1914-01-29

REPORTS AND PAPERS.

[Stage Direction]
Statistics of Railways and Canals for the year 1913.-Mr. Cochrane.
Report of the Department of Trade and Commerce, part 2, for the year ended March 31, 1913.-Mr. Foster.
They pay the highest prices for clothing, furniture, building material, such as cement, lumber, lime and hardware, and for' all farm equipment, hand tools, harness, implements, power machinery, power fuel and fencing materials, of any agricultural population in the world. They pay the highest rate of interest on bank loans and mortgages and the highest freight and express rates, coupled with the longest haul for outgoing produce and incoming supplies, of any people of the white race with the possible exception of the Russians.
And further on:

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of Day being called:
Mr. EMMERSON:: In the absence of the Minister of Militia, I would ask the Prime Minister if the time for filing applications in the matter of the Fenian raid bounties has expired?


Mr. BORDEN:: I will bring the hon. gentleman's question to, the attention of the Minister of Militia.
In spite of the fact that the yield was large and the marketing quickly accomplished the position of the average Saskatchewan producer cannot be said to be satisfactory. The best that Saskatchewan people can hope for is that the returns from the harvest of the year will be sufficient to pay the interest on outstanding obligations. The probability is that even this cannot be done, and that additional money will be borrowed to pay a portion of the interest charges.
One more paragraph only I will read:
No Saskatchewan farmer can borrow money to-day under 9 per cent.
No wonder he is asking for free wheat.
To secure this rate he must be able to give a first mortgage on his improved land. If he requires additional money he must pay from 10 per cent per annum to one or two per cent per month. It is no exaggeration to say that there are thousands of Saskatchewan farmers whose entire output for the future time will be completely absorbed by the payment of interest charges and who will inevitably in the course of time lose their holdings.
This reflects the state of affairs in my own neighbourhood. A short time before I came here a man in a position to know told me that unless there was a most miraculous change within a short time, what Mr. Partridge said is likely to take place in Saskat-
LMr. Molloy.]


Mr. LAW:: In the absence of the Minister of Militia I would call the attention of the Prime Minister to a letter written by the Department of Militia, which reads as follows:
Ottawa, Jan. 15, 1914.
Sir,-In reply to your letter of 23rd instant I am instructed by Colonel Hughes to inform you that your application for Fenian raid bounty, 1S66-1870, has been approved by the Board of Officers examining claims.
I would state, however, .for your' information that the county of Yarmouth was one of the [DOT] lasJ visited by the Fenian Raid Commission, and as the Department of Finance have stopped the issue of cheques since the 31st December, 1913, pending requisite legislation by Parliament, it cannot be stated just when the approved claims from the county of Yarmouth will be settled. Nothing, however, can be done until Parliament passes additional legislation.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant, fSgd.) Charles F. Winter, Lt.-Col..
Military Secretary.
Nathaniel Currier, Esq.,
Yarmouth, N.S.
When is this legislation likely to be brought down and when will the veterans of the county of Yarmouth likely be paid? None of them up to the present time have received any payment whatever.


Robert Laird Borden: As far as I am familiar
with this matter, a board was constituted in Nova Scotia for the purpose of looking into the claims in the various counties of that province. The number of these claims is somewhat larger than in other parts byreason of the entire population of the province having been called out at the time of *one or both of the raids in question. Information as to the legislation as to which the hon. gentleman has asked will be given by the Minister of Militia and Defence in due course.



IRREGULAR QUESTIONS.

['That the said Address he engrossed and presented to His Royal Highness the Governor General hy such members of this House as are of the Honourable the Privy Council.']
Mr. SPEAKER:: In reference to the practice which seems to be growing of reading articles in the House and basing upon them questions which cannot properly be answered by a minister without his having time and opportunity to consult the officers of his department and secure the necessary information, it would, in my judgment, be much more appropriate if the questions were put on the Order Paper so that they could be answered after a minister has had time to secure the necessary information.



