,
Thomson (Qu'Appelle), Thornton,
Tobin,
Tremain,
Turgeon,
Turriff,
Wallace,
Weichel,
White (Renfrew), White (Victoria, Alta), Wilson (Laval),
Wilson
(Wentworth), and Wright.-121.
Jameson,	Walker, and
Kemp,	White (Renfrew).-63.
Knowles,
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of ten members.
No. 4.
ON STANDING GxxuERS. Messieurs
Achim,
Alguire,
Armstrong Barrette,
Best,
Boulay,
Burrell,
Chabot,
Clare,
Cromwell,
Doherty,
Fortier,
Hazen,
Knowles,
Kyte,
Maclean (York, O.), MacNutt,
McCoig,
McCraney,
Marcile (Bagot), Michaud,
Morris.
Paquet,
Paul,
Reid (Restigouche), Rhodes,
Roche,
Seguin,
Sharpe (Lisgar), Stanfield,
Turgeon,
Verville, and White (Leeds).-33.
committee
And that the quorum of the said do consist of seven members.
(La mb ton),
[Stage Direction]
No. 5. ON PRINTING.
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of twenty-five members.
[Stage Direction]
No. 3. ON MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS.
Messieurs
Messieurs
Ames,
Armstrong (York, O.), Ball,
Boulay,
Bourassa,
Boyce,
Boyer,
Boys,
Broder,
Bureau,
Lachance,
Lamarche,
LavallGe,
Macdonell,
McLean (Sunbury), McLeod,
McMillan,
Marcil (Bonaventure), Martin
Beattie,
Bickerdike,
Bowman,
Brabazon,
Brouillard,
Cardin,
Chabot,
Clark (Bruce), Clarke (Wellington), Currie,
Douglas,
Elliot,
Graham,
LavallSe,
Lesperance,
Martin
(Montreal, St. Mary's), Middlebro,
Murphy,
Nantel,
Nicholson,
Roche,
Stevens,
Verville,
White (Victoria, Alta.), and Wilson
( W ent worth).-25.
[Stage Direction]
No. 6. ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
Burnham, Carrick,	Mondou, Morris,	Messieurs	Carvell,	Morrison,	Aikins,	Martin (Regina),Chisholm (Antigonisli),	Murphy,	Baker,	Meighen,Clare,	Pacaud,	Bennett (Simcoe),	Merner,Clarke (Wellington),	Papineau,	Blain,	Michaud,Davidson,	Paul,	Boys,	Middlebro,Devlin,	Perley,	Carvell,	Molloy,Ethier,	Porter,	Chisholm (Antigonish),	Mondou,P'orget (Sir Rodolphe),	Proulx,	Chisholm (Inverness ),	Morphy,Fripp,	Reid (Grenville),	Clarke (Essex),	Morrison,Gauthier	Robb,	Clarke (Wellington),	Murphy,(St. Hyacinthe),	Ross,	Clements,	Neely,Gauvreau,	Sharpe (Ontario),	Crothers,	Nicholson,Girard,	Shepherd,	Davidson,	Nickle,Glass,	Steele,	Edwards,	Northrup,Gordon,	Stewart (Hamilto" >	Fisher,	Pardee,Guthrie,	Thoburn,	Foster (Kings, N.S.),	Pelletier,Hepburn,	Tobin,	Fowler,	Proulx,Hughes (Victoria),	Turriff,	Fripp,	Pugsley,
[Stage Direction]
Garland, \
German,
Hughes (Kings, P.E.I.),
Kyte,
Lalor,
Lancaster,
Maclean (Halifax),
McCoig,
McCraney,
McCrea,
McKenzie,
McLeod,
Marshall,
Martin
(Montreal, St. Marys),
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of twenty-one members.
[Stage Direction]
No. 7. ON BANKING AND COMMERCE.
Messieurs
Aikins,	Lemieux,
Ames,	Lesperance,
Armstrong (Lambton ),	Loggie,
Armstrong: (York, O.).	Macdonald,
Baker,	Macdonell,
Ball,	Maclean (Halifax),
Barker,	Maclean (York, O.),
Barnard,	McCraney,
Beattie,	McCurdy,
Bellemare,	McLean (Sunbury).
Bennett (Calgary ),	McLeod,
Best,	McMillan,
Bickerdike,	Marshall,
Blondin,	Martin (Regina),
Boivin,	Meighen,
Boyce,	Middlebro,
Bristol,	Nesbitt,
Broder,	Nickle,
Buchanan,	Northrup,
Burnham,	Osier (Sir Edmund),
Cardin,	Pacaud,
Carrick,	Papineau,
Carvell,	Pardee,
Charlton,	Perley,
Clark (Bruce),	Porter,
Clark (Red Deer ),	Power,
Cockshutt,	Pugsley,
Currie,	Rainville,
Demers,	Rhodes,
Edwards,	Robb,
Emmerson,	Roche,
Fisher,	Ross,
Forget (Sir Rodolphe),	Sexsmith,
Fortier,	Sharpe (Lisgar).
Foster (Kings, N.S.),	Sharpe (Ontario),
Foster (Toronto, N.),	Sinclair,
Fowler,	Steele,
Gauthier	Stewart (Hamilton),
(St. Hyacinthe),	Stewart (Lunenburg),
Glass,	Sutherland,
Graham,	Thomson (Qu'Apelle),
Guthrie,	Thompson (Yukon),
Hanna,	Thornton,
Henderson,	Tobin,
Hughes (Kings, P.E.I.),	Turriff,
Hughes (Victoria),	Verville,
Jameson,	Warnock,
Kay,	Webster,
Kemp,	Weichel, and
Knowles,	White (Leeds).-_* 0 0.
Law,
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of twenty-one members.
[Stage Direction]
No. 8. ON AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION.
Messieurs
Achim,	McLean
Alguire,	(Queens, P.E.I.),
Armstrong (Lambton),	McMillan,
Armstrong (York, O.),	Marcile (Bagot),
Arthurs,	Marshall,
Ball,	Meighen,
Best,	Merner,
Boivin,	Molloy,
Bourassa,	Morphy,
Bowman,	Morris,
Broder,	Morrison,
Brouillard,	Munson,
Buchanan,	Neely,
Burrell,	Oliver,
Cash,	Pacaud,
Champagne,	Paquet,
Chisholm (Antigonish),	Paul,
Chisholm (Inverness),	Proulx,
Clare,	Richards,
Clark (Red Deer),	Robb,
Clarke (Wellington),	Roche,
Cromwell,	Ross,
Cruise,	Schaffner,
Currie,	Seguin,
Delisle,	Sexsmith,
Douglas,	Sharpe (Lisgar),
Edwards,	Sharpe (Ontario),
Elliot,	Sinclair,
Fortier,	Smith,
Foster (Kings, N.S.),	Steele,
Garland,	Stewart (Lunenburg),
Gauthier (G aspe ),	Sutherland,
Gauvreau,	Taylor,
Girard,	Thoburn,
Glass,	Thomson (Qu'Apelle),
Gordon,	Thompson (Yukon),
Graham,	Thornton,
Guilbault,	Truax,
Hanna,	Turriff,
Hartt,	Walker,
Henderson,	Wallace,
Hughes (Victoria),	Warnock,
Kay,	Webster,
Lanctdt,	Weichel,
Lewis,	White (Renfrew),
Lovell,	Wilcox,
MacNutt,	Wilson (Laval),
McCoig,	Wilson
McCrea,	(Wentworth), and
McKay,	Wright.-98.
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of twelve members.	
No.	9.
ON MARINE AND FISHERIES.	
Messieurs	
Alguire,	McCurdy,
Barnard,	McKenzie,
Boulay,	McLean
Bradbury,	(Queens, P.E.I.),
Cardin,	Morrison,
Chisholm (Inverness),	Nicholson,
Clarke (Essex),	Pardee,
Clements,	Pelletier,
Emmerson,	Power,
Fowler,	Robidoux,
Gauthier (Gasp§),	Shepherd,
Hazen,	Sinclair,
Hughes	Stevens,
(Kings, P.E.I.),	Stewart (Lunenburg;.
Reid (Restigouche), Rhodes,
, Robidoux,
Rogers,
Sevigny,
Sinclair,
Smyth,
Stanfield,
Tobin,
Tremain,
Truax,
White (Leeds), and Wilcox.-63.
[Stage Direction]
Jameson,	Taylor,
Kyte,	Turgeon,
Lafortune,	Truax,
Lapointe	Wallace, and
(Montreal, St. John), Wilcox.-36.
Loggie,
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of ten members.
[Stage Direction]
No. 10. ON MINES AND MINERALS.
Messieurs
Arthurs,	Loggie,
Garrick,	Lovell,
Carroll,	Macdonald,
Chisholm	(Antigonish), McMillan,
Cochrane,
Cockshutt,
Devlin,
Douglas,
Foster (Kings, N.S.), Garland,
Green,
Guilbault,
Hartt,
Hepburn,
Lalor,
Law,
Lemieux,
Lewis,
Marcil (Bonaventure), Merner,
Mondou,
Nesbitt,
Osier (Sir Edmund), Richards,
Sexsmith,
Shepherd,
Smith,
Smyth,
Thompson (Yukon), Turiff, and Walker.-35.
And that the quorum of vxie said committee do consist of ten members.
[Stage Direction]
No. 11. ON FORESTS, WATERWAYS AND WATER-POWERS.
Messieurs
Ames,	Green,
Barrette,	Henderson,
Beland,	McKay,
Bellemare,	Michaud,
Blain,	Munson,
Bourassa,	Osier (Sir Edmund),
Bowman,	Perley,
Brabazon,	Richards,
Champagne,	Rogers,
Charlton,	Stewart (Hamilton),
Cochrane,	Thoburn,
Coderre,	Warnock,
Cromwell,	Webster,
Cruise,	White (Victoria, Alta.),
Davidson,	Wilson (Laval), and
Ethier,	Wright.-32.
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of ten members.
No. 12.

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Beattie,	Lemieux,
Burnham,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Devlin,	Monk,
Foster (Toronto,	N.),	Perley,
Hanna,	Rainville,
Lapoint	Reid (Restigouche),
(Montreal, St.	John), Schaffner, and
Lavall€e,	Taylor.-15.
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of five members.
[Stage Direction]

No. 13. ON THE LIBRARY.
Boland,
Blondin,
Borden,
Boyer,
Broder,
Clark (Bruce), Crothers, Doherty, Emmerson,
Messieurs
Foster (Toronto, N.), Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Lemieux,
Lewis,
Meighen,
Pardee,
Pelletier, and Pugsley.-17.
On motion of Hon. J. D. Reid, the rc port was concurred in.
Hon. J. D. REID moved:: That the Select Standing Committees of this House shall severally be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the House, and to report from time to time their observations' and qpinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records, with the exception of the Committee on Debates and that on the Library of Parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

John Dowsley Reid: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House will unite with them in the formation of a Joint Committee of both Houses on the subject of the Printing of Parliament, and that the members of the Select Standing Committee on printing, viz.:	Messrs. Beattie, Bickerdike,
Bowman, Brabazon, Brouillard, Cardin, Chabot, Clark (Bruce), Clarke (Wellington), Currie, Douglas, Elliot, Graham, Lavall6e, Les-perance, Martin (Montreal, St. Mary's), Mid-dlebro, Murphy, Nantel, Nicholson, Roche, Stevens, Verville, White (Victoria, Alta.), and Wilson, (Wentworth), will act as members, on the part of this House, on the said Joint Committee on the Printing of Parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

John Dowsley Reid: That a message be sent to the Senate to inform Their Honours that this House has appointed	Messrs.	BSland,	Blondin,	Borden,Boyer,	Broder,	Clark (Bruce),	Crothers.Doherty,	Emmerson, Foster	(North	Toronto),Laurier	(Sir	Wilfrid),	Lemieux, Lewis,
Meighen, Pardee, Pelletier and Pugsley, a committee to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the Library of Parliament, so far as the interests of the House of Commons are concerned, and to act on behalf of the House of Commons as members of a Joint Committee on the Library.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

John Dowsley Reid: That Messrs. Fripp, Pardee, Ross, and Stanfield be appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in the

direction of the restaurant, as far as the interests of the Commons are concerned, and to act as members of a Joint Committee of both Houses on the restaurant, and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours therewith.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Return showing Lands sold by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company during the year ended October 1, 1913.-Hon. W. J. Roche.
Seventh Joint Report of the Commissioners for the demarcation of the meridian of the 141st degree of west longitude.-Hon. W. J. Roche.
Return of the by-elections for the House of Commons of Canada held during the year 1913.-Mr. Speaker.
Report of the Auditor General for the year ended March 31, 1913, vols. 1 and 2-[DOT] Hon. Geo. E. Foster.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 33, respecting The Acadia Loan Corporation, and to change its name to The Mortgage Corporation of Nova Scotia.-Mr. A. K. Maclean.
Bill No. 34, respecting The Dominion Atlantic Railway Company.-Mr. Jameson.
Bill No. 35, to incorporate The Bank of Edmonton.-Mr. Douglas.
Bill No. 36, respecting The Joliette and Lake Manuan Colonization Railway Company.-Mr. Guilbault.
Bill No. 37, respecting The Ottawa and Ungava Railway Company.-Mr. Chabot.
Bill No. 38, respecting The Sterling Trusts Corporation.-Mr. G. V. White.
Bill No. 39, respecting The Thessalon and Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Smyth.
Bill No. 40, respecting La Compagnie des Pouvoirs d'eau de Valleyfield, limitee.-Mr. Sevigny.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. P. PELLETIER laid on the Table of the House the regulations for the parcel post, to come into effect on the 10th of February, printed in both French and English.

