1916-02-16

REPORT.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Board of Inquiry into the Cost of Living.-Mr. Reid.

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

[Stage Direction]
,	OUG'H BRANCH.
Mt. SINCLAIR:: Does the Government intend during the present year to commence construction of a branch line of the Intercolonial railway in Guysborough county?


Mr. COCHRANE:: Owing to war conditions, it is not proposed to undertake this work at present.


POWDER MILK FOR TROOPS.
Mr. HUGHES:: 1.	Where is the milk obtained that is supplied to the troops at Charlottetown, P.E.I.?
2.	Is it fluid or powder milk, and what price is paid for it?
3.	How is powder milk made, and is there any cream in it?


Sir SAM HUGHES:: 1. From J. Tobin & Co., Halifax, N.S.
2.	(a) Powder milk, (b) 14* cents per pound.
3.	(a) By a superheated process. (b) Powder milk which is the solids of milk with the water evaporated containing 23-8 per cent of fat which returns to its original element by the addition of water. Powder

milk is being used in all our mobilization camps, because it is much easier kept than milk, does not sour, and can be made quickly by the addition of water and in such quantities as are required. Can be used with tea, coffee and porridge. The liquid milk is not used for the reason that it would all have to be sterilized before use and the difficulty in keeping large quantities fresh and free from contamination.
106TH REGIMENT-SUPPLIES.


Mr. MACDONALD:: Prom whom were tenders asked for supplies for provisions, meats, furnishings, stores and coal, respectively, in connection with the billet-ting of soldiers of the 106th Regiment at Pic-tou, Nova Scotia?


Samuel Hughes: Tenders for coal and wood were invited, by instructions from the War Purchasing Commission, from the following firms, except Noonan & Davis: Peter Brown & Son, D. W. English & Co., Chas. W. Ives, Geo. McKay, Noonan & Davis, Jas. Brennan, all of Pictou.
Tenders for jam were invited, by instructions from the War Purchasing Commission, from the following manufacturers of jam: T. Upton Co., Ltd., St. Catharines; E. D. Smith & Sons, Winona; Dominion Canners, Hamilton. Also by the General Officer Commanding, Halifax, from H. Neville, A. Simon.
Tenders for other supplies were all obtained by the General Officer Commanding 6th Division, Halifax, and forwarded to headquarters for approval. The following firms, all of Pictou, were invited to tender:
For meat:	Pope Bros., Michael Maher,
John M. Murdock, T. Meagher.
For bread: Jas. D. McDonald, A. Simon.
For groceries: John Munro, J. R. McDonald, A. Simon, H. Neville.
For straw and forage:	A. McG. Fraser,
Jas. Grant.
For chimney sweeping:	Michael Mc-
Donald.


CENSORS.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Who are the censors appointed at La Pointe au Pere, county of Rimouski?
2.	What salaries do they receive?
3.	Is the Government aware that one of these censors resides at RiviSre du Loup?


Samuel Hughes: No censors are now employed at La Pointe au Pere, the staff having been withdrawn on the closing of navigation.
54J


Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	What are the names of all parties employed as censors and decoders at Canso and Hazel Hill, N.S., and the respective amounts paid to each of said parties during the year 1915 ; also the home addresses and former employments of each of the said parties ?
2.	Are any of said censors or decoders, while acting as such, permitted to engage in any other employment?


Sir SAM HUGHES:: 1.	Censor, H. A. Rice, $3,285, Canso, merchant.
Assistant censors-Major George W. Hart, $2,555, Canso, insurance agent; T. P. Hambling, $2,555, Canso, cable operator; George Self, $2,555, Canso, cable operator; E. P. Meagher, $2,555, Halifax, commercial traveller; Major G. W. Willis, $2,555, Halifax, insurance broker; J. McG. Rutherford; $2,555, Halifax, accountant.
Decoding clerks-Cecil Boyd, $1,228.50; Canso, cable operator; John Cousins, $1,228.50, Canso, clerk; Robert G. Fraser, $1,263.50, New Glasgow, journalist; E. Hadley, $1,228.50, Guysboro, N.S., clerk; F. H. Keating, $1,228.50, Mulgrave, foreman; A. H. MacDonald, $1,225.00, Sherbrooke, N.S., merchant; D. H. Sutherland, $1,228.50, River John, N.S., contractor.
2.	The censorship staff work on an average of eight hours a day. The department has no evidence that these officers are engaged in any other duties than these.