[Stage Direction]
ADDRESS IN REPLY. 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, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Neely, resumed from Wednesday, January 28.
Mr. THOS. MACNUTT (Saltcoats):	Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of taking up very much of the time of the House, but I believe that at least all western members should place their views on record in regard to this very important matter. About two and a half years ago a long debate took place in this House on a similar principle, it that time we had before us an offer of reciprocity with the United States in wheat and wheat products, made especially to Canada-not, as the Wilson Bill does, to the food products of the world; but that offer was rejected. I believe that to-day that question is just as important as it was two and a half years ago and there has been ample evidence since that time that the southern market would have benefited this country to a large extent. I only wish that we had before us to-day the same offer as the previous one and that this Government could be induced to accept it. There has been a change of views in the
West. Although the two provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta decided almost unanimously in favour of accepting that offer, the province of Manitoba did not do so. But evidently they have changed their opinion in that province or are prepared for political reasons to swallow themselves, and are ready now to have some truck and trade with the Yankees. We know the attitude of the Roblin Government when a few days ago-a resolution originating with that Government, was unanimously adopted by the legislature of Manitoba in favour of accepting this offer. In the province of Saskatchewan Mr. Haultain was defeated in the provincial election of 1912 largely because of the strong feeling in favour of reciprocity. Although the provincial Government has nothing to do directly with reciprocity, still the people considered that this was an issue, and they preferred a local government friendly to a policy of that kind to one which was not friendly to such a policy. The successor of Mr. Haultain, who is now on the bench, agreed to this resolution:
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.
A strong delegation, composed of Conservatives from Alberta, led by the leader of the Conservative Opposition in Alberta, came to Ottawa a week or so ago, and it was understood that one of their objects was to ask this Government to accept the offer of free wheat. They did not make this request, it being rumoured that they were headed off; but we know perfectly well that the province of Alberta is strongly in favour of free wheat. What reason can this Government have for refusing this offer? Surely the men who raise the wheat are the persons to be considered. I do not say that they should have protection; they have some now, but they do not want it, and any obstacles in the way of their getting the true value for their product should be removed, no matter what other interests may lose a small portion of their profit in the handling of it or its conversion into flour 01in its conveyance to the different markets. There is a decided difference, although it is not so great now as it was previous to 1911, between the American and Canadian prices for wheat. I remember preparing rsome figures covering ten years, week by week, showing that the average difference
[Stage Direction]
for that period was in favour of the American market by about ten cents a bushel.
The difference is not so great at present; but if the price goes lower on the American side, that is a good time not to sell. At all events this would mean a wider market and that is a very important consideration in itself, regardless of the difference in price. At the present time the English market is the only one that Canada has outside of her own, and our home market could only take care of about 40,000,000 bushels last year. That means that our farmers have to send their wheat to England, often causing a glut on that market. The English market was flooded last fall as the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) read to us the other day. At the time the wheat was going on the market there was no competition from other countries, but the price was far lower than the quality of the grain demanded. I have a table here showing that the prices on the Liverpool market have been going down continually since 1907. In December, 1907, No. 1 wheat was worth $1.23; in December, 1911, $1,184; in December, 1912, $1.07 and in December, 1913, 98 cents, notwithstanding the wheat was of the highest quality. That means that the Liverpool market is not sufficient to take care of the wheat that is being grown even now in the West. It seems to me that the farmers are realizing the necessity for a larger market because they are not producing relatively what they should produce. I have some figures here-and I think they are authoritative-showing that the West produced 209,262,000 bushels of wheat this year and in 1912, 204,280,000 bushels, an increase of only 4,982,000 bushels, and that can be accounted for to a large extent by a better yield per acre, and the better quality of the crop. The land does not appear to have been occupied by other crops to make un for this, because there was practically no increase in the oats grown in 1913. In that year, 242,413,000 bushels were raised, and in 1912, 242,321,000 bushels, only an increase of 92,,000 bushels. This increase can only be accounted for by the better yield per acre, as I remember well that in 1912 a large portion of the crop of oats in Saskatchewan and part of Manitoba was shed by a hurricane and the yield that year was consequently not so good as usual. As to barley, there were 31,060,000 bushels grown in 1913, and in 1912, 31,600,000 bushels. That is a decrease in 1913 of 540,000 bushels. I have not the figures for flax but there was much 
less flax grown in 1913 than in 1912. For some reason or other, then there does not seem to be a proportionate increase in the growth of all grains. Why is this? To some extent, I believe it is because the farmers are not anxious to increase their acreage. When you take into consideration the freight rates, the cost of labour and of implements, there is very little margin left for the farmer at the present price of wheat, and the people of the West are unanimous almost, in demanding another market. It is their right and they should get it. It has already been mentioned in this House that for some little time last summer the Minneapolis figures were lower than those on the Canadian side. That is easily accounted for because at that time there was very little wheat on the market. As soon as the threshing -was over, however, and the wheat came pouring in there was a decided difference in price. Let us look at these figures, taken from the Grain Growers' Guide. On January 3, No. 1 Northern was 4i cents higher in Minneapolis than in Winnipeg; No. 2, 4| cents higher and No. 3, 5| cents higher. But you have to add about two cents a bushel on account of the difference in the quality	of
grades. A week afterwards, No. 1 Northern was 31 cents higher in Minneapolis; No. 2, 2J cents higher, and No. 3, 3J cents higher.	What effect
would this have upon the West? About 150,000,000 bushels of the 209,000,000 bushels that Canada raises, would be exported. Apply, say three cents a bushel to that and it would make a difference of $4,500,000. If we apply 5 cents, there would be a difference of $7,500,000. Outside of the great benefit this would be to the farmers, it would make a great difference to the eastern part of Canada. Factories are closed to-day in Ontarir for lack oi orders; people have not got the money to buy; and there are many unemployed throughout the east. I do not mean to say that this larger market would lower the cost of living to any great extent, but it would give some men who are now unemployed money to buy the necessaries of life. I have an article here clipped from a Toronto paper showing that during the past two weeks ten thousand men have been fed by charity. The article reads as follows:
Ten Thousand Fed within Two Weeks-Salvation Army Headquarters has Welcomed Many of the Destitute-Soup, Coffee, Bread -Simple Food and Space on the Floor to Sleep not Despised.
During the past two weeks nearly 10,000