Hon. CHARLES MURPHY:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. In the course of his speech yesterday afternoon and during the short time that I happened to be absent from the Chamber, my hon. friend the Postmaster General made refer-17
ence to a recent by-election in the constituency of South Bruce, and in that connection made certain observations with respect to myself which are both misleading and untrue.' For the sake of brevity and accuracy let me refer to 'Hansard.' The hon. gentleman is reported as having said:
The Mildmay Gazette gives a report of what took place at a meeting at Walkerton, and there we find that the Hon. Chas. Murphy was one of the speakers. And what did he say on this point?
His strongest contention on the naval issue was that the Borden policy was a direct insult to Germany and therefore a check to the peace conditions between that country and Great Britain which we are all so anxious to maintain.
In the first place, I did not happen to have the pleasure of speaking at Walker-ton in that election; but if this extract from the Mildmay Gazette purports to give what I said at other places, then 1 characterize it as misleading and untrue. My reference to the insult offered to Germany was directed, not to the policy of this Government, but to the report of a speech mentioned in this House last session, delivered by the Minister of Militia (Mr. Hughes) on the Pacific coast, in which it was stated that the hon. gentleman said that Germany would have to be taught a lesson. My further reference to the naval policy was that when the naval holiday of a year was proposed last fall by the hon. Mr. Churchill, the despatches which came from Germany, and which were published in the Canadian press of October 21, 1913, showed that the three ships which had been under discussion in this House were the ships that stood in the way of Mr. Churchill's offer being accepted by Germany, and in proof of my statement I read this despatch from the Ottawa Citizen, dated Berlin, October 20. 1913:
The naval authorities here consider the proposal that Germany should not build any warships while England is constructing or acquiring at least three cannot be discussed.
So much for that. Further on in his speech the hon. gentleman is reported to have said:
Appeals to prejudices were made in South Bruce. We know that there are a great number of Irish Roman Catholics in South Bruce. The hon. member for Russell (Hon. Charles Murphy) went to South Bruce and told the Irish Catholics that there was no reciprocity in the last election, but that the election was carried by the Conservative party on the Ne Temere question.


Mr. CARVELL:: So say we all.


Mr. PELLETIER:: Ah, these gentlemen will never acknowledge their defeat. Then we had this good Irish Roman Catholic, the hon. member for Russell, going to his co-religionists in
South Bru^o nnr1 teilir**T + f''~n r	[DOT] 'onservative party had promised to bring in a Bill to render the marriage law uniform in this country. Who has made that promise?
With respect to these observations, I have only to say that I did not make any appeal to the prejudices of anv class of the community in the county of South Bruce. I made the same statements at each of the meetings I attended. I spoke as a Canadian to Canadians, and I merely said what I have said over and over again in this House. As to the hon. gentleman's question who made the promise, my answer to it at this time and place will be the answer that was suggested to be given to him who would inquire as to the monument of Sir Chr's op' er Wren, ' Circum-spice.' I have only to add that I know nothing about the leaflets or pamphlets that may have been distributed in that election.
Hon. GEO. E. FOSTER: Could the hon. gentleman give us a running interpretation of that foreign phrase?


Charles Murphy: The hon. the Postmaster General will do that.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Speaking to the
question of privilege raised by the hon. member, I hold here the newspaper from whicn I took that report, the Mildmay Gazette, which, as I am told, is an independent newspaper. As a matter of fact I made a very slight mistake, which has no bearing on the point. The heading reads:
R. E. Truax holds meetings in his interest all through county-R. E. Truax at Walkerton.
I took it for granted that the speech was made in Walkerton, but on reading it over I find it was made at Mildmay.
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM: It was a mild speech.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: What my hon. friend has just quoted is an exact reproduction of what the papers have said. Whether it was well reported or not well reported of course is another question, but I want to let the House know that I have reported the fact as I have found it in the paper.


Charles Murphy: That may be, but I have pointed out that the statement in the paper is both misleading and untrue.
fMr. Murphy. 1



INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY TRAIN CHANGES.

Hon. H. R. EMMERSON:: Perhaps the Minister of Railways and Canals is in a position to answer my question with respect to the discontinuance of the Ocean Limited and of other trains, if any, on the Intercolonial.


Hon. FRANK COCHRANE (Minister of Railways and Canals):: In reference to the Ocean Limited, we have come to the conclusion to discontinue it through February and March. Last year we ran it for the first time in history throughout the winter and met with a considerable loss, a very great loss, by doing so. The traffic is much less this year than last, and therefore we have come to the conclusion that it is not in the interest of the road to run the train. Another thing is that we are short of rolling stock on the Intercolonial, and if we continue the Ocean Limited we would not have an opportunity to clean and paint the cars and put them in good condition for next year's traffic. In reference to the other lines, I may say that we propose taking off the Southern Express between Windsor Junction and Halifax-a distance of thirteen miles-leaving ten trains running; the Express between Halifax and Bedford-eight miles-leaving ten trains running, the train between St. John and Hampton-twenty-two miles-leaving eight remaining; one train between Point Deschenes and Painsec-twelve miles-leaving four trains; one train between Campbellton and St. Flavie, leaving two trains; one train between Fredericton and Marysville-three miles-leaving three trains each way per day; one train between Windsor Junction and Dartmouth-twelve miles-one train remaining each way per day.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Perhaps the hon.
minister would tell us whether there will be any change in the running of the Maritime Express. If it continues to run as now, leaving Montreal at 8.30 in the morning, it will be impossible for Ottawa passengers to catch that train without remaining in Montreal all night. I may say that, formerly, when the Ocean Limited was not running, the Maritime Express left Montreal at 12 noon, making it possible for Ottawa passengers to catch the Express by leaving here on the 8.30 morning train.


Francis Cochrane: In reference to that,
I can only say that I have no doubt that

the Maritime Express will be run in the best interests of the public.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend cannot give me the information?


Francis Cochrane: No.



THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. H. F. McLeod for an Address to His Royal Highness the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, resumed from Tuesday, January 27.
Mr. D. B. NEELY (Humboldt):: It is
not my purpose to take up the time of the House with many general observations in reference to the gracious speech of His Royal Highness the Governor General at the opening of the session. There are, however, one or two remarks I would like to make before I come to the reason for my rising. In my judgment, the Speech from the Throne is remarkable, not for the legislation it foreshadows this session, but for the number of its omissions.
It has been charged again and again on the floor of this House that this Opposition and their political friends in the Upper Chamber are responsible for depriving the farmers of Canada of the aid proposed by this Government on two successive occasions for the improvement of the highways of this country. In my constituency, which is largely a farming one, the road question is one of the most important with which we have to deal. There are districts in that constituency where farmers are 35 and 40 miles away from a railroad station, and road-making in some parts of that constituency is a very difficult proposition. So far as I am concerned, nothing would give me greater pleasure than to assist the Government in voting almost any sum for the improvement of our highways, if the proposal were put in such a form that it would leave the power of spending the money in the hands where it properly belongs, namely, the provincial legislatures of the various provinces. I wish the Prime Minister were in his seat to-day, because I would like to ask him a direct question in reference to this Highways Bill. In his absence, I would like to ask his special pleader in the House, the newly appointed Solicitor General, whether any single amendment made by the Senate to the Highways Bill was in opposition to the expressed intention of the Prime Minister himself with regard to the expenditure 17}
under that Bill. I maintain that the Prime Minister expressed on the floor of this House his intention of using the money identically in the same way as the Senate proposed in their amendment. All the Senate did in their amendment was to incorporate therein the expressed intention of the leader of this Government. And yet I, a representative of a farming constituency, and many others in the same position, are to be charged with opposing the passage of this Bill. There is an hon. gentleman in the Government who holds the important portfolio of Minister of Railways. He wished to add to that portfolio the portfolio of Minister of Highways. I for one have no objection to his being Minister of Highways, but I had very serious objection to his becoming Minister of By-ways, and that, in my mind, was the ulterior object of the legislation proposed by the Government in respect to highways.
Remark has already been made of the absence of any reference in the Speech from the Throne to the question which occupied the attention of this House for the greater part of last session. The hon. member for Dundas (Mr. Broder), expressing, I suppose, the farmers' views-and I might also say the view of the Government, because we know that but for geographical reasons the hon. gentleman would have been a member of the Government-tells us that he thinks it would be very inopportune for Canada to undertake the building of ships in this country at this moment, because experts in the old land have not yet decided whether the wars of the future are to be fought by aerial or naval fleets. Is that a hint from the hon. member for Dundas that the position of the Government in regard to naval affairs is still the position in which they found themselves last year-that is to say, very much up in the air? They are so high up in the air that they cannot see any way of getting down again without great damage to themselves.
The hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) told us last night that in his view the people of Canada should take this question out of politics, and get together and grant a contribution in recognition of our duty to the mother country. Of course, we recognize our duty to the mother country, and, to ourselves, but the hon. gentleman knows that the contribution policy pressed by his Government last session was passed purely on the existence of an emergency, and to-day the right hon. the leader of the Government cannot get