GENERAL JOHN CARSON.
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	Does General John Carson, of Montreal, occupy an official position as representing the Government, or any member thereof, in England or elsewhere?
2.	If so, what are his duties and salary?
3.	What is the total amount that has been paid General Carson for salary and expenses to date?


Samuel Hughes: 1 and 2. Representative of the Militia Department of Canada in the United Kingdom in connection with supplies and other requirements for the Canadian Overseas Expeditionary Force. Salary fixed by Order in Council at $10 a day pay, $10 subsistence allowance, and $3 field allowance.
3.	$32,232 from Sept. 23, 1914, to Jan. 31, 1916, including office rental, cables, stationery, etc., $8,241; pay office staff, $5,647; motor car, $2,920; travelling expenses, $3,285.


EMPLOYMENT OF DR. HAANEL.
Mr. BOULAY:: 1.	Are Doctor Haanel and his son still in the employ of the Government?

2.	If so, why have these persons been kept in the employ of the Government during the war?
3.	Are there other Germans and Austrians employed in the Government offices?
4.	If so, why are they kept on?


Mr. PATENAUDE:: 
QUEBEC DAIRY INSPECTION.
Mr. PAQUET:: 1.	What is the actual number of dairy inspection centres in Quebec?
2.	What are the names of the inspectors or controleurs in the province of Quebec?
3.	What are the dates of their respective appointments?
4.	Did they undergo special examinations before being appointed?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Ten.
2,	3. L. E. Cote, Montmagny, appointed January 1, 1914; J. S. Cinq-Mars, appointed April 1, 1914; A. Hamel, St. Hyacinthe, appointed February, 1911; R. W. Hodgins, Shawville, appointed February 1, 1913; J. E. Hudon, Metabetehouan, appointed March 4, 1914; J. A. Labonte, St. George, appointed April 23, 1913; A. Lavallee, St. Claire, appointed May 19, 1913; F. X. Trudel, St. Prosper, appointed March 18, 1913; A. Tremblay, St. Aubert, appointed April 1, 1914; F. J. Wilkinson, Ways Mills, appointed March 11, 1912. General Inspector, J. B. E. Trudel, January 1, 1914.
4.	All of them hold certificates from the Dairy School, St. Hyacinthe, Quebec.


Mr. PAQUET:: 1.	What was the number of dairy inspection or de controle centres in the province of Quebec on the 1st of October, 1911?

2.	What is the number of experts to whom such centres of inspection have been confided in the province of Quebec?
3.	What are the respective dates of their appointments, and what are their respective qualifications?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	One.
2.	Ten, in 1915.
3.	L. E. Cote, Montmagny, appointed January 1, 1914; J. S. Cinq-Mars, St. Baphael, appointed April 1, 1914; A. Hamel, St. Hyacinthe, appointed February, 1911; R. W. Hodgins, Shawville, appointed February 1,	1913; J. E. Hudon, Metabetehhouan, appointed March 4,	1914;
J. A. Labonte, St. George, .appointed April 23, 1913; A. Lavallee, St. Claire, appointed May 19, 1913; F. X. Trudel, St. Prosper, appointed March 18, 1912; F. J. Wilkinson, Ways Mills, appointed March 11, 1912; A. Tremblay, St. Aubert, appointed April 1, 1914.
All of these men hold certificates from the Dairy School, St. Hyacinthe, Quebec.


BRITISH COLUMBIA INDIANS.
Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Has the commission appointed in 1912 to investigate Indian reservations in British Columbia completed its work?
2.	If so, has any report been made to the Government ?
3.	What is the nature of the report?
4.	What has been the cost to the Dominion Government to date?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	No; it is expected that the work of the commission will be completed at the end of the present fiscal year.
2 and 3. A number of progress and interim reports have been received.
4.	$154,469.90.