meals, consisting of soup, coffee and bread, have been served to unemployed men at the Salvation Army headquarters. Officers responsible for assisting the unemployed men without homes and food have thrown open one of their halls where 250 men sleep on the floor every night. The class of men who avail themselves of the temporary provision made by the Army are generally those out of employment, [DOT] and, having spent their last cent, are compelled to accept the bowl of soup, the cup of coffee, and enough floor space to give them warmth and shelter for the night. The Army winter relief fund is also being used to assist this huge family of the unemployed.
Several hon. gentlemen have given figures showing that something like 100,000 men are out of employment in Canada today. I do not say for a moment that the opening of the American market is going to give employment to all these men, but it would help very materially along that line, and it would also help the farmers very much. To-day if you go into any little town in the West you will find notices posted up of sheriff's sales. That is a very serious matter, and it is not because the farmers are lazy or idle; they are doing the best they can, but it goes to show that the farmers, not altogether on account of the price of wheat and the high cost of implements- although that has a considerable bearing upon it-are not able to pay their way. Relief is going to be given, I understand, not of a charitable nature, but in a businesslike way by the province of Saskatchewan in various ways. It is not that the country is going to degenerate, or is not capable of giving a good living to industrious men, hut it is that the conditions are such that tney should be improved in order that many of our people in the West may get a better return for tneir labour. This would assist very materially, it would be an easy matter for this Government to open up that market. It would help not only the farmers of the West, but it would help, I think, the unemployed and factories Oif the East.
Who are opposed to this? There must be a mandate issued by the milling and railway interests to the Government. They are the only ones that are interested the other way -certainly not the farmer, certainly not the manufacturer nor the consumer. It must be the railway companies and the millers. This is a strong indication that the price must be better to the south and the market more inviting or they need not fear this proposal. It means that in order to retain trie carrying trade the railway freight rates would have to be reduced, and in order that
the millers should be able to maintain their control over the wheat and get a supply at their own figures they would have to raise the price to the farmer, very frequently, at all events, and they do not like to do this. In the last two years the millers have been making enormous dividends and the railway companies have been doing very well indeed. But I think that the Railway Commission will probably discover that they are well able to get along with smaller freight charges. I remember very well that in 1911 there was a reason given by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) why this request of the western farmers should be refused. It was that if the wheat went to the south the Americans would get the benefit of the bran and shorts for feeding purposes which should be retained in this country. When a man. raises wheat he raises it to sell, gluten, bran, shorts and all, wherever he can sell it and get the best price for it. He could easily take care of the feed question; he could grow other feed as far as that goes. I have often known good wheat to sell at sixty cents a bushel-that is a cent a pound-although sometimes it sells at less. It is very seldom that you can buy bran and shorts for less than $20 a ton or a cent a pound. It is not considered good business to sell wheat for a cent a pound and buy back wheat offal for a cent a pound. The millers do not give it for nothing; you have to buy it back. That cannot be a good reason for refusing a better price for the wheat.
But after all is said and done, I think there is only one interest to be considered in this matter. When the farmer raises a bushel of wheat it is his, it could not be in existence if he did not raise it, and, therefore, I repeat, it is his. He should not have any obstacle thrown in his way in marketing his product, and the country is bound to benefit if the farmer benefits. I do not think that I need take up very much more time because there have been so many reasons given in favour of this proposition and after all it is a simple affair. It seems to me that if, in any kindergarten school, you put the whole thing on the blackboard any child would give the answer, and that is that there is no reason or excuse for the Government to put this off.
It has been said that this amendment is brought in at an inopportune time, that it is practically a motion of want of confidence in the Government. Well, if the Government will not accept it, I do not see why we should have any confidence in them. I would be per-
[Stage Direction]
fectly willing to vote along those lines. I think the principal reason why the Government refuse this is that they dare not offend the great milling industries and railway corporations. Possibly they think that the farmers, many of whom are not very well informed, and many of whom are sometimes emotional, can be deceived the same as they were in 1911. The Government know very well that they cannot fool the railway people or the millers in connection with matters of dollars and cents. I am not saying this at all in disparagement of the farmers who, I believe, are the most intelligent people there are to be found in this country, but they have not the opportunity to follow the questions of the day. They are too busy trying to make a living, working from daylight to dark and after with the members of their, families, and they often believe what they hear without investigation. But I think that the farmers know a good deal pore about this question now than they ever did before. They look upon a matter of this kind pretty much as belonging to their everyday life, which previously they have not done. They are now looking upon politics as something which belongs to them, and they are now prepared to give a more intelligent vote upon questions of this kind. It is recognized in the West by the Conservative Government of Manitoba and by the Conservative Opposition in Saskatchewan that these people have wakened up and that they know what this kind of thing means. They have put themselves on record to the effect that they are not opposed to giving the farmers what they want. It is an admission also that the price must be better to the south than it is on this side of the line. I do not think I need take up any more time. It would not be difficult to speak at some length, but it is not necessary, and all I wish to do is to place my views in a general way before the House on this very important question.
Mr. J. H. RAINVILLE (Chambly-Ver-cheres):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I
have to take part in this debate, as it seems to be rather a western issue; but I feel it my duty, as an eastern man, to say what I think on the question which has been brought before this House largely by our western friends opposite, and to express my views with regard to the proposals which they have placed before us. We know that nature has separated the West from the East by the Great Lakes and by a stretch of rocky country where no farmers will ever be able to establish themselves. I wonder if
our friends from the West realize the great sacrifices that we were called upon to make on this side of lake Superior in order to develop the western prairies. I wonder if they know that the Canadian Pacific railway was built with the money of this country at a time when the largest population was on this side of lake Superior. I wonder if they know that the Transcontinental railway has been built, that the Canadian Northern railway has been built and that we are now building the Hudson Bay railway to help the western country. I would like to know if they appreciate the importance of the building of the terminal elevators at Fort William and interior elevators at Moosejaw, and if they are aware that this Government intends to build another interior elevator very soon near Calgary. These elevators, as well as the one that is being built at the port of Montreal and those that are being built in the big cities of the far East, are all for the benefit of the citizens of the West. I do not know if the intention of the late Government, when they undertook to build these great works, was to direct the freight and the wheat and other products of the West to the United States. Speaking on my own behalf, I would consider it very dangerous if that were the case, and I am not ready to stand for it, because, seeing that we have been building such big works in our country, our duty to-day is to keep our trade and all our trade for our own railroads, for our own ports, for our own workmen, for our own people, in order by that means to unite the West with the East once for all, and to use our money to make this country a great one.
Our western friends are complaining that the price of wheat at certain seasons of the year is higher at Minneapolis than it is at Winnipeg. If the people of the United States want our wheat, why should that he? I am sure that all western members will agree with me that it is because they know the reputation of Canadian No. 1 Northern wheat. The farmers of the West have been complaining that even in our own elevators we have been mixing the wheat in such a way that the trade of the West is being spoiled. The Grain Commission interfered and settled that evil. But I want to ask my hon. friends on the other side of the House, if we have a little difficulty in keeping our wheat, by inspection and other means, in the way it should be kept in our country, how are we going to control the quality of our wheat if we let it go on to the American market where it may be


mixed up with American wheat and shipped to England as Canadian wheat? Of course, I am not an expert on this subject. I am not a farmer. 1 have no land in the West; but it seems to me that we have built our Tailroads for some purpose; that we have our ports for some purpose, and that is for the benefit of the Canadian people. If we in the East have been making little sacrifices or big sacrifices-and we were willing to do so and we are willing to do so again-it has never been for the purpose of directing our trade into United States channels. We want to keep our trade here.
At the time that reciprocity was being discussed throughout the country in 1911, in my own county, where I had the pleasure of running and where I had the pleasure of winning, there was a man buying hay. He covered my county and all the surrounding counties with pamphlets stating that, if reciprocity went through, he would pay $2 a ton more on all the hay that he might buy. What has happened now? The only side of reciprocity for which that gentleman was looking is now in existence. There has been a reduction of $2 per ton on hay. Do you think for a moment that that gentleman would come this year and pay $2 a ton more for hay? Not at all,


Mr. PROULX:: What is the price paid
to-day to the farmer?


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: I do not know what
it is, but I know that it is not $2 a ton higher than it would be if reciprocity were here-


Edmond Proulx: Is the price $2 higher
than it was last year?
Mr. RAINVILLE'because it is not reciprocity that will fix the price of hay. It is the supply and the demand that fixes the price.


Mr. CARVELL:: Down in New Brunswick you will find out whether reciprocity means anything or not.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: The farmers were
very much interested over that $2. Are we going to say that, if the price of wheat at Winnipeg were four, five or six cents lower than at Minneapolis at certain seasons, Americans would come on to the Winnipeg market and pay five, six, seven or more cents for wheat? I do not think they would do so, because they are better business men than that. They want our No. 1 wheat. On account of the splendid reputation that our Canadian wheat has obtained on the markets of the world, we would prefer to 19
keep it here for the good reputation of the Canadian market.
What about our milling industry? Would free wheat hurt our milling, industry? I heard some one discussing the question of giving bounties to the milling industry if it would be hurt by free wheat. If it is true that thq West is hurt by not being able to send its wheat into the United States, I would rather see this Government pay bounties to our Canadian railroads, is order to enable them to keep their freight, to keep our freight, because it belongs to us just as much as to the people of the West.


Edmond Proulx: Was not the hon. gentleman in favour of reciprocity in his county during the last election?