any of his followers to believe, nor does he believe it himself, that an emergency exists. Now that the emergency has disappeared, surely the hon. member for South York does not want us to get together on a proposition based on an emergency. Let me tell the Government, whether they like to believe it or not, that they have already a permanent naval policy on the statute books of Canada. The anomalous position in which Canada finds herself to-day is, that notwithstanding that the present Government undertook to pass an emergency contribution last year, they had not the courage to repeal the Laurier Naval Service Act passed in 1909-1910. Therefore, whether they like it or not, this country is now committed by legislation to a permanent naval policy of a Canadian naval service, in harmony with the unanimous resolution of this House passed in 1909. That is the situation to-day, and are the Government going to continue that anomaly? In my judgment, if this Government are going to be true to themselves, and to the position they have taken on this question for the last two sessions, they must support the Bill introduced by the hon. member for Mont-magny (Mr. Lesperance), and they must this session wipe off our statute books the Laurier Naval Service Act which is the permanent naval policy of Canada at the present moment. I say further, this Government has got to deal with the question of the defence of the commerce and of the coasts of this country, whether they like it or not. Whatever may be the internal situation as to the complex constitution of the Conservative party in this House, they have to face the question sooner or later of the defence of our coasts and commerce. So much with regard to the navy.
I especially rose, Sir, to address the House on the particular paragraph in the speech which refers to the bountiful crops with which the Dominion was abundantly blessed during the past season; to these crops having been harvested under unusually favourable conditions; and to.the successful transportation of these crops to the markets. Judging from any reference made by any member of the Government to the occurrences of the past year with reference to the great fiscal and trade changes that have taken place on this continent, you would think they had all passed the intervening months since last session in some place absolutely devoid of newspapers, or of any other means of obtaining up-to-date information. Since last session of Parliament, that great protectionist country to 
the south of us has experienced a change in the governmental control of its affairs, which change has brought about a revolution in the fiscal and commercial situation on this North American continent. The new Administration in the United States, by lowering the tariff and placing a number of natural products on the free list, has compelled our friends opposite, who voted so nobly against giving away the natural products of Canada to the United States in 1911, to look on at the export of hundreds [DOT]of thousands of live stock from this country to the markets of the United States. Unfortunately a number of the articles placed on the free list by the Congress of the United States are not placed there unreservedly, and while we have been glad in the West-as I have no doubt gentlemen in the East who represent rural constituencies are also glad-to see our farmers getting so much better prices for their hogs and their cattle since the inauguration of the Wilson-Underwood tariff in the beginning of October last, it has been our great regret that the wheat-growing farmers of the West have not received any benefit up to the present moment. I have no quarrel with the statement in the Speech from the Throne, that our harvest last year has been a bounteous one; I agree that the statement is absolutely correct. I believe that this year produced the finest crop of wheat ever grown in the Canadian West without any question of doubt, the finest in quality and the finest in yield; but I do regret that the string in the Wilson-Underwood tariff attached to the putting of wheat on the free list has prevented the farmers of western Canada this year from taking advantage of the market for wheat in the United States, as they have been able to take advantage of it for the sale of their cattle and other live animals. The Wilson-Underwood tariff has reduced the duty on wheat from 25 cents a bushel to 10 cents a bushel, but to all countries which permit United States wheat and wheat products to come in free, the United States allows the wheat and wheat products of these countries to their markets free of duty. I do not purpose, Mr. Speaker, to treat this question in any partisan way.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh.


David Bradley Neely: My hon. friend cannot understand that attitude on my part, and I quite appreciate that it is because he is not capable of taking such a non-partisan position. I wish, as I have said, to discuss this question in a non-partisan way, be-

cause it is one affecting not merely the welfare of western Canada, but every province in this great Dominion of Canada. I would like to ask my hon. friend the member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) if the prosperity of the people of western Canada is not just as vital to him and his friends as it is to the people of western Canada themselves. The prosperity of the people of the West undoubtedly means the prosperity of every province in this Dominion. If our farmers are not reaping a proper reward for their toil, then they have not the money to spend for the necessities of life and for those tools and implements by which they dig the wealth out of the soil.
Here is the situation so far as the wheat crop of this year is concerned. Up to the close of navigation over 92,000,000 bushels of wheat and over 25,000,000 bushels of oats were forwarded from the ports of Fort William and Port Arthur. That, of course, is not by any means the total wheat crop of the West. In this connection it may surprise the House to learn that while in former years under Liberal administration -I am not prepared to go the length of saying that the Liberal administration was responsible for this condition, but this condition actually existed then and this dissimilar condition exists at the present time -the port of Montreal received and handled the larger portion of our export wheat. Would you believe, Mr. Speaker, that in the year 1913, with this bumper wheat crop, nearly 100,000,000 bushels of which were forwarded from Port Arthur and Fort William before the close of navigation, the greater portion was forwarded to American and not to Canadian ports, and that American ships and American railways to-day are actually handling the bulk of the western trade? Where is the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce ' (Mr. Foster), that he has not observed this alarming state of affairs, and that our Canadian shippers, our ships and our railways are to-day handling only a small percentage of the Canadian wheat crop that is exported from this country? Of course, the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce cannot be omniscient and omnipresent. He tries to be omnipresent, but that of course prevents him from being omniscient. When he tries to be present everywhere, he cannot know everything. Travelling as he has been doing during the last twelve months in all parts of the habitable globe looking for markets, although he and his friends were returned to power in 1911 on the question of refusing the greatest market
in the world, the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce cannot be expected to be aware of all these facts. As I do not intend, however, to discuss this question in a partisan manner, I am going to leave my hon. friend the Minister of Trade arid Commerce at this point.
I have the figures, month by month, in regard to these shipments of wheat. I am giving you round figures. In the month of December, up to the close of navigation, there were shipped to Canadian ports just a little over 2,000,000 bushels, and to American ports over 6,000,000 bushels. In the month of November, the whole month there were shipped to Canadian ports 12,000,000 bushels and to American ports 22,000,000 bushels, and in the month of October, there were shipped to Canadian ports 15,000,000 bushels and to American ports 18,000,000 bushels. These are the figures for the handling of .the greatest wheat crop that western Canada has ever produced, and practically the same proportion holds good with regard to the handling of oats and other cereals grown in the west.
It surely ought not to be necessary for me to undertake to demonstrate that the great need of the wheat grower in the West is a market for his surplus grain. Here are the figures as to the crop of 1913. These figures show that Western Canada produced something over 209,000,000 bushels of wheat. If we take the population of Canada at 8,000,000 in round figures, 50,000,000 bushels or at the outside 60,000,000 bushels of wheat would provide for the home market. Of course, we do not use western wheat alone because some wheat is grown in the East. Great Britain can take from sixty to eighty-five or ninety million bushels of wheat. That is our export market for wheat. If we take the maximum figures, 60,000,000 bushels for Canada and 90,000,000 bushels for Great Britain, that makes 150,000,000 bushels. Will any member of the Government, the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce or any gentleman representing a western province be good enough to tell this House what the Canadian farmer is going to do with that wheat surplus, which is increasing every year?


Mr. BURNHAM:: Tell us about the rebate.


David Bradley Neely: The hon. gentleman must
be thinking of some other subject.
It may startle the House when I say that, while this year -we have had the best wheat crop in the West so far, it has not been by any means one of the most profitable ones.

What is the situation? As I said, the wheat ripened early; it was harvested early. We have had one of the finest fall seasons that has been seen in the West for many years, with the result that the farmers have been able to get their wheat forwarded rapidly to the market and the railroads have been able to handle it with much greater ease than in any previous fall for many years. The farmers have only one export market. Therefore, they were forced to throw their wheat upon the market before the close of navigation; that is what it means to have only one export market the reaching of which depends upon navigation. As the farmers were compelled to throw their wheat upon the market before the close of navigation, the price was materially affected. Therefore, in the province of Saskatchewan, the farmers received a lower price for their wheat, I think, than in any season for the last ten or twelve years. There was a somewhat unfavourable season in the year 1912, and in 1913 the prices were unfavourable. Therefore, I am not able to report to the House that improvement in the material condition of our western farmers that I had hoped to report when I saw this year the splendid harvest which we had through-,out the length and breadth of the three prairie provinces.
Is there any member of this House who will deny that it would be an advantage to the western wheat growers to have access to the mills and markets of the United States of America ? I know we heard that argument a couple of years ago; we heard it about cattle, about swine, about all sorts of agricultural products. But, the experience of the East and of the West in Canada has disabused the minds of thousands of the farmers of this notion, including many who in 1911 were of the opinion that it would be of no advantage to them to have the United States market for natural products. Some may say that the result will be that we would deplete our own farms of the live stock which we need. We would do nothing of the kind. We may do temporarily; but as a permanent proposition wc establish so much larger-and consequently so much steadier -a market for these natural products that the ultimate result must inevitably be to greatly stimulate mixed farming throughout the length and breadth of Canada. The hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) in his speech last evening was interrupted by the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. J. E. Armstrong) with the suggestion that for some months last summer wheat was lower on the United

States side than on the Canadian side. That is a condition which, I believe, actually existed for a brief period, a very brief period indeed. But it was at a time when there was practically no surplus wheat in the granaries of either the American or Canadian farmers. But if my hon. friend from East Lambton will look up the prices for that period of the year when the farmers are compelled to put their wheat on the market, he will discover a totally different state of affairs. Under the tariff of 25 cents a bushel which existed until the first of last October, for years the price of same qualities of wheat on the Canadian side was from 8 cents to 10 cents a bushel less than the price on the American side. At the present time, with the reduction of duty from 25 eents a bushel to 10 cents a bushel, there is not so marked a difference in price, but I notice that 3 p.m. recent quotations show that there is a difference of from 41 cents to 5 cents a bush 1. Take a crop of 200,000,000 bushels of wheat, and, even cutting the advance of price in two and counting it at only 3 cents a bushel extra profit through access of our wheat to the United States market, "what is the net result to the farmers of our western country? At least the net result would enable them to pay their bills for agricultural machinery and other eastern manufactured products very much more promptly, and had the farmers made that profit, many of our eastern manufacturers would probably be in a much happier state than they are at the present moment.	.
Now, there was objection, -when the reciprocity agreement was under consideration, that reciprocity was an arrangement entered into by the two countries and was not independent legislation on the part of each country. No one can find any objection on that ground with the proposal with which I intend to close my address this afternoon, the proposal that this Government shall take immediate action to enable the Canadian wheat growers to have free entry for their products to the markets of the United States. The American Government has taken action, and all that is necessary is for any other country in the world to take similar action in order that they may gain a free exchange in natural products. Now, Sir, not only have the United States put wheat on the free list but they have also put wheat products, including flour and all the by-products, upon the free list. I remember very well what

the millers said in 1911 in opposition to reciprocity; they said that reciprocity was not a square deal, because they would have to compete with the American miller in paying the price for the wheat, but were limited in their market on the by-products,
I am free to say that from their point of view there was some truth in that contention. I am proud to recognize assistance from any quarter in a great cause which I think affects the welfare of our country, and particularly that part of our country which I represent, and so I wras delighted to hear the hon. member for South York make the statement he made last evening with reference to the millers of Canada being able to take care of their own industry.
I could not possibly use more emphatic words, more wisely chosen words, than the hon. member for South York used in his reference to this point. Speaking of the railways being able to take care of themselves in case wheat was put on the free list lie went on to speak of the milling industry in words which, with his permission, I will quote:
The same Is the case with the millers. Do you mean to tell me that Canadian millers, with their mills almost at the seat of production of the wheat, cannot compete with the American millers ? I say they can; I say that they are ready for the business. Of course they would like to keep the monoply they have to-day in regard to wheat milling in this country, and they have got a great monoply. They are well linked up together and are in a position, by reason of their monoply and the association of the railways, to keep down the price. Thus in two ways the Canadian farmer will benefit.
That is, by putting wheat on the free list.
They will benefit by the competition of American railways and they will benefit by the fact that the millers will have to come up to the scratch and give them more for their Canadian wheat if they want to grind it in their mills.
To use an ordinary expression, that is the case in a nut-shell, as presented by the hon. member for South York. Granted that under reciprocity the miller of Canada would have to compete in the purchase of wheat with the United States miller, and have a limited home market for the by-products of his mill, if. we accept the olive branch held out in the form of the Wilson-Underwood tariff, and take the duty off wheat and wheat products, what shall we find? We shall find that there will result a great advantage to the millers of Canada in that they will be given free entry into a market of ninety millions of people, not only for the flour which they manufacture, but for the by-products of the wheat
which they have to sell. If any one entertains any doubt as to whether the Canadian miller can compete with the miller of the United States, I think I can very speedily disabuse his mind of that idea by referring to a short article^ which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on Monday of this week. I do not think any hon. gentleman in this House would have the temerity to say that so far as the quality of Canadian wheat is concerned, it cannot compete with any wheat in the world if the millers are given the benefit of free entry for their products into United States markets. This is the article:
Canadian flour drives American flour out of the Orient. Hon. G. E. Foster's Trade Arrangement produces great results for the millers of this country and alarms United States Representatives.
The weekly trade report contains an item that is of exceeding significance in connection with Canadian trade with the Orient.
The American Consul-General at Hong Kong, reporting to his home government, states that Canadian flour is practically driving the American product out of the market, and that unless there is some change the American producers will lose this trade. He attributes the popularity of the Canadian flour in China to its high percentage of gluten, and says that no mere drought can explain the American falling-off, which was more marked in November than in any previous month.
It will be necessary, he declares, for the American wheat growers to get new seed and produce a different kind of wheat before they can compete with the Canadian product.
That is, in the market of China. The article then goes on to say:
It will be remembered that Hon. G. E.' Foster, after his trip to China last year, predicted that this country would yet take leading place in the flour market of China, and his predictions are being made good.
This is delightful information to receive from such an authority as the United States Consul-General at Hong Kong, and we are delighted with the compliment paid to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and to know that his trip to China was not, after all, in vain. But the point of the article is that Canadian .flour is actually driving United States flour out of the neutral markets of the world. We know that our Canadian flour is holding its own not only in China but in the other neutral markets of the world, the British market included. In what position would the taking advantage of the Underwood tariff in reference to wheat and wheat products leave the millers of this country? It would open up to them a market of ninety millions of people, from which they have been up to the present rigidly excluded by a high tariff wall. Not