COST OF LIVING COMMISSION.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Is the commission appointed to investigate the causes of the high cost of living at work at the present time?
2.	Has any interim report been made by said commission?
3.	When will the final report of said commission be ready?


Mr. REID:: 1.	No.
2.	The Board of Inquiry has made one report and a further supplementary report, both of which are now in print, and complete the work of the board.
3.	The reports-volumes 1 and 2-were laid on the Table to-day.

aw


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND DREDGING.
Mr. HUGHES:: 1.	On what date in the year 1914 did dredge No. 9 commence dredging, and on what date in the same year did she stop dredging?
2.	On what date in the year 1914 did dredge No. 10 commence dredging, and on what date in the same year did she stop dredging?
3.	On what date in the year 1014 did dredge No. 11 commence dredging, and on what date in the same year did she stop dredging?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Commenced June 12, 1914; suspended December 9, 1914.
2.	Commenced June 20, 1914; suspended December 1, 1914.
3.	Commenced June 22, 1914; suspended October 26, 1914.


EASTERN HARBOUR DREDGING.
Mr. A. W. CHISHOLM:: What amounts have been expended in dredging Eastern Harbour from 1878 until 1915, and in what years were such amounts expended?


Mr. ROGERS:: $113,785.93, expended as
follows:	1878-85, nil; 1885-86,	$9,753.09;
1886-87, $4,361.50; 1887-88, $6,491.73; 1890-91, $1,360.43; 1891-92, $4,895.75; 1894-95, $1,801.85; 1895-96, $3,490.08; 1901-02, $9,655.22; 1903-04, $6,540.06; 1904-05, $2,395.64; 1909-10, $39,051.65; 1912-13, $8,726.27; 1913-14, $15,262.66; 1914-15, nil; 1915-16, nil.


INVERNESS EXPENDITURES.
Alexander William Chisholm: What were the amounts expended by the Public Works Department in Inverness county during the years, 1913, 1914, 1915 and 1916?


Robert Rogers: 1912-13, $85,242.56; 1913-14, $48,804.03;	1914-15,	$47,459.81;	1915-16 to
January 31, 1916, $10,149.56; total, $189,655.96.


THE SCHOONER BURLEIGH.
Mr. COPP:: 1.	Is the schooner Burleigh mentioned by Mr. N. A. Comeau in his report of 'his trip to Hudson bay, owned by the Government?
2.	If so, was she built by the Government or purchased?
3.	If purchased, from whom, when, and what was the purchase price?
4.	Have any repairs been made to said schooner by the Government since she has been acquired? If so, what was the cost thereof?
5.	What was the cost of the Burleigh expedition to Hudson Bay in 1914, as referred to in Mr. N. A, Comeau's report of said trip?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Purchased.
3.	N. and M. Smith, Halifax, 12th July, 1911. $8,500.
4.	Repairs including annual overhauling:
1911-12, $1,123.47; 1912-13, $696.33; 1913-14, 134.95; 1914-15, $2,344.99; 915-16, $850.06.
5.	$14,275.43.


RAILWAY SUBSIDIES AND HARBOUR AND RIVER IMPROVEMENTS.
Mr. McKENZIE:: 1.	What amounts were expended in railway subsidies in Canada during the years 1912, 1913, 1914 and 1915?
2.	What are the amounts by provinces, ana the names of the lines to which granted?
3.	What amounts were expended on the construction of Government-owned railways in Canada during the above years?
4.	What was the amount expended in each province, and the name of the line of railway on which such expenditure was made?
5.	What amounts were expended on harbour and river improvements in Canada during the above years?
6.	What are the amounts by provinces and the particular places where expended?
7.	What amounts were expended on the building of public wharves, public breakwaters, and public dredging in North Cape Breton and Victoria during the years 1905 to 1911, inclusive, including the expenditure on Government railways ?
8.	What amounts were expended for like purposes in the said county, during the years [DOT]1912, 1913, 1914 and 1915?