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: No. At the very first meeting I held at St. Lambert in the county of Chambly, I took up the stand against reciprocity; but when we saw that man going around and canvassing door by door with that $2 a ton more for hay, we were obliged to discuss it more fully.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: You took the wrong track.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: I took the right one, and my hon. friend will find, if he runs in the next election, that he is on the wrong track.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: You will be in the lake when I am re-elected.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: Sir, I am surprised.
Our friends the Liberals were in power for fifteen years. And now, only two years after the end of their administration, all these big questions arise at once. It must be that the Liberal members had not opportunity to bring these questions forward on the floor of the House when they were in power. If the questions had been settled that arose in their time, so many great questions could not have arisen all in a moment now. Or, if these questions are really important to-day, then some of them must have existed three, four or five years ago. Why then, did not our friends opposite try to settle these questions, and not propose reciprocity which was not wanted by the people and will not be accepted by the people? We hear of the case of the farmer to-day; we have heard also a little of the case of the people of the towns. Which of these classes needs more help, and more immediate help? I say, that the people of the towns. Why? Complaint is made to-day, and we admit justly made, of the high cost of- living.

grain from the West to the eastern seaboard of our country. But what has been done for the farmers of the East? I know that the answer can be given that large public works have been constructed in the East, and I admit that they have. I shall not enumerate these public works, we know they have been constructed, but what I want to know is what has been done for the farmers of the East? I asked that question of Mr. Fisher, the ex-Minister of Agriculture, during the fight in Chateauguay. He never dared to answer it, he had nothing to say. If the minister in charge of the immigration work of our Government 'would help the farmers of Canada, and especially those from Lake Superior to the Atlantic, to secure good farm hands, and if tne Minister of Agriculture would establish demonstration farms right at the doors of the farmers' in order to show the results which have been obtained at the Central Experimental Farm and demonstrate to them the economical side of advanced methods, they would be doing something big for the farmers of this country. Our one crop a year matures at about the same season each year, and the farmers have to sell their products all at one time, because of the fact that a large proportion of them are of a perishable nature, and they have no place to keep them. They are obliged to sell, and they have to take the price they can get. This is where the middleman comes in. He has a refrigerator and a housing system of his own. This is the trust that my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) has talked about, and he is right. The middlemen go out through the country and they buy up all the produce, much more than is necessary for the immediate needs of the people. They store this produce in order to husband it for the winter season. Then, what happens? They sell it at any price they want and they make the people in the cities pay for it. The people in the cities are at the mercy of the middlemen.
This is where the intervention of the Minister of Public Works would be useful in solving the problem of the high cost of living and relieving the farmers as well as the people of the towns and cities from this situation. How can he do this? By adopting the same policy with regard to the farmers of the East as that which the Government have adopted in regard to the farmers of the West. The Government have at the public expense built grain elevators for the housing of the farmers' grain in the West. Let the Minister of Public Works build at Toronto, Montreal, Halifax, St. John f Mr. Rainville. ]
and other centres, a housing system with cold storage attached where the farmers could get together upon a co-operative basis and could husband and store their goods and food stuffs until there was a market available for them. All they would have to do would be to appoint one man who would sell everything belonging to all the members of this co-operative movement, and that one individual could deal with them in the same way as the representative of the fruit growers organization in California represents the members of that body. They would have one man to represent them who would tell them what they should do and what they should not do. He would be able to advise the members of the association as to what things were needed at a particular time and at a particular place. It seems to me that this would be a practical solution. I know that there may be some one who may criticise my suggestion; I do not pretend that it is perfect, I am only a new member of this House, but I am suggesting what I think is best for my country. _ I think that it will be found that this system of co-operation would be the most economical and satisfactory system that could be devised and we would get rid of what is so much deplored by my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition:	the wide
margin between the price that is paid to the producers and the price that is paid by the consumer, this is my programme; I am giving it out to-day. I am going to fight for it with all my power, because I think it is most necessary for our country. If we would take the trouble to study the question, we would find that it is applicable to the West just as much as to the East, because in the West we have towns that are growing in a wonderful manner, and anything that would help the cities of the West would help the cities of the East, would help the people, would help the farmer who is the producer and would help the consumer to get rid of the middleman who gets rich too quick.
That state of affairs did not come into existence to-day; it has existed for the last ten years. I remember the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) once saying that they saw the crisis coming and were trying- to relieve it by reciprocity. If they saw the crisis coming, in my judgment reciprocity was not a good remedy, no better remedy than the surgical operation that the hon. member for Red Deer mentioned the other day. The Liberal party were in power. Did they lift up a finger to relieve the situation, except by reciprocity? They

call themselves ' Liberals.' They are proud of their name. What is there except the name? I remember the old programme of the Liberal party. While they were in power, did they carry out all their promises? During the last two years they have been criticising the programme of the right hon. the Prime Minister. If I should take up the Liberal programme of 1896 and make a little criticism on it after the Liberals had been fifteen years in power, would I not find more to say against them than they can find to say against the Administration of to-day? What did they do about the North Atlantic Trading Company and immigration? Is the Sunday Observance Bill that they passed very Liberal? Is what they did in giving the money for the Quebec bridge to political friends very Liberal? Did they cease for a single .moment giving, what we used to call tin-pot titles? Did they cease appointing members of Parliament to official positions? What about their programme of 1893-free trade? Did they try once to put that into effect in the country? Never.
But there is something more. Did they reform the Senate in any way? The hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) said the other dav that my hon. friend from Bellechas-e (Mr. Lavallce) came from pure Liberal blood. I was once a pure-blooded Liberal too, and when we used to talk about the Senate my blood boiled. We were ready to fight for the abolition of the Senate. Have the Liberals abolished it? Look at, the Senate to-day; it is worse than ever it was.
Did they curtail the expenditures? No,. they increased them all the time. Did they stop election corruption during the time they were in power? Never. That was a portion of their programme. But we have seen that while they were in a position to carry out their programme, they did not do so.
We had an example not very long ago of an ex-minister of agriculture, whom I do not intend to name, running in Chateau-guay and then hiding himself in order to avoid the service of a counter petition, contesting the election. We shall see what will come out of the case. Maybe we on this side of the House shall have more fun than our hon. friends opposite.
During the fifteen years the Liberals were in power what did they do in regard to agriculture? I think I can prove that they did nothing. They failed in 1911 with the reciprocity cry, because the people were against reciprocity. They have failed with
their free food policy and they would not dare to bring it about. If they ever come along with free trade, they are going to fail in a worse way than they ever have failed, and they will die over it if they endeavour to bring it in.