only the grain growers, but the millers of Canada as well, should be sending deputations to this Government to ask for the right to sell their wheat where they are today selling their cattle to such advantage. We quite agree with the hon. member for South York that the putting of wheat products on the free list would have some effect on our Canadian railways, but the evidence which I have produced so far goes to show that the high railway rates charged in this country are already driving the export trade of Western Canada to United States routes, and if the Canadian roads are determined to keep their freight rates at the high-water mark it is for the stockholders of these railroads to deal with the matter; the Canadian farmer should not be obliged to suffer because the railways refuse to bring their rates down to a proper level.
Some reference has been made in this House to the remarkable labour conditions that exist throughout the length and breadth of this country. When I happened to notice in a recent issue of the Labour Gazette a statement showing that in the city of Vancouver the building permits for the month of November amounted to only $300,000, as compared with about $1,500,000 for the same month of the preceding year, I was quite prepared for the information given by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) that there were 10,000 unemployed in greater Vancouver. But, on the authority of a recognized leader of the farmers' movement in the province of Alberta, Mr. George Lane, I can tell the House that the exodus that has taken place from the province of British Columbia in the last four months is actually taking place off the farms in the province of Alberta. More than that, I have information in a less pronounced form that the same condition of affairs is being brought about in every one of the prairie provinces. Sir, what does this Government mean? Do they want the farmers to export their wheat or do they want them to export themselves? That is the issue on this question at the present time, that unless the farmers of western Canada are given free access for their greatest product, which is wheat, into the markets of the United States, we are going to see, not an increased tide of immigration into our country, but an exodus out of the country, which, Sir, has actually begun. That is surely not the object or the desire of the members of this House of either political party. We want to see our country grow, we want to see the population increase; we want to

see the people increase in prosperity. But if we are going to say to the western wheat grower who to-day is face to face with a surplus of 50,000,000 bushels of wheat that he does not know what to do with: we, the Government of Canada, will prevent you from getting free access to the markets of the United States, there is only one thing for the western Canadian farmer and that is to pick up his kit and belongings and get out of the country to some place where conditions are more favourable.


John Hampden Burnham: What about the countervailing duty and rebates and things like that? You have omitted all these points.


David Bradley Neely: I thought I had been discussing the countervailing duty for the last half hour.


John Hampden Burnham: You have not.


David Bradley Neely: Does my hon. friend understand the meaning of the term? If he wants a d .ftniition so that he will understand it I shall give it. All he requires is a definition of the term and then he will know that I have been discussing the countervailing duty during the last half hour. I may say, if my hon. friend does not understand the proposition, it is this, that the United States Government has put wheat and wheat products on the free list for all countries that similarly put the United States wheat on the free list.


John Hampden Burnham: Why do they not admit it free if they want to?


David Bradley Neely: It is not so much a question as to whether they want it or not, but they want similar courtesies from the country to which they grant the privilege of their market. But, after all, it is not a question of what the United States wants that I am discussing; it is a question of what the Canadian farmer wants. My hon. friend, after he gets through discussing the subject of titles, can go over and reform the United States ideas of what they want if he prefers it, but for the present let us confine our attention to the requirements of the Canadian people.
I was referring to the fact that this condition actually exists and I am glad that the opinion I am giving is an unbiassed one, because it has been echoed in other quarters that I am sure will appeal to every hon. gentleman on the other side of the House. During the present session of the Manitoba Legislature, my hon. friends from that province will bear me out, a Mr. Malcolm, Liberal member from Birtle,
3 ANUAEY 28, 1914
placed on the Order Paper a resolution asking this Government of Canada to place wheat and wheat products on the free list so that ours might have free access to the American market. What was the treatment accorded by the Government of Sir Eodmond Eoblin to that resolution? The Government of Sir Eodmond Eoblin took up the resolution of the Liberal member for Birtle and it passed the Legislature of Manitoba unanimously, so that when my friend says ' Oh!' when I say this is an unbiassed opinion, I leave it to him to say whether that is not so. I am proud to think that I am able to deal with this subject, a subject that is very near to my heart, in a way that I trust will appeal not only to members on this side of the House, but to every member of the House. Surely the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Eogers) a late member of the Eoblin Administration and representing in this House the people of western Canada; surely my hon. friend the newly appointed Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) whom I congratulate on his appointment and his fitness for that appointment, and the possible fitness of the reward which it means, surely my hon. friend the Solicitor General, also representing the West in this Government; surely the Minister of the Interior who is not in his seat at the moment-surely every one of these gentlemen will agree with me that the necessity of the moment, so far as the western wheat grower is concerned, is that the resolution passed by the Manitoba Legislature at its present session should be adopted and acted upon by the Government at the present time. I say I am looking with confidence to the support of all these hon. gentlemen,^ not to them alone but to the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Aikins), the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. W. H. Sharpe), the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner), the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury), and I see no reason why I should not have the support of every member of the House. Hon. gentlemen surely do not want to tell me that it is going to be a disadvantage to the western wheat producer to permit United States wheat to come over into this country. Who should be the best judge of that question? Again and again has this Parliament been apprised of the desire of the grain growers of the West and the wheat growers of the West; they were apprised of that desire only a few weeks ago, but, notwithstanding some hon. gentlemen have said in the past that it would be a great detriment to the wheat grower to have this change brought about, the western farmers are still persisting, obstinately persisting, in saying that they ought to be the best judges as to whether or not it is to their advantage to get free access into the United States market. I ask, who ought to be the best judges? and is there an hon. gentleman from western Canada who is prepared to contradict that position? If they are prepared to contradict the position taken by the Grain Growers Association are they prepared to contradict the resolution passed unaminously by the Manitoba legislature this session. The particular fault I have to find with the Government at the present moment is this: instead of calling a special session of this Parliament when the Wilson-Underwood tariff came into effect in the first week of October last, they continued their peregrinations over the four quarters of the globe and left our western Canadian farmers to sell their crop in a restricted market which meant a loss to them of millions and millions of dollars. Instead of calling Parliament, the time was extended for another couple of months and the farmers received practically no benefit this year from the repeal of the duty on wheat. It is not too late, however to get this result so far as future crops are concerned. The situation that existed this year will exist more markedly year after year as time goes on.


John Hampden Burnham: What did the Americans do?


David Bradley Neely: My hon. friend is still interested in the Americans; perhaps he is thinking of moving over there.


John Hampden Burnham: Oh, no.


David Bradley Neely: In view of all the facts, and the desire of the grain growers for the market across the line, I must express my regret that the Government have not seen fit to take any notice of this situation in the Speech from the Throne and that they did not call a special session of Parliament to deal with the question. Whilst I agree that nothing can be done to remedy what ha3 occurred this year, yet I hope the Government will remedy the conditions so far as the future loss is concerned. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I move in amendment the following:	'
The House regrets that, in the gracious speech with which your Royal Highness has met Parliament, the said speech gives no indication of any intention on the part of your advisers to take any steps to secure free access to the markets of the United States for the wheat and wheat products of Canada, by re-

moving the duty on wheat and wheat products coming into Canada from the United States.
Hon. ROBERT ROGERS (Minister of
Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I do not pro- [DOT] pose to venture into any extended discussion in respect to the Address in reply to the speech of His Royal Highness at the opening of this Parliament, for the simple reason that, in the first place, I do not deem any extended discussion necessary at the present time, especially in view of the fact that I was satisfied, as I believe every hon. gentleman upon this side of the House was satisfied, that when the vote was taken last night it meant the adoption of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. However, hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House have seen fit to think differently, and perhaps under the circumstances there may be some little excuse for the action which they have taken. When you consider, Mr. Speaker- as hon. gentlemen opposite have had an opportunity of considering, and of reconsidering, during the past ten days or two weeks-the very simple, very harmless ' and indeed very childish twaddle that was reduced to the form of a motion of want of confidence in this Government, and presented in the House by the right, hon. the leader of the Opposition, I say that I can well understand hon. members opposite feeling that it was necessary to supplement their weak position in some regard in order that they could recover the position they had lost, not alone before this House, but ' before the people of the country, in attempting to present such a simple motion of want of confidence as that which was defeated by such a large majority in this House last night. So much for the motion of yesterday.
Now we have the motion of to-day, and let me say that if we were surprised at the simple motion of want of confidence of yesterday, what must we say of the motion presented by my hon. friend the member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) this afternoon? And I am more surprised at my right hon. friend who leads the Opposition, for I am sure that no man in this House knows better than he that in allowing one of his followers to present such a motion as this, he was undertaking to break every rule and every practice that has obtained in this House since Confederation. Never in one single instance have there been two amendments from the Opposition upon the motion for the adoption cf the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, least

of all a motion dealing with the tariff. If for no other reason than this, I say that the Government and the members in the majority in this House would fail in their duty if they did not reject the motion of want of confidence in this Government of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. If my hon. friend from Humboldt is as jealous of the interests of the people of western Canada as he would wish this House and country to understand, he has not taken the course best calculated to advance those interests. The hon. gentleman well knows, as does every hon. gentleman in this House, that the day is not far distant when the Minister of. Finance will bring down his Budget Speech, and he knows, as we all know, that tariff changes have never been discussed on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. The hon. gentleman knows that the proper time and place for the Government to announce and for the House to discuss tariff changes is when the Minister of Finance makes his annual financial statement. It will then be the proper time for us to deal with all the fiscal questions which may present themselves. As a government, we do not propose to make any statement of the intentions of the Government in respect to any tariff matter in advance of the Budget Speech.- Then we will be free to discuss this question or any other cognate question, and the Government will then submit its decision with respect to this and other matters to the judgment of the members of this House and of the people of Canada. I do not know that there is anything else for me to say, except to add that even when the discussion of such an important matter as this does take place on the Budget Speech, we shall need to have the very best and soundest reasons-reasons more sound than those which the hon. member for Humboldt has been able to present to the House-before it would be wise for this Government to deal with any tariff changes which would affect important industries. If for no other reason than that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Neely) has undertaken by a motion of want of confidence in the Government to bring to the attention of the House at this juncture a matter which has never been introduced during the lifetime of this Parliament, other than on the Budget Speech, I ask the House to reject his amendment.


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Edmonton):: I
am sure we have been all greatly impressed by the constitutional and parliamentary

reasons given by the Minister of Public Works for deferring or preventing discussion on a matter of urgent public importance. In order that he may be relieved from any misapprehension, and so that he may not be grieved, as he professes to be, at the action or inaction of the leader of the Opposition, let me quote to him a motion presented to the Parliament of Great Britain-I am sure the Minister of Public Works will not deny the validity of such a precedent-when on the 6th of February, 1893, an amendment to the reply to the Speech from the Throne was moved in the following words:
At the end of the question to add the follow-mg' words:
That this House humbly expresses its regret that no measures are announced by Tour Majesty for the present relief of those who are affected by the existing wide-spread depression in agriculture, either by means of readjustment of local burdens, or otherwise.
This motion was debated in the English House of Commons for two days.	If
such a motion was in order in the British Parliament tinder the conditions prevailing in Great Britain at that time, surely an almost absolutely parallel motion is just as much in order in this country under the conditions prevailing now.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Does the hon. gentleman not see the difference between a general resolution referring generally to the tariff, and a specific resolution calling for action on a specific item of the tariff ?
Some hon. GENTLEMEN: Oh.