Robert Rogers: Questions 5 to 8 will be answered by this department, but questions 5 and 6 cover expenditures made by this department on all harbour and river improvements throughout the Dominion for the past four years. As it would take considerable time to prepare such a statement, covering probably 80 or more pages of typewriting, I would respectfully suggest that the question be changed to a notice of motion for a return.
Question allowed to stand as an order for a return.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Boyer.-For a copy of all letters, petitions, correspondence and telegrams, exchanged between the Government, its resident engineer of the district, and all other persons concerning the construction of a bridge between He Perrot and Ste. Anne de Bellevue, and lie Per-rot and Vaudreuil.
Mr. Boyer.-For a copy of all letters, petitions, correspondence and telegrams between the Government, the engineers, and all other persons concerning the building of the post office at Rigaud; also of the amounts of money paid to divers persons for such building, furnishing, the land, the care of the grounds and other works.
Mr. Boyer.-For a list of the permanent a,nd other employees on the Soulanges Canal in 1910, with the salary of each of them; also a list of the employees, permanent or otherwise, in 1915, and the salary of each of them.
Mr. Boyer.-For a copy of all letters, petitions, correspondence and telegrams, exchanged between the Government, its Inquiry Commis-
[Stage Direction]
sioner, Mr. G. H. Bergeron, and all other persons, concerning the inquiry, the dismissal and replacing of the postmasters of the different post offices mentioned below; and of all correspondence relating to the appointments of the present postmasters who replace the former ones, who had been either dismissed or replaced for one reason or another:-St. Lazare Village, Vaudreuil station, Pointe Fortune, Val des Eboulis, Mont Oscar, St. Justine de Newton, Ste. Marie.
Mr. Boyer.-For a copy of all letters, petitions, correspondence, telegrams and reports exchanged between the Government, the resident engineer of the district, and all other persons, concerning the dredging work done at the places below named, and the amount of money paid to divers persons, companies, etc., for such work, as well as the statements already presented at my request, the whole since 1904:-At the wharf of lie Perrot, North, South, and at the church ; in Dorion Bay channel ; at Vaudreuil village channel; at Pointe Cavagnale; at Como; at Hudson; at Hudson Heights channel; at Graham channel; in the Rigaud river channel; in the Ottawa river; lie aux Poires channel; at Pointe Fortune, and at Ste. Anne de Bellevue channel.
Mr. Boyer.-For a copy of all letters, petitions, correspondence, telegrams and reports, exchanged between the Government, the engineers residing in the district, and all other persons, concerning the construction and repairing done to the wharves mentioned below, since 1904, and of all data and reports already produced at my request and relating to documents prior to 1904 ; also the amounts of money paid for such construction and repairing, and to whom paid:-The wharf at lie Perrot, North, South, and at the Church; of the village of Vaudreuil; of Pointe Cavagnele; of Hudson; of Pointe Fortune.
Mr. Douglas.-For a return showing the location of all rural mail routes in the present constituency of Strathcona, the date of their inception, and the location of routes at present under consideration.
Mr. Copp.-For a copy of all letters, telegrams and correspondence between the Department of Marine and Fisheries, or any official thereof, and any person or persons in reference to the proposed retirement from office of the present keeper of the lighthouse at Cape Jourmain, in the county of Westmorland.
Mr. A. W. Chisholm.-For a copy of all telegrams, letters and petitions, and of all docu-grams, letters and petitions, and of all doeu-grams, letters, petitions and of all documents of all kinds in any way referring to the awarding of the contract for carrying the mail to Eastern Harbour and Pleasant Bay.
Mr. A. W. Chisholm.-For a copy of all tele-rnents of all kinds in any way referring to the awarding of the contract for carrying the mail to Upper Margaree post office and Gillies post office.
Mr. A. W. Chisholm.-For a copy of all telegrams, letters and petitions, and of all documents of all kinds in any way referring to the awarding of the contract for carrying the mail to Margaree Harbour and Cheticamp.
Mr. A. W. Chisholm.-For a copy of all telegrams, letters and petitions, and of all documents of all kinds in any way referring to the awarding of the contract for carrying the mail from Inverness to Margaree Harbour.