Mr. ROBERT CRUISE (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I represent a constituency composed mostly of farmers; and, as this amendment is for free wheat, for which the farmers of the West are asking, I think it is my duty to say a few words on the question.
In the first place, I would like to refer to a few remarks that the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) made yesterday. He said:
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.
I presume these industries are the milling industry and the farming industry. I would just like to ask the hon. Minister of Public Works what better reason does he require? The organized farmers from Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta met the organized farmers of Ontario and discussed these questions before they brought them before the Government. The organized farmers are not the only people who are in favour of free wheat. We have also the Conservative Government of Manitoba, the leader of which is Sir Rodmond Palen Roblin, a man who, with his followers, opposed reciprocity to the bitter end. We have these men converted-if you will allow the expression, Mr. Speaker-to the belief that free wheat is in the interest of the western farmers. I do not know what stronger reason the Minister of Puouc Works requires than to have the Prime Minister of his own province, a province he represents in this House, requesting the Government to give the farmers free wheat. The Conservatives of Manitoba are holding conventions to nominate their provincial candidates, and in some of these conventions resolutions have been passed endorsing the Manitoba Government for taking up the question of free wheat. This is a farmer's question; free wheat has been asked for by the farmers; and we have a Government here that pretends to be the friend of the farmer. They told the farmers in the West, before the last election, that if they were given power they would do all

kinds of things for the farmers. It is a very small concession that is asked of the Government, and I hope they will grant this small measure pf relief to the western farmers.
The Minister of Public Works objected to this amendment being introduced at this particular time. I am not very well versed in parliamentary procedure, but it seems to me that had this question not been taken up at this time the result might have been very undesirable. When the Minister of Finance has brought down his Budget and settles the tariff for this year, what good would it do for the Opposition to bring in a resolution for free wheat? They would say: Why did you not bring that in before? There is nothing like being on time; we want to put our vote on record in favour of liee wheat for the western farmer. And in asking for free wheat for the western farmer we ask something which will not hurt the eastern farmer; if it were otherwise, we would not ask for it.
Another question that members on the Government side talk a great deal about is the education of the farmers. I do not know how that appeals to other farmers, but I know how it appeals to me. I have been a practical farmer in Manitoba for twenty years and I do not need any education to enable me to raise more beef and more pork, and more wheat than I do. Give me the market, and I will raise the goods. These hon. gentlemen are on the wrong track; they are trying to educate the wrong people. It is not the farmers who need to be educated, but the manufacturers. Educate the millers and manufacturers so that they will be able to compete with their rivals on the other side of the line. I am quite satisfied that the farmers will be quite willing to have the Minister of Agriculture -whom I am sorry not to see in his seat-appropriate money to educate the manufacturers to be men, to get off the farmer's back and to compete with the American manufacturers. Compare the Canadian farmer on our side with the American farmer on the other side;-would any man in this House like to go to the Canadian farmer and tell him that he could not raise hogs as cheap as the American farmer,- or beef, or wheat? If you told that to the farmer he would hit you. No Canadian will admit that he cannot raise food as cheaply as the American farmer can. Why, then, cannot the Canadian miller produce flour as cheaply as the American miller? Is there any reason? There is no reason. We have good millers in Canada, and they are will-

ing to compete with the Americans if we take the duty off wheat. They are not opposing this change.
But one reason why this is opposed is that some people say: If you give the farmers free wheat they will never stop until they get everything else free. That is the argument that was used in the last elections. The most prominent Conservatives said: We do not object to this reciprocity arrangement, for it will not hurt the manufacturers; but if we give the farmers reciprocity, they will never stop until they get free agricultural machinery and everything else? This is the thin edge of the wedge. But I venture to prophesy that the day is coming, and before long, when, if our governments, whether Liberal or Conservative, do not study the wishes of the farmers, you will have a farmers' government in Canada. For they are educating men in western Canada who study economic questions more than most members of Parliament do, and these are the men who will legislate in the future if our governments do not wake up to the fact that they have to legislate in the interest of the farmers. I am sorry this resolution does not include also free oats, free barley and free flax. But, as I said before, we will be satisfied with a small concession for the present and see how it works. I am going to ask the Manitoba members, -a number of whom I see before me- I am going to appeal to them as representing the western farmers, to support this resolution, and not only to support this resolution but to try to convince the Government that we have got to have free wheat, barley, oats and flax. If that concession is given us, we in the western country, will produce the goods for you -lots of them.
A great deal has been said about the high cost of living and about the many unemployed in the citieg and towns. Where do the bulk of the unemployed come from ? When your farmers are not prosperous and not able to keep hired help, where do the hired men go ? They go to your cities and towns, and the cities and towns have to support them. Put the farmer in a position to be able to keep his hired help winter and summer, and you will not have the congestion in your towns and cities, you will not have hard times.


Mr. BRADBURY:: Wheat growers do not need much help in the winter time.


Robert Cruise: My hon. friend butts in just at this time, and I am glad he does..

Gentlemen on his side talk a great deal about mixed farming. If the farmer goes into mixed farming, he will need help in the winter-time as well as in the summer. And the western farmer is going into mixed farming, and he will produce all the wheat and beef and pork you want. The high cost of living, everybody knows, is due to lack of production. How are you going to regulate supply and demand? If the farmers of the West go into mixed farming too strongly, what will happen? They will flood the home market, the prices will go down, and then they will have to go out of mixed farming and into something else. Give the farmer the market so that he may be sure of finding a sale for what he raises every year, and he will keep on year after year producing the goods, and that will certainly reduce the cost of living to a great extent.
Now, let me say a word in regard to reciprocity. During my election, it was laughable to hear the arguments that were used in opposition to reciprocity, mainly by men from the towns and cities-we know that it was the towns and cities in Manitoba that defeated reciprocity, not the farmers; the farmers gave a majority of over 900 in its favour. These people told the farmers- fou must not support reciprocity; it would be disloyal to do so, if you trade with the United States, you will be annexed to the United States. I do not know how a more foolish argument could be thought of. You might as well tell an Englishman that if he trades horses with a nigger he will become a nigger as to tell us that we could not trade with the United States without becoming Americans.
Another thing I want to refer to is the farmers' delegations that have come to Ottawa time after time. They have waited on the late Government, as well as on the members of the present Administration. I am not here to defend the late Government, as I was not sitting in the House when the late Government was in power. But we have been told that the late Government did nothing to relieve the situation for the farmers. There is no getting away from the fact that the late Government went to the country on a measure to relieve the farmers, and they were defeated, so that they risked their political lives in trying to give the farmers relief. They were put out of business by whom? By the railway companies, by the manufacturers, by the gentlemen that own the present Government. The present Government cannot do *anything; they cannot bring down any measure providing for a change in the
tariff without first submitting it to the Manufacturers' Association. It is a fine situation in an agricultural country like Canada to have a Government owned, controlled, and operated by the manufacturers. But I was going to speak about organized farmers waiting on the Government, and the treatment they received. They were told: Oh, yes, we will consider your case-but how far were their cases considered? I am sorry to say that the farmers of western Canada are not making money to-day, and it is not a good advertisement for any country to preach that its farmers are not prosperous. But you have to face the facts, and it is a fact that in Manitoba to-day the farmers are not prosperous; many of them are leaving the farms because they cannot make money. When those men come down here and pay their expenses to Ottawa out of their own pockets, it must be admitted that they are sincere. They do not come here for the fun of it; they are sincere in the demands they make. Has the Government conceded anything to them? Has the Government promised them anything? Here is a chance for the present Government to show the farmers of western Canada that they are in sympathy with them, and if they do so I believe they will have good results when the next election comes on. If the Government could only see its way clear to give the farmers the benefit of free oats, free barley, free flax and free wheat, I am sure the people would appreciate it. The farmers of western Canada are waiting patiently for this concession, which has been promised by hon. members from Manitoba. The hon. Solicitor-General has in the past spoken about free implements. I hope and trust that he will never let the present Government alone till we do get free implements and I almost feel satisfied that we will have them probably before this session is over.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: I
want the attention of the House only for two or three minutes to refer to this matter and to explain, if I can, why I intend to vote for the amendment now before the House. I have always been in favour of relieving the western farmer in the matter of freight rates almost before doing anything else, and it is because I see that free wheat will at least give the farmer of the West the benefit of competition in railway rates that I feel justified in the action I propose to take. I have spoken in this House year after year, in favour of lower freight rates. I have suggested publicly to this Government that the first thing


Mr. LEMIEUX:: My hon. friend has
just stated that the National Policy was based on the American tariff. Does he refer to the permanent offer of reciprocity which was in the Canadian tariff?