Arthur Meighen: If hon. gentlemen do not see the distinction, I could easily show it to them.


Frank Oliver: I am sorry that we on this side of the House are not able to please our friends on the other side.


Mr. FOSTER:: You do not try.


Frank Oliver: I think I can show the hon. minister that we do try. We have already debated at some length a resolution to which the Minister of Public Works takes objection because it is not specific, and now when we bring forward a specific resolution the Solicitor General takes objection. If we do not succeed on this side in pleasing the Minister of Trade and Commerce and his friends, I am afraid it is that these gentlemen opposite will not be satisfied with anything we may do, no matter what it be. The reference of the Minister of Public Works to lack of precedent was fortunate in that it afforded us an opportunity in the discussion of this question,
which is undoubtedly of greatest and most pressing importance in Canada at the moment; to call upon such a precedent, in such a case, on such authority.
Is there a question of importance before the country? Is it necessary or is it desirable that a condition such as exists to-day should be considered by this Parliament without loss of time? Is it not a fact, as the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) has stated to the House, that because the members of this Government during the later months of last year, were paying attention to anything and everything except the business they are there to attend to; Parliament was not called at the usual time, to deal with this question, which would have saved millions of dollars to this country; millions of dollars that admittedly this country needs very much now. We have the attitude of the Government as expressed by the Minister of Finance, to the effect that the Government has no duty to perform except to levy taxes, to make expenditures, and incidentally to draw their salaries. We have his statement that there is no responsibility resting upon the Government to meet the conditions that exist throughout the country. WThy, he says, leave things alone and they will get better of themselves. I believe that things will get better, if not by themselves, at any rate without the assistance of this Government. But if and when they do get better, it will be not because of this Government, its policy and its practice, but in spite of this Government, its policy and.its practice.
A great deal has been made of the fact that the late Government did not do thus and so. Let me point out that the country is to-day face to face with a condition that did not exist during the term of office of the late Government. It is the fact of the existence of an abnormal condition, abnormal so far as the recent experience of Canada is concerned, that calls for action by this Government, and is our reason, not our excuse, for taking this opportunity of bringing before this House and the country not only the necessity for action but the possibility and the duty of action.
It is true that during the administration of the late Government there was a rise in prices. But it is also true that parallel with the rise in prices, there w'as a rise in prosperity. So long as I have the means to pay in proportion to the prices that I am asked, what difference does it make to me whether prices are high or low? But when the condition is that prices are- higher than they were before and I have not the money to

pay those prices, then a condition exists that calls for action, for consideration. The fact that such action was not taken in previous years is no evidence that action is not necessary now. It was not needed then; it is needed now.
This is a question that is very much greater than a question of the West, as I understood one of my hon. friends on the other side to suggest. It is much greater than a party question. It is a question that touches the very foundation of the welfare and success of this great country of Canada. It is well for us to consider just how the present conditions came about. It will be remembered that some years ago, in fact in the winter of 1910-11, after a considerable amount of agitation had taken place amongst the farmers of the prairie west, a large delegation came to Ottawa to impress upon the Government of that day the desirability, or as they expressed it, the necessity, of the opening of a market south of the boundary line for our wheat and-other western products. I am sure there are a great many of our friends, now on the other side of the House, who looked upon this delegation as an aggregation of cranks, as men who wanted something simply because they wanted it and did not know why. Let me point out what was the reason of that delegation and what is the reason of this resolution that is now before the House. We have had in the prairie west a stupendous development in wheat growing. I am confining my arguments to wheat for the moment. In a matter of some ten years our wheat area and production increased something like six or seven fold, from two and a half million acres of cultivation to over seventeen million acres of cultivation. At the same time, there was development in other wheat growing countries. With the increased production throughout the world, throwing that increased production on to the world's markets centering at Liverpool, there had been a continual depression of world prices of wheat, which was within the knowledge of the men who grew it and who, taking notice of that continued and enormous increase of production, taking notice of that continued decrease in world prices, saw that they were heading straight for the position that they are in to-day of attempting to produce wheat at a price that would not yield a fair margin of profit.
I see in the newspapers, and I hear from many of our friends in Parliament and out of it, talk about the farmer as though he were some sort of an altruistic individual

who farmed for the sake of being near to nature's heart, and who should be satisfied to enjoy the morning sunrise, the singing birds and the pleasant scenery; and that when he undertook to discuss economic questions he was out of his proper field, and in fact had come into the class of cranks and nuisances. Of course our hon. friends are going to educate him. Let me say, what ought not to be necessary to say, that the farmer's business is just like any other man's business. If it is not done at a profit, he cannot stay in business. It is not a question of whether he wants to stay, it is a question of his being able to stay. What enables the merchant or manufacturer to stay in business? It is the little margin of profit that he makes. Let him have an output of $100,000,000, if his return is only $99,000,000, he goes out of business. If it is $101,000,000, he stays in business. It is the difference of a trifle between success and bankruptcy. As long as the farmer is getting for his products a price that gives him a fair and reasonable margin of profit, he stays in business. If his margin is only 5 cents a bushel on his wheat, it enables him to stay in business, but if he makes 5 ^ cents a bushel less than the wheat cost him to produce, he goes out of business. This is the condition that the farmers of the West saw facing them in 1911. They had seen it years before. They came down and made representations to the late Government on the subject, and that Government acting on these representations, took measures to make it possible for more favourable marketing of the farmers' principal product, thereby assuring him, so far as it could be assured, a margin of profit on that product.
I have figures here which I will place before the House as to what the differences in the world's prices have been. I have acquired this information from a leading grain house in Montreal, and I have every reason to believe that it is reliable. I am informed that in the year 1907, a year of bad crops and hard times-it was as to that year I asked information for the purpose of making a comparison-in December, the average price of No. 1 Northern wheat in Liverpool was $1.23 per bushel. In 1911, the average of the same article in the same market for December was $1.18i per bushel; in 1912, the average was $1.07 per bushel; and I am further credibly informed that in the year 1913 the average price in December for No. 1 Northern wheat was 98 cents. This is a difference as between 1907 and 1913 of twenty-five cents a bushel, or twenty per

cent, if I am correct in my calculation, in the return to the farmer.
Now, I do not know how many classes of business there are that can stand a reduction of twenty per cent in the value of the out-turn and still remain going concerns. And I am here to say, Mr. Speaker, that the fact of that reduction having come to the wheat producers of the Northwest has had the absolutely necessary effect of restricting production and decreasing financial resources, producing a condition that is reflected throughout the length and breadth of this Dominion in the cry of hard times that now prevails. I do not know how far the financial condition will be denied, but I will say that not in twenty years has there been a condition in this Dominion of Canada such as exists to-day. A despatch from Toronto of January 26 says that the total registration of unemployed in the Toronto Civic Registration Bureau up to date had almost reached 7,000 men. I read that in Ottawa, Messrs. Fripp and Chabot are approaching the Minister of Public Works to impress upon him the desirability of pushing work for which money has been voted, as a means of giving employment to two or three hundred men. I find a despatch from Toronto appearing in the London Times and dated 8th of January, stating that it is admitted there are from 10,000 to 15,000 unemployed in Toronto. I read in the Montreal Telegraph of January 26 that at the Protestant House of Refuge the number of night lodgings given last week was 895 and the number of meals 1,331. I give these figures to put it beyond all question that there is a condition in this country to-day that has not existed for twenty years. It is a condition of shortage of money. And I am pointing out where, in one direction, that shortage of money could have been measurably prevented by action of this Government. I maintain that the condition is not only such as to justify the Opposition in moving the resolution they have moved but such as to call upon the Government, if they have
4 p.m. any proposals to make, if they have any remedy to offer-as it must be offered in the Budget Speech- to bring down their Budget at once so that such remedy as they may see fit to apply may be applied without delay.
Hon. GEORGE E. FOSTER:	We cannot do it until the Address is passed.


Frank Oliver: If my hon. friend will
agree that the Budget shall be brought
down to-morrow, the Address will be passed this afternoon.


George Eulas Foster: You are nearly exhausted already, and of course you are taking advantage.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend need not
fancy that this subject is exhausted. It is too important a question, it touches the vital interests of every man in Canada too closely, to be exhausted by anything I could say, or by anything that even he himself could say.
Now, I do not wish to delay the House, but I desire to draw attention to a special feature of this matter that has been alluded to but is perhaps not as thoroughly understood as it should be. The argument has been made that because the United States produces wheat in large amount, and exports wheat in large amount, therefore there is not and cannot be a market for Canadian wheat in the United States. On this point I asked a question of this grain house in Montreal of which" I have spoken. I asked if it was a fact that in the Liverpool market American wheat was sold at a higher price than Canadian wheat of equal quality. And here is the answer I get:
With reference to your last question, I presume that statement has reference to American winter wheat. As regards Australian wheat, as you are aware, that is a white wheat. It is quite true that at times all these classes of wheat will sell at a higher price than your No. 1 Northern Manitoba. That is merely a matter of supply and demand.
That is to say, in the markets of the United Kingdom there is a demand for certain classes of wheat to make flour for pastry purposes. When these classes of wheat are in short supply naturally the price is higher, and when they are in abundant supply naturally the price is lower. Now, what is the case in regard to certain soft wheat in the Liverpool markets is the case in regard to the hard wheat of Canada in the United States markets. In the United States they are producing and milling for a population of ninety or a hundred million and of that product only a small proportion is hard wheat. That which comes from the Red River valley is, I understand, the only hard wheat grown in the United States. For purposes of mixing, I understand that there is a special demand in the United States for hard wheat, and when they have not enough hard wheat to meet their requirements, they import from us and pay a higher price. As a matter of fact, they never have enough

hard wheat for mixing purposes to supply the home market, and for that reason there is a continual demand in the United States for the hard wheat of our prairie provinces at an advanced price. It is because the farmers are entitled to it, and can be given that advantage, that we bring this matter very strongly to the attention of the Government.


Mr. SCHAFFNER:: What about the
wheat of North Dakota; that is hard, is it not?


Frank Oliver: I said the Red River
valley.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: The Red River valley must extend over a very wide area.


Frank Oliver: stating that it was the finest wheat and the cheapest in the world, and they could not understand why it should be sacrificed in the way it was. There was no other country selling in competition with us at the time; it simply went down under its own weight.


John Hampden Burnham: If the United States wants our wheat, and if they have no cogent reason for wanting to send theirs into this country, why on earth do they persist in keeping the' balance of trade against themselves year after year as they are doing, and in waiting for this House to give them permission to take our wheat in?


Frank Oliver: I am not commissioned to answer for the Government of the United States. The ex-President will be in this city on Saturday, and I would suggest that my hon. friend consult him in the matter.


Mr. W. H. SHARPE:: Will the hon. gen-, tleman tell us who made the statement which he has been reading?


Frank Oliver: No, I will not tell my hon. friend who made the statement, although I am quite at liberty to do so; because I do not think he has any right to inqu.re. If he is interested in the matter, he can easily veri.y the assertion mode as a statement of fact. It is open ior any gentleman to show that it is not a fact, if it is not. There is no question about the fact that wheat was at a lower point in the Liverpool market last fall than it has been for many years. There is no doubt, as is affirmed elsewhere in this letter, that Canadian wheat was selling below the price of United States wheat of equal value; the reason given for that condition was that our Canadian wheat was forced on the market and naturally the price went down, as the article says, under its own weight. Why, it may be asked, was the wheat sent forward in such large quantities? Partly because of the pressure which was exerted upon the farmer compelling him to sell, and partly the feeling on the part of the farmer that it would be better for him to sell early than to sell late, after a grain blockade had occurred and the price had been still further hammered down. If we had the right to sell to the

United States all the year round, we would have the advantage of the double market; we would have the advantage of winter transportation to one of those markets, and our farmers would not be compelled to force all their grain out before the close of navigation. Free access to the markets of the United States last year would, aside from the advance in the price from the United States market, by mak'ng it a bus.ness proposition for our farmers to hold back their wheat, have helped the Liverpool price to - a very material extent. It is beyond question that, having regard to world products, the wider the markets, the greater their number, and the more easily accessible they are, the better for the producer. That is an elementary proposition that cannot be denied. If our prairie west is to increase in production, our farmers must be able to make a profit. Under circumstances as they are, it is necessary for the Government of Canada, instead of shutting their eyes, instead of asking people to wait until things right themselves, without loss of time to take every means that can be taken to secure to the producer the best price that the world's markets will give him, by decreasing the burden of taxation, by facilitating his means of production, by decreasing the cost of transportation, by improving the conditions under which trade is carried on; and if to attain this end it is necessary for these gentlemen to forswear their settled policy, if it is necessary for them to reverse the position that they took in 1911, I say the needs of the country are such as to demand that action at their hands; and, whatever they nay conceive to be their duty according to their belief, we consider it to be our duty to bring to the attention of the House and of the country, in the most emphatic manner that we are able to, the condition as it exists, the need of a remedy and a suggestion as to what the remedy should be.