Mr. McKenzie.-For a return showing the amounts expended in railway subsidies in Canada during the years 1912, 1913, 1914 and 1915 ; the amounts by provinces, and the names of the lines to which granted; amounts expended on the construction of Government-owned railways in Canada during the above years; the amount expended in each province, and the name of the line of railway on which such expenditure was made; the amounts expended on harbour and river improvements in Canada during the above years; the amounts by provinces and the particular places where expended; the amounts expended on the building of public wharves, public breakwaters, and public dredging in North Cape Breton and Victoria during the years 1905 to 1911, inclusive, including the expenditures on Government railways; and the amounts expended for like purposes in the said county, during the years 1912, 1913, 1914 and 1915.
Mr. Delisle.-For a return showing:	The
total number of government employees in the inside service in the month of September, 1911; the total number of Government employees in the outside service in the month of September, 1911; the number to-day in each department.
Mr. Hughes.-For a return showing whether the Government, or the Department of Militia and Defence has employed any parties other than the officers of the permanent force to obtain recruits for the overseas forces; if so, the number of persons so employed in each province.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: My hon.' friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) asked on two or three successive days for information in regard to the embargo on the export of oats and oatmeal. I gave him some information, and now I will give the whole of it. Oats are prohibited to all destinations other than the United Kingdom and British possessions and protectorates, France, Russia (except Baltic ports), Italy, Japan and the United States for home consumption, or when shipped to designated consignees in the United Kingdom via United States. Rolled oats and oatmeal are prohibited to all foreign ports in Europe, and on the Mediterranean and Black seas other than those of France, Russia (except Baltic ports), Belgium, Spain, Portugal and Italy. Rolled oats and oatmeal cannot be shipped to Holland. Wheat, wheat flour, barley and rye may be shipped when consigned to the Netherlands Government or to the Netherlands Overseas Trust. There is nothing, however, to prevent shipments to a United States agent, and thence to Holland. The Quaker Oats people desired a permit to ship oatmeal to Holland, but they have not been successful.


THE PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS FIRE.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: Mr. Speaker,
may I be permitted to lay on the Table copies of Orders in Council passed between the 29th April, 1915, and January 12, 1916? Copies of these were laid on the Table early in the session, but I understand from the Clerk that they have been destroyed.
I also lay on the Table of the House a letter from the Port Arthur Board of Trade expressing sympathy on the destruction of the Parliament buildings.
I also lay on the Table a telegram from the President and Council of the Associated Chambers of Commerce expressing sympathy, and also a very eloquently worded resolution from the council of the city of Hull, expressing their deep sympathy with Parliament and the country in the destruction of the Parliament buildings.