William Findlay Maclean: I do not want to go into details on that; I want to deal with the issue as it presents itself to me. The Americans are a great nation, our near neighbours, our greatest consuming market, and we are their best customers for manufactured goods. When great changes' take place in reference to particular articles we must adjust. Let me give an illustration. It has been said of Shakespeare by another great Englishman that he wrote for all time. You know that very charming love scene between Henry- V and the French Princess Katherine where Henry says; nice customs curtsey to great Kings. That exactly describes this situation, the customs must curtsey to great Kings in this case and the great King happens to be the United States who have shown a disposition to come our way and to take more of our products. They have offered to take our wheat and a lot of other things, and they are taking them, and we will do no harm to the National Policy by adjusting it to meet that condition. If this is the case and if the Government have not yet made up their minds that the farmers of our Canadian West to-day are feeling stringent conditions, we will hearten them up if we tell them that they have this wider market. If we can hearten them up

so that they will prove to be more successful wheat farmers they will become better mixed farmers and they will produce more; our railways and millers will have more to do even if rates have to be reduced to some extent by reason of this result. Most of all the people of Ontario see a larger market for their products in the great West if the West improves in population and in production and if the people there are contented. We have got to make our Canadian West contented and Ontario to-day, if she is proud of anything, is proud of the fact that the great Canadian West has sprung from the loins of Ontario very largely. We are proud of these three great provinces that have been established on the prairies and the people of Ontario, and I think I speak for the people of Ontario and for a large number of the Conservative- of Ontario, who wish prosperity to come again to the West and they wish to see it peopled more. They wish to see more ground broken in the West and more people going in there. There has been a let up more or less pronounced in regard to settlement in the West and there is more or less of a let up in the immigration going to the West.
A friend of mine, a constituent, sent me yesterday a Wisconsin paper containing a statement in regard to immigration which I hope will command the attention of the House and the Government. This statement is signed by B. G. Packer, Wisconsin Immigration Commissioner. In the statement he tells the farmers of Wisconsin, as they are being told all over the Western States, that Canada is not quite such a good country as it was to go to, and he gives the figures as to the movement of population. These figures are somewhat surprising as showing the number who have come into Canada and the number who have gone back to the United States. I shall read the concluding paragraph signed by this Commissioner of Immigration for Wisconsin-and similar statements are being published in all the Western States, upon which we draw largely for that fine population of men ready to take up land and who know how to farm it. That paragraph reads:
High freight rates and interest charges, increased cost of protected implements, food, clothing, lumber and other necessaries coupled with frequent low prices for grain apparently convinced many that farming pays best ' back home.'
That is, these Americans who are said to be leaving our Western country and
going back to the United States. I do not want to see immigration disturbed or checked in regard to the West; I do not wish to see production disturbed in that country. I want to see our railroads get an immense freight to move out of that country, and to see that freight moved, as has been said here this afternoon, by Canadian channels instead of American channels. But if we do wish to see that, we have got to try and give our own people in the West what they are asking for, to make them contented, and to encourage them in these times of stringency. We must show them that we are willing to cooperate with them in the great work which they have at hand, and on the line of conciliation and of encouragement of tji at country I think it would be wise on the part of the Government, when they bring down their Budget speech, to have in that very prominently the recognition of the cry of the people of the West for free wheat and for admission to the United States market. It shall not change the National Policy, it will not hurt the people here in the East; but it will be an illustration of what ought to be the inspiring principle of governments, and that is to readjust their course by the compass to new conditions as they arise.
Mr. JAMES M. DOUGLAS (Strathcona): Mr. Speaker, we have heard a good deal said during this debate as to the reason why production of food stuffs in Canada has fallen short of the market demand. To my mind the only thing that can induce the people of Canada, which is essentially an agricultural country, to produce the required food products for this country is to give to the farmer every facility in the power of the Government in the matter of market. To my mind the question of markets is one of the most important questions with which this present Government or any other has to deal in connection with the farming industry in this great country. The late Government went down to defeat in an endeavour to ameliorate the conditions in Canada in regard to the production of food products. We had it admitted to us on all sides that the reciprocity pact would not interfere with the manufacturing industry any more than that it was a step in the direction of opening the markets and a step in the direction, possibly, of free trade. We have also had a great deal of advice as to

the style of farming which should be followed, particularly in Western Canada.
The section from which I come is essentially a mixed farming district. We were a mixed farming district even before the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave his famous advice to western Canada; and we are so, because conditions there lend themselves particularly to that kind of farming. We also produce a certain amount of grain, but the transportation problem is such a serious one that we do not pretend to ship a great deal of grain. We use it as feed and ship it in the shape of cattle, swine and other live stock. We have had some figures both during the regime of the late Government and of this Government, showing the magnificent proportions of immigration into Canada. I have taken pains to analyse these figures and I have found that notwithstanding the tremendous immigration into Canada from the United States, the net gain to Canada for the past five years is only something like 20,000 people. I would like to place these figures on ' Hansard ' showing how this loss has been suffered.
Canada to U.S. to
U.S.	Canada.
1907-	8	
68,826	58,3121908-	9	
84,564	59.S321909-	10	
94,496	103,7981910-	11	
105,512	121,4511911-	12	
107,943	133,7101912-	13	
143 578	139,009594,919	616,112 .Gain in Canada in six years..	21,193
You will notice that there is an increase every year, both coming into Canada and returning to the United States.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Will the hon. gentleman give his authority for these figures?