Mr. LEVI THOMSON (Qu'Appelle):: I
am very sorry that the Government supporters appear to have dropped out of this discussion; it seems to me it is of sufficient importance to justify the Government in putting up men to continue it. In the minds of the farmers of Saskatchewan, at least the question of the removal of the Canadian duty on wheat is one of vast importance. We are told by members and supporters of the present Government that the Government has done great things for the farmers. I am willing to give all reasonable credit to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell) for what he has done in the matter of agricultural grants. I believe the estimate for agricultural purposes for the years 1913-14 is something more than $1,000,000 over the estimate prepared by the late Government for the years 1911-12. It seems to me that the boasting we have heard about this great increase is very extravagant, to say the least of it, when we remember that the increase in the general estimates of the years 1913-14 over 1911-12 amounts to $50,000,000, it does not seem to me at least that the increase in the agricultural grant is surprising, except on account of its meagreness. A little over 2 per cent of the increase is given tq agriculture. As the people of Canada are generally waking up to the fact that agricultural education has been neglected in cur country, that agricultu al progress is necessary in order to have progress of any k nd, and that it is in the interest of the country generally that agriculture should receive more attention and assistance, it seems to me that the percentage of increase in the Estimates voted to agriculture is small instead of large, and that the minister might very well have made the vote much greater and still have had the general support of all classes of the community. I think his failure to provide for a greater proportion of the general increase being given to the work of his department indicates a want of courage on his part. The amount the farmers of the prairie provinces will gain by the action of the United States in throwing the duty off cattle and decreasing the duty on oats is very much more than they will gain by the Agricultural Instruction Act. The Minister of Agriculture should not allow himself to be outdone in the matter of assisting the farmers of Canada by the President of the United States. We have a right to expect more from our Minister of Agriculture than from the President of the United States; but 1 -do not think that any one will suggest that we get anything like as much. [DOT] The greatest assistance we have got since the present Government came into power, in fact the only assistance, has come from the other side of the line. We hear suggestions that it would be a bad thing to encourage anything that would create a desire to be annexed to the United States.
I do not know what possible condition would make that more likely than the present state of affairs, when we are getting



quotation I have is in the Winnipeg Telegram of Monday, January 19, reporting the Winnipeg flour prices of Saturday, the 17th of this month.
The highest quotation for flour at Winnipeg on that date was $5.40 per barrel and the lowest $3.00 per barrel. I give only two quotations, the lowest and the highest, but there were a number of other quotations given for grades of flour in between and dividing the total by the number of quotations given, I find that the average price was $4.47. I arrived at the average price in Chicago by the same process. The Chicago Tribune gives the price of flour for the same date, the highest price quoted being $5.30 and the lowest $2.65, and applying the same process, the average of the quotations is $3.70 a barrel. On the same day No. 1 Northern wheat was 851 cents at Fort William while the Chicago price for American No. 2 Northern was 901 cents. I find no Chicago quotation for No. 1 on that date and so I was obliged to take the quotation for No. 2. I think most of us have heard enough of the difference in the prices of these grades to have an idea as to what that difference would be. In other words, the best Chicago flour on that date was quoted ten cents lower than at Winnipeg; the worst 35 cents lower, and the average 77 cents lower, while No. 2 wheat was five and a half cents per bushel higher in Chicago than No. 1 in Fort William. This shows plainly how the Canadian consumer, as well as the Canadian grain grower, will gain by the action we propose. There is no question but that, while the Canadian grain grower will get more for his wheat, the Canadian consumer will buy his flour at a lower price and the millers will not be driven out of business even then. It is safe to say that there is no possibility of the millers being driven out of business by any proposal such as this. I assert that the statement to that effect is not supported by evidence. We are not shown how it costs Canadian millers more than American millers to mill their wheat, but the statement that the Canadian millers cannot compete with the American millers is very easily disproved by the evidence at hand. I take from the Canadian trade reports the exports of flouFproduced in Canada for the year ending March 31, 1908, to the year ending March 31, 1913, inclusive, and the following is the result:

Exports of Canadian Flour.
	Barrels.	Value.
1908 .. ..	1,962,740	.. ..$ 8,454,9541909 .. ..	1,738,038	.. .. 7,991,4131910 .. ..	3,064,028	.. .. 14,859,8541911 .. ..	3,049,046	.. .. 13,854,7901912 .. ..	3,738,836	.. .. 16,034,0641913 .. ..	4,478,043	.. .. 19,970,689
It will be seen that nearly $20,000,000 worth of flour was exported out of Canada by the millers of Canada, for the year ending March 31, 1913, and in that same year there was exported by the millers of Canada 1,662,338 cwts. of bran valued at $1,603,003. So that in the year ending March 31, 1913, there was exported milled products from Canada to the value of $21,573,692. It is impossible, of course, to give the exact amount that will be exported during the current year which will end on the last day of next month, but judging by the increase that has taken place from year to year in the past, we may safely say that over $26,000,000 worth of mill products will be exported this year by the Canadian millers. It must be remembered that when a miller exports mill products from this country to some other country, he is in open competition with the world; he has to face the Minneapolis millers and millers from many other places. He has no advantage whatever. Unless he produces his flour as cheaply as other millers, he cannot export his flour. Looking over the speech which my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. White) delivered the other day, I find he says that the output of the mills of Canada is now $82,000,000 or thereabouts. If that is correct, as I presume it is, then if the output exported increases during the present year, as it has done in past years, about one-third of the mill products of Canada will be exported to other countries and will come into direct competition with the mill products of every other country, with no advantage, no protection. If the mills can compete with other millers on one-third of their products, there is no reason why they should not compete for our benefit with other millers on the other two-thirds.
I think that makes the matter clear; but to make it a little clearer, even at the risk of repetition, I desire to quote from a news item in the morning Citizen of Ottawa of the 26th of this month. It is headed ' Canadian flour drives American out of Orient.' That is very pleasant reading. It must be remembered that these Canadian millers

are frightened out of their lives of American millers. We are told that they must be protected or our wheat will go to the United States, be milled there and the flour will come back to us to be consumed. On the other hand, however, they are able to go to the Orient, to compete freely with these American millers and beat them out of the market. The news item contains the following:
The weekly trade report contains an item that is of exceeding significance in connection with Canadian grain in the Orient. The American Consul General at Hong Kong, reporting to his home Government states that Canadian flour is practically driving the American product out of the market.
We have no reason to suppose that this statement is not correct. If it is correct, it proves plainly and conclusively that the Canadian miller does not require any protection from the American miller, from whomever else he may require it.
I wish to say a word in regard to the exporting of bran. We are told it would be a serious thing for our wheat to be allowed to go free into the United States, because it would go there to be milled and the bran would be consumed there, while the flour would be shipped back to us. If the bran exports of this year exceed the exports of last year in the same proportion that the exports have been increasing from year to year, we may expect that in the neighbourhood of 2,000,000 cwt. of bran will be exported by the millers of this country during the present year. If that is so, it is quite plain that we are not likely to be in any great trouble on the bran question.
Our friends on the other side of the House often twit the western farmers on the fact that they are not go- ing into mixed farming, and tell them that they should adopt a system of mixed farming. I am a farmer in the West, and I am fully aware of the fact that it will be to our benefit to adopt a system of mixed farming. I am endeavouring to adopt it on my farm. I am gradually getting into that system. A large proportion of the farmers of the West, so far as they are able, are doing the same. It is all very well to lecture us in this respect. I do not think, however, that lectures will do any good. The western farmer has sufficient confidence in himself that there is no one in this House able to lecture him successfully. There is no one in this House from whom he is willing to take lectures. Perhaps that is wrong of us, but it is a fact.
There are other things which the present Government might do to encourage mixed 18i
farming. I do not know what has been done by this Government. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce used to give us periodic lectures on the necessity of adopting mixed farming, but I do not know that he has done anything to encourage us. As a matter of fact the encouragement that we are getting is like other agricultural encouragement, all from the other side of the line. The same unfortunate condition exists that when we look for help, encouragement, assistance, the Government says: You must get all your assistance from the Yankees. They say: We do not want any truck or trade with the Yankees, but if you want any help, you must go to them. I think I am right in saying that all the official encouragement that we have received during the last couple of years has been from the American Government.
When the American Government removed the duty from live stock, they gave us the greatest encouragement we have ever had or are likely to have for some time. The western farmers are not killing their calves now, as they formerly did. Formerly they preferred steers, as the steers brought a little better price than the heifers. Things have changed now. The farmers are looking for heifers. They are saving their calves. In a few years, if the price continues as it is now, you will see lots of cattle in Saskatchewan and other western provinces.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: And no thanks to the present Government.


Levi Thomson: Ii is unfortunate
that we are not able to give thanks to our own Government, because as good citizens we would like to be in a position to give thanks to our own Government instead of to a government of a foreign country.
We are very often told that it is a dangerous thing to open the markets of Canada to our American competitors;* that the farmers of Canada must be very careful; that they want to look out for their own interest; that they do not want competition; that they must protect their home market and keep it for themselves. If I know anything about the farmers of Saskatchewan, that is not their idea of the matter at all. I am satisfied that in considering any policy we must consider its effect on the consumers as well as on the producers.
On these subjects, especially where the farmer is the producer, I feel that it is my duty to look carefully to the effect which the policy will have upon the Canadian consumer, and especially upon the

labouring classes. And let me say this: If I were appearing before the Grain Growers' Association of Saskatchewan and made such a statement as that, it would be cheered to the echo, I am satisfied; but if I made any remark which would show that I did not care a straw what effect this had upon the labouring class, I should be howled down. That is the spirit of the western farmer.
We have heard a great deal about the heads of the Grain Growers' Association. 1 want to say that there is no class of men in Canada who show better spirit in dealing with other classes of the community than the leaders of the Grain Growers' Association of the West, and I challenge contradiction. There is no class of people in Canada that are more likely to consider fairly the effect of any policy upon the consumers, especially upon the labouring class, than are the farmers of the West. I believe that to be the spirit of the farmers of Qu'Appelle; and I should not wish to represent the farmers of Qu'Appelle were it otherwise.
Now, let me say in conclusion, speaking for the farmers of the West, that all they want is a fair field and no favour. They are prepared to compete with the world. And let me say to the people of Ontario, who sometimes talk about their farmers not producing very much and about protection being of some use to them, that the farmers of Ontario would do well to keep their eyes on that western country. At present we are growing grain, especially wheat. We are exporting wheat, and the price of our product is fixed, almost invariably fixed, by the foreign markets. Some of our friends say that we should adopt mixed farming. We shall adopt mixed farming. But let it be understood that whatever we undertake to produce we shall produce in such large quantities that the home market will not be able to fix the price, but the price will be fixed by the export market. This is a point that should not be lost sight of by our friends in Ontario. I call them our friends. I am an Ontario man myself, born and brought up on an Ontario farm, and I am not ashamed of it. I am the son of an honest Ontario farmer and ask no prouder pedigree. I do not admit that one can have a better pedigree. I say our friends the Ontario farmers -should keep in view the point to which I have referred. If we start to produce beef, in a very short time the price of beef will be fixed entirely bv the export price; if -we undertake to produce

butter, the same will be true, or ' if eggs and poultry, the same will be true. All we ask is a fair field and no favours. We believe we have a country, a soil and a people that are the equal of any in the world. We believe that we have a better country than our friends to the south of us. We believe we have a better soil. And we believe, with all due respect to our neighbours to the south, that we have better men. If we are not prepared to face the world, we cannot say that; for the very fact of our being unwilling to face the world's competition is to say that either our country is not so good or our soil is not so good, or our people are not so good as those with whom we are to be brought into competition, and that we are not prepared for a moment to admit.