DISTURBANCES AT BERLIN AND CAMPBELLTON.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Samuel Hughes: I desire to place the following before the House:
Memorandum regarding disturbance at Berlin,
Ont., on Tuesday night, February 15, 1916.
The oral report received from the Officer Commanding is as follows:
1.	For some time the feeling of loyal and law-abiding citizens of both British and German extraction in Berlin and Waterloo and adjoining localities, have been more or less exasperated by the language and actions of a Lutheran clergyman-an American citizen named Cap-pert-and by a German born Canadian subject named Asmussen, who, whether with good or bad intent, have been semi-apologists for German atrocities and Kaiserism. It is asserted that one of these men has recently stated that ' the conduct of the British, in the war, has been about as bad as the conduct of the Germans.' It has not been specifically charged that these utterances have been made with disloyal intent, but merely as seeking not to justify German brutality as much as to condone it. These utterances, coupled with the general tension of mind throughout the country over the war, gradually wrought up a number of people to a high pitch of feeling.
2.	On Sunday last, a young man who had been behind the German lines for some months, as a reporter for an American journal, and who had personally witnessed these horrible atrocities, spoke in Waterloo and Berlin, and in vigorous terms denounced the spirit and recent utterances of the two men above named.
3.	The feeling already highly strung on the part of many, found vent on Tuesday evening when ten or fifteen young soldiers, heard that German flags were displayed in a hall in Berlin. They quietly assembled near the place
about nine o'clock in the evening, and in the course of a very few minutes had torn the German flags to pieces, while a bust of the former Kaiser William I was carried along the street. There were five policemen within easy call on the street, but the affair seems to have been over so quickly that they did not get time to interfere.
4.	Colonel Lochead, on receiving a telephone message at the barracks, immediately repaired to the locality, when order was promptly restored.
I may add further that an inquiry is being held. The civil authorities are also acting in the premises. The authorities have been fully informed that soldiers in uniform lose none of their rights or responsibilities as citizens, and therefore are entitled to all the privileges of the law, but are also subject to its penalties. On the other hand, it will be observed that alien enemies have been treated by the Canadian Government in the most tolerant and lenient manner; but utterances and conduct that even indirectly encourage sedition, treason, or disloyalty, will not be tolerated.
The hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) brought up a matter concerning Campbellton to which I referred yesterday. I have the facts, as stated by the officer in command, Colonel Mersereau, who says that on no occasion since the troops have been in Campbellton have there been more than four men locked up or impounded, or under supervision, in any one day, out of 290 men present. I merely add without comment that we hear all sorts of stories about the volunteers. We hear that the men of the 77th battalion in Ottawa looted the Parliament Buildings the night of the fire. I am prepared to say this-I never thought it worth while mentioning it, but my attention was brought to it yesterday-that the men of the 77th, as well as the Engineers, conducted themselves in the most orderly and becoming manner on that night; they worked throughout the entire night, and many of them through the following day, performing guard duty, and removing furniture and other articles from the Parliament Buildings, and I have yet to learn of one specific instance of any thing unbecoming a soldier and a gentleman having been done by any soldier of the 77th or any engineer on that occasion.


Mr. MARCIL:: I am very glad to hear the explanation that the minister has given as regards Campbellton. I am interested in the battalion there, as most of my recruiting work has been done in that district. I am glad to know that the information cone56

tained in the Campbellton Graphic, which was my authority in this matter, is incorrect. My only object in mentioning the matter was to impress on the Government the necessity of keeping liquor away from these camps.


Samuel Hughes: It is a local option town.
Mr. MARCH,: The charge was made by this paper, that surreptitious means were employed to supply some of the boys when off duty with liquor.


WRECKING OF AMERICAN CLUB, TORONTO.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. GRAHAM:: I call the attention oi
the Government to a rumour which is prevalent in the city to-day, that the American Club in Toronto has been wrecked in some manner-presumably blown up-with the loss of several lives? Has the Government any information about it?


Robert Laird Borden: I have no absolutely definite information. I saw the report to which my hon. friend refers on the bulletin board. I was informed by one of my colleagues that he had news confirming it, but personally I have had no confirmation of it.


Mr. MURPHY:: Was there confirmation
of the news?


Robert Laird Borden: One of my colleagues informed me that he had confirmation of the report. I have just been handed this despatch which has been received by one of the members of the Press gallery:
A press despatch has been received; American Club blown up ; one killed and two wounded; one of the wounded is Capt. Minard, President of the Club.


FREE WHEAT.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, February 14, consideration of the proposed resolution of Mr. Turriff:
That in the opinion of this House, in order to secure to the farmers and people of Canada the advantages of the American market for wheat products and potatoes, steps should be taken at once to put these articles on the free list in the Canadian Tariff.
Mr. THOMAS MacNUTT (Saltcoats):: Mr. Speaker, this question of free wheat, as it is called, is the second big question before the House at the present time. The object of the resolution is to obtain free 
entrance to the American market for our wheat. In order to get our wheat to the American market free of duty, all this Government has to do is to remove the protection of ten cents a bushel which the Canadian wheat grower is supposed to enjoy, but which he does not want. Of course, the supreme question before us at the present time is the war. This question of free wheat comes a long way behind, but at the same time it is a matter of great importance to the West; and, as it will mean greater purchasing power for our western farmers,, it is of great importance to the country as a whole.
There are two or three points to be considered:	First, would free entrance
to the American market mean a better price for our farmers; and, second-and this is more important than the first-would it relieve the congestion which always obtains in the West whenever there is a big crop? Light crops the railway companies can handle very well; but when there is a large crop there is always congestion; heaps of grain are left in the fields during the winter, and not taken away until perhaps the following spring, when some of it is spoiled. But I am not going into that phase, as the mover of the resolution has already dealt with it very fully. Another question to be answered is: would free wheat affect the revenue of this country? I think we can answer that by saying that it would not, for very little wheat is imported into this country from the United States; a certain quantity, however, is always imported no matter how much we export. The United States is a great exporter of wheat, but there are different kinds of wheat. For instance, I think our Northwest is the only part of the world, with the exception of a couple of the Northern States, and perhaps Northern Russia, that can produce hard wheat. The United States exports no hard wheat. Our hard wheat is, therefore, at a premium, and will continue to be so, I think.
In spite of the facts to the contrary, an opponent of free wheat occasionally appears with the statement that, on the average, prices of grain are higher at Winnipeg than at Minneapolis. In order to remove any doubt on this matter, the following figures have been compiled, showing the cash prices of No. 1 Northern wheat at Winnipeg and Minneapolis on the last day of each week in November and December, 1911, and for the years 1912, 1913, 1914 and 1915, as given on the market page of the Guide from week to