Mr. DOUGLAS:: 
Mr. DAVID WARNOCK (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I shall endeavour to take up as little time as possible, as I understand it has been arranged between the whips that the vote shall be taken before six o'clock. But this question of free wheat is of so

much importance to the West that I desire to put myself on record as being strongly in favour of the request made by the western farmers. I do not propose to enter into a comparison of the prices in the United States and Canadian markets. The opponents of reciprocity, in the late reciprocity campaign, always assured us that the United States market would be absolutely valueless to the live stock producers of Canada. But since the Underwood tariff has come into operation we have had ample proof that the United States market is a most valuable market for our live stock producers, and the western wheat growers ask our Government to remove these duties so that the countervailing duty may be taken off and thus give them an opportunity of getting into the United States market just in the same way as our live stock growers have got into it and with the expectation of equal benefit. The hon. member for Dundas (Mr. Broder), speaking the other evening, informed the House that the farmers of Ontario were more prosperous than they had ever been. Why? Is it not the case that they have the United States market for their live stock, milk and cream? Certainly the Ontario farmers never would have been as prosperous had that market not been thrown open to them. The western farmers ask that they be permitted to share in this prosperity. Our live stock growers in western Canada are getting better prices for their live stock, their hogs and cattle, than they have ever done in the history of live stock raising in the West.
About six weeks ago there were hundreds of cattle on the hands of feeders in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, a constituency lying south of Calgary. These cattle could not be sold at a profitable figure, but when the Underwood tariff came into effect buyers from big packing plants at Tacoma and Seattle came into Calgary, purchased these cattle at a very profitable price to the producer and shipped the cattle to the large packing plants in the Pacific Coast cities.
Let me deal shortly with conditions as they exist in southern Alberta to-day. We have heard a great deal in the Bast about the bumper crops that the western farmers have had during the past season; in fact, I remember reading some interviews given by Cabinet Ministers on their return to the East from the West, and some of them were so optimistic that they said that there was a large enough crop in the western country this year to relieve the whole of the financial stringency all over Canada. But in the
[Mr. Warnocli. 1
winter wheat district we found that conditions were not quite so good. I know that in my own part of the country the yield of winter wheat was a great disappointment. Many crops only threshed out about an average of twelve bushels to the acre, and the farmer being compelled to sell at the prices prevailing in the West, had to sell at a loss	of	from	81	to
$5 per acre on the cost of production. No farmer can continue to farm under these conditions. Even the farmers who had good crops realized very little more than what it cost them to produce their crop. In past years our farmers have tested the United States markets by paying the duty and shipping a portion of their grain across the line, and I have never yet met a farmer who was not thoroughly satisfied with his experiments in this direction. For that reason, I am strongly in favour of free wheat, and I hope that the Government will see fit to grant the request of the western farnSers. As the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) pointed out this afternoon, it is not the request of a few agitators of the West. I believe that 90 per cent, of the farmers, no matter what their political persuasion may be, are in favour of free wheat, and the bulk of the Conservative press in the West is advocating free wheat.
I should like to put on record an article which appeared in the Calgary Herald, a paper which is friendly to the Borden Government, and which is looked upon as one of the staunchest party papers in the West. Tnis article was written in regard to a letter received from Mr. Kelly, president of the Western Canada Flour Mills Company, with important interest in Calgary. The article, which is dated January 13, 1914, says:
What the president says, in effect, is that if the Dominion Government removes the duties against United States wheat and flour there w:U be an end to milling development in the West.
Perhaps Mr. Kelly didn't mean it exactly that way, but what he says sounds very much like a threat, and if there is one thing more particularly objectionable than another to the average westerner it is the threat, no matter from whence it comes or by whom given.
Mr. Kelly will forgive us if we suggest that the issue concerned in the matter of free or taxed wheat is something of far greater importance to the people of the West than the development or stagnation of any single industrial enterprise, even though that enterprise is of such magnitude as the milling industry. Involved in it is an economic question affecting practically the whole population of the West. And if the Borden Government decides that it will be for the general financial betterment of the people of the West to remove wheat and flour duties, it is not at all likely those duties

will be retained in order to meet the desires of the Association of Millers.
Originally designed to foster home industry and develop the Dominion industrially and agriculturally, the policy of protection has not always been operated in accordance with its original design. Various industrial interests . have, with more or less success, persuaded governments to manipulate tne tariff in such manner as made it the servant of special rather than general interests. It would be better for the protective policy if this soft of thing ceased entirely.
We may be excused if we refuse to believe everything in the way of calamity Mr. Kelly in his letter assures us will follow to milling interests of the West if wheat and flour duties are removed. It would be an insult to the intelligence and business ability of the managers of this business in western Canada to suggest that, located as they are in the heart of the finest wheat growing country on the continent, and having as cheap and ready access to Pacific coast and other markets as their western American competitors, they would fall down if forced to meet their rivals in open competition. Possibly their dividends might not figure so largely in financial statements, hut that they would fail or cease to progress! Well, we simply cannot believe it; that's all.
Viewing the free wheat and flour proposal as it applies economically to the people of Canada to-day The Herald is quite well satisfied to see the experiment tried out. We do not believe that in operation it can work any great injury to even a section of the people, and there is the possibility it may work benefit to a great majority, in which event the removal of duties would be justified. And if, as has been contended, Canadian millers are at a disadvantage in meeting their American competitors because of duties on mill machinery and equipment, why not remove these duties also? The Government of R. L. Borden in giving justice to the majority has no desire to work any injustice to the minority, if it can be avoided. If the people are given free wheat and flour the millers should also be given free access to markets from which they obtain their equipment and other supplies.
Therefore even the Conservatives of western Canada are not afraid of free wheat.
It looks very much as if the farmers of western Canada were going to be driven out of business unless they are given an opportunity to sell in a wider market at better prices. It would appear, as pointed out by the _ hon. member for Strathcona (Mr. Douglas) that considerable emigration is taking place to the south. In fact, I believe the statistics show that there has been a greater migration from Canada to the United States during the past twelve months than from the United States into Canada. If an exodus should set in from our western provinces, what would happen to our eastern industries and our great transportation companies? They would face bankruptcy, and instead of opposing the giving of free wheat, the removal of the duty, they ought to do everything in their
power to encourage the Government to grant the request of the western farmers.
With regard to the education of thev farmers, we have been told by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. White) that this Government has been doing a great deal in that way. Scientific education in agriculture is a good thing, but it will not enable any farmer to make money when he is compelled to sell his agricultural produce at a loss. In the constituency which I have the honour to represent, I have a number of graduates of Guelph Agricultural College and also of the Manitoba Agricultural College, and I think I may safely say that, although these men are farming along scientific lines, farming according to the most advanced methods, not one of these men is making more than a bare living out of his farm to-day. The only men who are making money are the men who have live stock to dispose of.
As regards the advice of the hon. member from Dundas (Mr. Broder), re going into mixed farming, the farmers have had a great deal of that advice from governments, from presidents of transportation companies and from presidents of our banking institutions. It requires, however, capital to go into mixed farming, and very few of our western farmers at the present time have the capital to embark on mixed farming. It is to be regretted, partly for that reason, that there has been so much delay in putting into effect the recommendations of the Ranching Commission appointed some time ago to look into the ranching and grazing question. In 1911 or 1912 the commission was appointed; the report was handed in, and so far the Government has not put its recommendations into effect. The hon. member for Chambly and Ver-cheres (Mr. Rainville) was speaking of the large number of cattle that had gone out of eastern Canada into the United States. If the farmers and stock-men of western Canada had been assured of a grazing area, they would have bought a large number of these young cattle and breeding stock that were for sale in eastern Canada, would have shipped them west and so done something to stimulate mixed farming. A great deal of that stock would have been taken out there, held over the winter and sold to small farmers who could afford to buy cattle in the spring. I trust that before very long the recommendations of the Ranching Commission will be put into operation.
Recently the Government was visited by the Conservative members oi the Alberta Legislature; and before these gentlemen left
30 i