Hon. T. W. CROTHEBS (Minister of Labour):: I would not take part in this
debate, especially at this stage of it, but for a few observations of a rather personal character, made by the hon. member for
Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) last
5 p.m. Monday evening in my absence.
Amongst other things the hon. gentleman said that I had said that hard times were a good thing for the country. Now, he had not one tittle of evidence to warrant any such statement. And in my judgment, there is not very much difference between making a statement that you do not know to be true and making one that you know to be untrue. The address to which he referred, a report of which he read to the extent of one or two sentences, occupied about forty-five minutes. I was speaking of the high cost of living. Among other things I stated that we had enjoyed here in this country for many years a period of unprecedented prosperity, that our people during that period had had more money to spend than usual, that they had spent it freely and that such conditions were accompanied by a rise of prices. I also stated that hard times were generally accompanied by low prices. And I cited, for instance, the period in the early 90's, when we suffered a very severe depression in Canada. There are many gentlemen within the sound of my voice who remember that in those years we sold wheat at 40 cents a bushel. A friend of mine lost a large sum of money buying wheat at 40 cents a bushel. I remember that in those days we used to sell a horse for $60 that would bring $300 now. Prices continued to go down from 1890 until about 1897. Prosperity began then to reappear and prices proceeded to rise, and continued

steadily to rise until the years 1907 and 1908. We then had a temporary setback financially, hard times for a couple of years. What was the result upon prices? They went down. I think that if you will look at the record of prices you will find that when we have had financial depression, prices have been low, and that when we have enjoyed prosperity and expansion prices have risen. These were the observations that I was making when I had the honour of addressing the Board of Trade in the city of Halifax. The hon. member for Rouville jumped to the conclusion that I had said hard times were a good thing for the country. Now, if the hon. member for Rouville will permit me, I would suggest that if he would rely less upon his imagination, fertile though perverted by political partisanship, and exercise his faculties for the acquisition of facts, he would spare himself much well-merited odium and save this House and the country a great deal of time.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: * The extract which I quoted during the remarks which I had the honour to make to the House was taken from the Montreal Gazette issued the day after the hon. gentleman delivered the speech at Halifax. Besides the Montreal Gazette two days afterwards published a letter from a prominent Conservative in Montreal complaining about the remarks made by the hon. Minister of Labour at Halifax. That was my source of information.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The information which the hon. member for Rouville says he received from the Montreal Gazette and from a letter appearing in the same paper did not warrant what he said on Monday night. At the bottom of page 197 of ' Hansard ' the hon. gentleman is reported as saying:
When I read the answer given by the hon. Minister of Labour, that hard times are a good thing for the country, I say that the Government is committing suicide by firing words into its brain.
There was absolutely nothing in the Montreal Gazette or in the letter to which my hon. friend referred which would justify these words.
The hon. gentleman then took up considerable time in referring to the United Shoe Machinery Company and the Combines Investigation Act. He thought great credit was due to the Government of which he was then a member for having passed the Combines Investigation Act, but before he sat down he proved that he had never read the
Act, and did not know what it contained. He referred to a statement said to be contained in the annual report of the Department of Labour for the year ended March 31 last, to the effect that after the board made its report, no action had been taken. I will give hon. gentlemen a little of the history of this investigation. The United Shoe Machinery Company some years ago, before the Combines Investigation Act was passed, sued some of the manufacturers of boots and shoes, in Quebec city, if I remember rightly, on some of the leases. The defendants set up as a defence to the action the contention that the leases constituted a restraint of trade, that they were therefore illegal, and that the defendants were not liable. The various courts in the province of Quebec held that the defence was well taken; I think the matter passed through the highest courts in the province. The United Shoe Machinery Company appealed from the highest courts in Quebec to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, in England, which reversed the judgment which had been given by the courts in Quebec, held that these leases were not in restraint of trade and, the contention that the leases were a restraint of trade being the only defence that had been set up, that the defendants were therefore liable. The defendants had a large bill of costs to pay, as must be realized by every one who has had the luxury of carrying an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. They were the people who started the proceedings under the Combines Investigation Act, the only proceedings of the kind that have ever been so instituted under this Act. A board was constituted under the Combines Investigation Act to inquire into the charge as to whether or not the United Shoe Machinery was a combine within the meaning of the Act, and had violated the provisions thereof. A majority of the board made a report during the latter part of October, finding that the leases, especially those portions of them designated as the tying clauses, constituted a restraint of trade and a violation of the Combines Investigation Act. The hon. member for Rouville inferred from the report of that board that the United Shoe Machinery Company at once became liable to a penalty of $1,000 a day. On page 202 of ' Hansard/ he is reported as saying:
To make a long story short, the board reported against the United Shoe Machinery Company, and the company was liable, according to the law passed in 1910, to a fine of $1,000 per day. In the month of November last, I find in the Labour Gazette, the report of the


Sir WILFRID LAURIBR:: What was the complaint?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The complaint in substance was that there were some additional provisions put in the leases that were objectionable. My right hon. friend will know from the provisions of the Act that it will be necessary to have another board go over the whole thing again to determine that. The Combines Investigation Act is a comparatively new enactment. Like almost all other legislative enactments, it has its defects. Time and experience will disclose these defects, and I have no doubt that while this Government is in power and some defects appear provision will be made and the Act amended so as to have more satisfactory provisions. Myright hon. friend understands as a lawyer that hardly any statute proves very satisfactory in the condition in which it is first enacted. The operation of the Act very often brings out some defect that was not perceived. We are none of us perfect in drafting statutes, defects appear with experience and the wise legislator, when he is satisfied that the defects are material will make the necessary amendments to meet the objections that have arisen out of the Act.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understood
the minister to say that the United Shoe Machinery Company had complied with the award of the board by altering the one condition which was complained of by the plaintiff in the case. Am I right in this?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I think my right hon. friend is rather confining the words I used. What I said was that the board, in making its award, pointed out the objectionable features of these leases, I did not say only one; and I understand that within the six months the objectionable features were removed and new forms made. I may be perfectly frank with my right hon. friend and tell him that the one complaint that was made was, in substance, that the new leases were worse than the old ones; but only one complaint has come to the department.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am sorry to say that the answer is not quite satisfactory. However, this discussion is rather foreign to the present debate. There is a motion on the Order Paper on which the matter will have to come up.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: My right hon. friend
says there is a motion on the Order Paper calling for copies of all correspondence and everything of that kind, which will be prepared as expeditiously as possible. This just inspires the thought that in all these cases it will be very much better, before referring to a matter of this kind, to wait until we get the documents and facts. I have suffered before now in cases where, in making a motion for the production of papers a long speech is made, founded on rumour or founded completely on fabrication, and when, the papers are brought down it is discovered that there was no foundation whatever for the charges that were made. I think that in this respect we are putting the cart before the horse and it would be very much better to get some facts, as my right hon. friend is proposing to do in his motion, get the facts first and discuss them afterwards, not discuss it first on rumour and fabrication for which, when the papers are brought down, it is found there is no foundation at all.


Mr. GEORGE McCRANEY (Saskatoon):: Since the defeat of reciprocity in 1911 no question has excited so much interest in western Canada and attained such large support as the question of free wheat. I am free to say that not only is the question of free wheat supported by those who were in favour of reciprocity, but it is also supported by many influential men and journals who were opposed to the larger measure. Among those who are now supporters of the agitation in favour of free wheat are such newspapers as the Winnipeg Telegram, which is the chief Conservative organ in western Canada; and I know that the organ of the Conservative party in my own city of Saskatoon has also come out in favour of the same measure. The fact that these journals have come to such a conclusion is not the reason why I am supporting this amendment. But it may be a reason why many others will support it and see good reasons why this Parliament should revise the tariff to allow free wheat to come into Canada. In the Legislature of the province of Saskatchewan, on the 26th of November last, a resolution was moved in the following terms by Mr. Scott, seconded by Mr. Finlayson:
That in the opinion of this House the Parliament of Canada should remove the duty at present imposed on wheat and on flour in order that Canadian wheat and flour may be exported to the United States free of duty.
Thirty-five voted in support of that resolution, and three against it. Those who voted 'Nay' were Mr. Willoughby, the leader of the Conservative party in the Legislature; Mr. Bradshaw, of Prince

Albert, and Mr. Wylie, of Maple Creek. I may add that both Mr. Bradshaw and Mr. Wylie had voted in the same Legislature in favour of a resolution in support of reciprocity in 1911. But as they found that the leaders of the Conservative party at Ottawa did not support that measure, they repented, and evidently concluded that they would not be caught again. The other members of the Conservative party in the Legislature are not accounted for in the division list. They must have shirked the vote or voted for the motion. In the province of Manitoba, however, there was no such division. On the 12th January last the Legislature passed a resolution unanimously which I would like to put on 'Hansard.' The motion was introduced by Mr. Simpson, a Conservative member, seconded by Mr. Taylor, and reads as follows:
Whereas the Congress of the United States of America have by recent legislation reduced the duty on wheat and wheat products entering the said the United States of America.
And whereas provision has been made in the said legislation for the total removal of such duty on wheat entering the United States of America from any foreign country who would likewise remove such duty.
And whereas it is the opinion of this House that the removal of such duty by the Government of the Dominion of Canada from the United States of America would be beneficial to the agriculturists of Manitoba.
Therefore let it be resolved that in the opinion of this House the Parliament of Canada should enact such legislation as would give the farmers of Manitoba the benefit of the countervailing duty on wheat and wheat products as provided in the Underwood tariff.
As I said, that resolution was carried unanimously, Sir Rodmond Roblin, the members of the Conservative Cabinet and the Conservative members all supporting it. If one reads over the resolution, it would appear that the members of the Legislature who voted for it had in mind that it would be very proper for an Order in Council to bring this result about, because they referred to 'the duty of the Government of the Dominion of Canada to remove this duty.' In the main part of the resolution they referred to the 'Parliament of Canada,' because at that time this House was within three days of meeting.
Throughout western Canada there has been a discussion as to whether it would be a good thing- for the wheat growers of the country to have American wheat admitted duty free into this country with the right to Canadian wheat growers of free

entry into the United States market. Many Conservative -speakers throughout the West have attempted to show that it would bring disaster to the western grain growers. Conservative journals throughout the West have also taken this view, and have given figures showing that at certain times during the year wheat was bringing a higher price in Canada than in the United States. This argument has been made not only in the newspapers but on political platforms throughout the country; and I think as late as last summer the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Roche) made such a point.
I shall not go into details to prove that the Canadian wheat grower is better off by having access to the American market, even with the liability of having to meet the American wheat grower in his own market; but I am going to take it for granted, in view of the changed attitude of the Conservative leaders, especially in the province of Manitoba, and of the changed front of Conservative newspapers, that this is an accepted fact; that it is to the advantage of the Canadian wheat grower to have access to the American market. To arrive at such a conclusion indicates that there has been a tremendous change of heart on the part of those of the Manitoba Legislature who are now supporting free wheat, and in those journals which were opposed to it formerly.
Let me remind you of some of the arguments used in western Canada against free wheat. One was that the American market was not as good as the Canadian market, and that the Canadian farmer would suffer in competition with American wheat in Canada. Another argument was that our raw products would be shipped into another country to be manufactured, thus making our staunch Canadian farmers 'hewers of wood' and 'drawers of water.' A third argument was that it would give Washington control of our tariff. A fourth that it would spoil the reputation now held by our grain, as the Americans would mix it with their own baser grades. A fifth argument was that our grain would be deflected to United States channels, to the injury of our Transcontinental system. Another reason was that it would give the United States millers a supply of hard wheat, and enable them to drive Canadian flour out of the markets of the world. Another reason was that it would destroy the Canadian flourmilling industry. A further reason was that it would encourage wheat mining,

that is to say our people would be so devoted to the growing of wheat that the soil would give out. Another reason was that it would prevent Canadian farmers from getting preferential treatment from Great Britain in any scheme that might be propounded under the Chamberlain proposals; and when one bears in mind that Sir Rodmond Roblin and all the Conservative members of the Manitoba Government had all used these arguments, one must conclude that the argument to-day in favour of free wheat must he overwhelming to make tnese gentlemen swallow themselves in this way.
It is said in the press that the resolution of the Manitoba Legislature was brought about at the instance of the Minister of Public Works of Canada. If so, it is altogether to his credit. But I am very much afraid, judging from the tone of the questions which have been addressed to speakers on this side of the House, that free wheat will not be the result of that resolution, and it was no doubt in the knowledge of the Minister of Public Works what was likely to happen when we came to discuss the matter in this House.
If, in the face of the attitude of the Conservative party in the Manitoba Legislature, and the attitude of the Conservative party newspapers in that province, this Parliament does not extend sympathetic relief to the farmers in western Canada, by giving them free wheat, there are some conclusions which might fairly be drawn. One conclusion we have the right to draw is that the resolution of the Manitoba Legislature is a piece of political humbug; another conclusion we might fairly draw is that the men who instigated it are political tricksters, and I would also say that it was put up for the temporary purpose of assisting the Conservative party in the coming provincial elections and in an endeavour to stave off defeat. If we do not get free wheat after such a strong resolution, it will show how completely tied up this Government is in the hands of the combines which gave it such support last election.
The wheat of western Canada is hard wheat; it is required in all markets where flour of high quality is made, and the endeavour of our farmers in the West is to make it a still harder and still better wheat. There have been three occasions on which the superiority of the wheat of Canada has been demonstrated over all other wheat in the world, and especially over the wheat grown in the United States.
I refer first to the Land Show held at New York in 1911, when Seager Wheeler of Ros-thern, in my own riding, took the prize given by Sir Thomas Shaugnessy of $1,000 for the best wheat produced in the world. In the next year, 1912, at the Dry Farming Congress held at Lethbridge, and which was more largely an American congress than a Canadian congress, Mr. Henry Holmes, of Raymond, Alberta, took the first prize for the best wheat grown in the world, and exhibited at that show. Only last year, at the Dry Farming Congress held at Tusla, Oklahoma, Paul Gerlach, of Allan, in my own riding, took the first prize for the world's best wheat, and to show how the cultivation of wheat has progressed and what high quality it has attained, I may mention that this wheat ran 71 pounds to the bushel, whereas the standard is 60 pounds to the bushel. That improvement in the quality of wheat is going on all the time in western Canada, and the example of those Canadians who have given such effort to the cultivation of wheat is doing a great deal, not only to encourage wheat growing, but the growing of wheat of the very best quality. I am not familiar with the land on which Mr. Henry Holmes of Raymond grew his wheat, but I think I may fairly assume that it is land somewhat similar in character to the land in the neighbourhood of Lethbridge, and that the same results could be obtained from any of the neighbouring lands into which the farmer puts his industry and skill. I have some familiarity with the farms owned by Mr. Seager Wheeler of Rosthern and Mr. Gerlach of Allan, both in my own riding, and they are not farms which are in any way exceptional to lands in that part of the country; they are what might be described as average land. I would say, however, that Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Gerlach are exceptional men in that they are experimental farmers, and they have shown great care and great industry and are doing great credit to Canada. The same results can be obtained by farmers of equal experience and knowledge and industry, and I have no doubt the same results will be obtained by others. I am told that the results in wheat growing obtained by these gentlemen in Alberta and Saskatchewan will do a great deal of good to western Canada in the way of inducing immigration. The Dry Farming Congress which was held at Tusla, Oklahoma, was attended by very many who lived in the more southern parts of the United States, and I am informed that there is going to

be a large immigration of persons from that portion of the United States to a country where such grand wheat can be produced. I would like to see the Government of Canada make more suitable acknowledgment in the future than they have in the past of those whose industry, enterprise and scientific knowledge are putting our wheat in the forefront of all the wheat of the world.
Sometimes our western people are told that they are doing too much wheat farming. In view of the fact that, notwithstanding the large crop, the price of wheat is going down, the growers are told by bank presidents and sometimes by daily newspaper editors that they should work harder and go into mixed farming. This question of mixed farming is having the attention of our western people. Stock farming has been taken up by the people in my part of the province and they are making progress in it as they are able to build barns and take care of the stock, and the results are most encouraging. Western Canada has obtained almost as good a record for its live stock as it has for its wheat, because at the International Live Stock Show held at Chicago only last month, Mr. J. D. McGregor, of Brandon, for the second time won the grand challenge cup with one of his animals, as against the animals from all over the United States which competed at that show. It was the first time that stock from the province of Saskatchewan had been exhibited there. The item in the Winnipeg Free Press of December 4, 1913, dated at Chicago, in regard to the Saskatchewan exhibits, is as follows:
Judging of all horse-classes in which Saskatchewan was interested is complete and the
western iiorats nave a phenomenal record of wins to their credit. Twenty prizes to carry home. In only one class' did they show and not get in the money. The axact number and character of the wins is as follows: 3 first prizes,
6 second prizes, 2 fourth prizes, 3 fifth prizes,
2 sixth prizes, 1 seventh prize.
I am mentioning these matters to relieve the minds of any persons who may think that we are doing too much wheat farming and too little stock raising. I want to show them that not only do we excel in wheat farming, but we are doing all we can to excel in live stock raising.
I wish to give very briefly my reasons for desiring to see free wheat in this country. In the first place we have a better market by having two markets, and we do not fear competition from the United States. Secondly, we have an opportunity to secure this market without disturbing 
other schedules of the tariff. Thirdly, the cost of farm labour has doubled in the past few years, thus reducing the margin of profit. Fourthly, the price of wheat has gone down. Another reason is that the effect of the imposition of the United States tariff of 10 cents a bushel is the same as an export duty on our own wheat, except that the duty does not go into our treasury, but into the treasury of a foreign state.
Mr., J. P, MOLLOY (Provencher): Mr. Speaker, I desire to say a word or two upon the question of free wheat, largely on account of the position taken by the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) today. If nay memory serves me, shortly after the reciprocity pact was brought before the people, the first	and most
pronounced opposition that we received came from the Legislature of Manitoba, of which the hon. Minister of Public Works was then a member. I understand that a friend of his made the statement that it was thought that the hon. Minister of Public Works was responsible for the action taken by the Manitoba Government, and its leader Sir Rodmond Roblin. How true that is I do not know except that the Manitoba Government, headed by Sir Rodmond Roblin, was the first to begin the opposition to reciprocity. Now, he and his entire party without one exception, supported by the Liberal following in the House, voted the other day for free wheat. What is the reason? Why the change? Why do these two men, who worked in harmony for so many years leading the Conservative party to victory election after election, disagree now? We are told to wait until the Budget is brought down. Every hon. member on the Liberal side of the House, who has given the question any thought has no hope that, when the Budget is brought down, there will be free wheat. We believe that the thing has been a bluff from start to finish, a bluff for the provincial elections which will come on within the next five or six months. As a result of the action which will be taken by the Government, the hon. Minister of Public Works will simply ask his supporters to vote against free wheat and they will support him without fail, because they will do anything he tells them to do and do it quickly and mildly. They are going to vote against free wheat. They may offer any excuse they like to the farmers of Manitoba, but it will not be accepted by the people who are not earning a living after working earnestly for it. This

is the position in the province of Manitoba to-day and in the province of Saskatchewan also, that the people, who are raising wheat and selling it upon the markets of Manitoba and Saskatchewan to be shipped to the markets of the world, are losing money.
I heard an hon. member on the other side of the House say that the farmers of the West were clearing from ten to fifteen thousand dollars a year by raising wheat. I make the statement and I can prove it, that the farmers are not making fifteen per cent on their money, nor yet five per cent on their money. More than that the majority are not in a position to pay interest on what they owe, let alone making ten or fifteen thousand dollars a year.
It will be interesting to wait and see what will become of the action which will be taken by the Government. The Winnipeg Telegram, the organ of the Conservative party in the province of Manitoba said:	' Give the people free wheat.' We do
not believe it will have the effect that a great many people think it will have, but let us try it anyway. The people in the West, Conservative or Liberal, Grit or Tory' say: Let us try it anyway. After reciprocity was defeated, a great many people said: Well, if we had known that reciprocity would have been defeated, we would have voted for it. But when they have another chance, the hon. Minister of Public Works will find out if he consults the farmers of western Canada that at least ninety-five per cent of the Conservatives of the West desire free wheat. They desire an entrance to the American market. It cannot possibly do any harm; and if it does any harm, it can be revoked. It is bound to do good arid nothing else will satisfy us.	.
The raising of wheat in the West is not paying. The majority of No. 1 Northern wheat sold in my district this year was sold for seventy cents a bushel. What has the farmer got left? Ten cents a bushel for the threshers. Labourers get $3.00 a day and teams are worth $6.00 a day, and there are all the other costs of operation, to say nothing about the capital invested.
It is all very well for people to go into mixed farming. What is the situation regarding mixed farming in the West? Farmers will not go into mixed farming so long as there is so much virgin soil. That must be admitted. Those who are able to do so will go into mixed farming, but men who are bound down with debts which they
owe on their land with banks refusing to lend a dollar, with the interest going up year after year, are in no position to go into mixed farming. If a man owes ten thousand dollars on a section of land, where is he to get $5,000 to go into mixed farming?
If his land is mortgaged for all it is worth how is he going to get $5,000 to go into live stock raising? Stock may not always bring the same price that it brings now. Stock raising of course is safe; it is surer. That is quite true, but people are not going to labour from the first day of January to the last day of December if they can possibly make a living by working less. Mixed farming is the last resort, where the farmer, his wife and his family have to get up every morning at daybreak, and do not get to bed until ten o'clock at night. They will not do that if they can possibly get out of it. Free wheat is the position the western farmers are taking; that is the demand they are making, and they are going to see, as far as they can, that it is carried through.
The farmer in the West is hampered by the banks increasing the rate of interest. Interest on land is now nine per cent. The manufacturer gets his toll out of the farmer. The railway gets his toll out of every bushel of wheat. The farmer is in a position in which he is despondent and losing heart.
My reason for voting for free wheat, as I said, is that the farmers as a body demand it, and as I represent a farming community it is my duty to vote with the people I represent. The position of the Government is entirely different. They are.afraid to grant free wheat, and they are afraid to oppose it. But they must do one or the other. If they turn to the right they will get punched; if they turn to the left they will get punched. But they cannot get away from it. The talk about this not being the proper time and this not being the proper way to do it will not be accepted by the ordinary farmers like myself. So far as the railways and the millers are concerned, it has been demonstrated time and again in the history of Canada that the railways and the millers will take care of themselves. They will have to face competition, as the farmers of Canada have always said they were prepared to do. The farmers ask for no protection, they are willing to go into the markets of the world and compete with others who are in the same industry as themselves. So far as mixed farming is concerned, I have explained that. I know dozens, yes, hundreds, of farmers in Provencher and Lisgar and Mac-
. COMMONS
donald who would gladly go into mixed farming if they had the money. It is all very well to tell people what they ought to do, but I notice that the advice is generally given by those who toast their shins at coal fires paid for by the Government. It is near to six o'clock, and I will close with the quotation of a few paragraphs from a statement by Mr. E. A. Partridge. I understand that the Prime Minister the other evening quoted from statements made by Hon. Walter Scott, Premier of Saskatchewan, and Hon. A. L. Sifton, Premier of Alberta. But on the very same page is this statement by Mr. Partridge of Sintaluta, one of the most prominent farmers of Saskatchewan, a man who understands what he is talking about as he has demonstrated time and again. He said:
chewan, is likely to take place in the portion of Manitaba in which I live.
On motion of Mr. MacNutt the debate was adjourned.
At six o clock the House adjourned without question put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, January 29, 1914.