the West they gave the people to understand that they were coining here for the purpose of impressing upon the Government the importance of granting free wheat and many other requests of the western farmer. I learn from the High River Times-a paper friendly to the present Government-of Thursday, January 21, that the provincial delegation were much more interested in redistribution and questions of patronage than they were in free wheat. This newspaper states:
The delegation went fully into redistribution and cutting up of the province in order that the larger centres of population would be distributed so as to offset the farmers' vote on reciprocity as much as possible.
The grievances over the grazing leases and the delay of the Government in changing regulations was discussed, and it is likely that some action in the matter will soon take place. The delegation is reported not to have been in unison on the question of free wheat, but the Government was strongly advised that something ought to be done in order to offset the growing sentiment of antagonism throughout the West.
Evidently, the editor of this paper thinks there is some antagonism developing to the present Government in the West, and perhaps from a political point of view I should not be anxious to see that antagonism removed. But let me say, if there is antagonism in the rural districts, there must be antagonism amongst the people of the towns and cities of the West as well, because the very existence of these towns and cities depends upon the prosperity of the farmers. But I am quite prepared to risk defeat in the next general election by the removal of some of that antagonism to the Government; and if the Government wiUVbnly grant the request for free wheat, H?- can assure them that they will rise very appreciably in the estimation of the western farmers. I have tried to deal with this question from a non-partisan point of view. I am actuated by a sincere desire to see a betterment in the conditions of the West, and therefore I shall be very pleased to see this Government grant free wheat, thereby acceding to the demand of the western farmers.
Mr. WILLIAM A. BUCHANAN (Medicine Hat):	Mr. Speaker, my observations
on this amendment will be very brief. I desire to summarize the argument put up by the members from western Canada on behalf of this measure, which we believe will be an inestimable advantage to the farmers of the western provinces. The demand is general; it does

not represent one political party only, but represents, I can safely say, the unanimous sentiment of the people of western Canada. In my own community I have come in contact with men who are leaders in the Conservative party, and they declare themselves in favour of free wheat, realizing that it is in the interest of the farmers of the West. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) yesterday was looking for reasons, and I think enough have been offered him to induce the Government to provide, in the Budget, for free wheat. Now, I believe every man in this House is anxious for the development of the western provinces; and I will be candid enough to say that western Canada is not developing at the present time. I am speaking from experience. I have travelled through my constituency, and have met the peonle, and they are discouraged and dissatisfied; and the result is that some of them are leaving Canada. Now when our Cabinet ministers come to the West they come on a special train or on a special car. They visit the members of the party in the chief centres; but I will guarantee this, that not one of them who came to the West last year came into contact with the farmers themselves or went out and met them on their farms and tried to find out the conditions existing there. If they had done so, they would realize that every word that the western Canada members have said in this debate is absolutely true, and that free wheat is one of the necessities for the western Canadian farmer. I am an optimist in regard to the West, I believe in the West, it is a country with untold riches. But we must have our people there living under conditions satisfactory to them; conditions jnust be such that as a result of their labours the people may be able to make a profitable living, and that they cannot do under present tariff conditions. If I were to outline the needs of the West at the present time as presented by the farmers and others, I would speak also of a general reduction in the tariff, more transportation facilities and lower freight rates. Most members of this House think the West has been 'afforded a large mileage of railway transportation. That is true, but still in my own district, which is 180 miles square, there are points that are fifty and sixty miles away from a railroad, where farmers are endeavouring to farm and where they have been farming for the last three or four years. I will quote one instance. On the 1st of July last, I had occasion to attend a de-

monstration in a district known as the Altorado district. At that demonstration, at a place fifty miles from a railroad, there were a thousand people in attendance, among them some farmers whose places were sixty and seventy miles from railroad connections. These people cannot help but be discouraged in their efforts. What is the cause of these people going to live in such places? Homestead lands were opened, railroads promised to build and the people went in. And let me say, one of the most unpopular measures passed last year was the subsidy to the Canadian Northern railway-unpopular in a district which is looking for a branch, line of the Canadian Northern railway. That company had made promises, time and time again, to those people, and yet in all this time they have not laid a mile of track in that district. That is one reason why the people are discouraged; they want more transportation facilities, a general reduction in the tariff and lower freight rates. Let me say for the western people that, while they are free traders in sentiment and belief, yet they are not asking for something that is going to injure eastern Canada. While desiring a genera! reduction of the tariff, they will be prepared to stand for protection for the eastern Canadian industries. But they feel that when their own industry, the great agricultural industry, asks for free entrance into other markets and is prepared to compete on a free trade basis with other countries, their request should be granted. And they are looking to this Government, which has promised so much for the benefit of this country and especially for western Canada, to grant that request.


Mr. BELAND:: I was paired with the
junior member for Ottawa (Mr. Chabot); had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Robert Cruise: I was paired with the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Munson) ; had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: I was paired with the hon. member for L'Assomption (Mr. Seguin); had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. STEWART (Lunenberg):: I was
paired with the hon. member for North Cape Britain and Victoria (Mr. Mackenzie); had I been free to vote I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. CARROLL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kings, Nova Scotia (Mr. Foster); had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. FOWLER:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Queens-Sunbury (Mr. McLean); had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I was paired with the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. White); had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Main motion agreed to.


Robert Laird Borden: That the said Address he engrossed and presented to His Royal Highness the Governor General hy such members of this House as are of the Honourable the Privy Council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. G. H. Perley (for the Minister of Finance) it was ordered that the House on Friday next go into Committee of Supply.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Perley, it was ordered that the House on Friday next go into Committee of Ways and Means.

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Royal Highness the Governor General transmitting estimates for the year ending March 31, 1915, was presented by Hon. G. H-. Perley, read by Mr. Speaker to the House, and, on motion of Mr. Perley, was referred to the Committee of Supply.
On motion of Mr. Borden, the House adjourned at 6.20 p.m.
Friday, January 30, 1914.