week. These are not political figures, but are culled from the market reports. As they are rather lengthy, I would ask the permission of the House to have them placed on Hansard without being read.


Robert Laird Borden: 0 881 0 885 0 881 0 875 0 to 0 911 0 931 0 94g 0 94 0 921 0 931 0 941 0 933


Thomas MacNutt: During	some months of		
the year 1912 the	Winnipeg prices	were alittle better, for	the reason	that	in the
middle months of the year the farmers as a Tule have very little to sell. Another reason for this is given in the following extract from the Manitoba Free Press of January 6, 1916:
In the early days of the crop movement the spread between the cash price for wheat in Minneapolis and Winnipeg in favour of the former market was very noticeable, but as the season advanced the heavy premiums for prompt delivery at the lake terminals gradually wiped out the difference and for a short time put Winnipeg in the premier position as to price, with the close of navigation, however, the spread reappeared, and it has been widening until yesterday No. 1 Northern was worth 81 cents a bushel more in Minneapolis than in Winnipeg. It needs to widen only 2 cents a bushel more to wipe out the United States duty and thus open the United States market to Canadian wheat. During the wheat-selling season, except for short periods when an exceptional occasion arises owing to a demand for wheat for lake cargoes. Minneapolis wheat prices are always higher than Winnipeg prices. It is for those who resist the demand for free wheat to Justify this state of affairs if they can.
In 1912, in the months of January, February, March, April, May, June, and July Minneapolis prices were higher than the Winnipeg prices, with the exception of one quotation. In August there were two quotations in which the Winnipeg prices were higher; in September there were three, but during the whole year only eleven out of fifty quotations were lower at Minneapolis than at Winnipeg. In 1913, in the months of January, February, and March the Minneapolis prices were all an average of two and three-quarters cents better than the Winnipeg prices. In April, May, June,

July, and August, in almost every quotation, the Winnipeg prices were a little better. In September, October, November, and December the Minneapolis prices were again better, and these were the principal selling months. This, however, brings, for the whole year, the average price to pretty much the same figure for both points. In 1914, in the months of January, February, March, April, and May the prices at Minneapolis were much better; in June there were two or three quotations in which the Winnipeg prices were higher, but altogether only sixteen out of fifty-two quotations were lower at Minneapolis than at Winnipeg. The average price, including these, was nearly two cents higher for Minneapolis. In 1915, in January, the quotations were all, except one, in favour of Minneapolis, but the difference was very slight; in February, all but two; in March, all but one; in April, all but one; in May, all but two; in June, the prices were all better at Minneapolis; in July, August, September, and October, the same; in November, all but two. In 1915, when the quotations were so nearly alike the prices were affected by war conditions, otherwise would have been much higher in Minneapolis.
I make the statement that the Winnipeg column of quotations should be headed "No. 2," and the Minneapolis column "No. 1." I am not going to read the Grain Act again, because the hon. member for As-sinaboia (Mr. Turriff) has read it already, but I will read the descriptions of Manitoba No. 2 and Minneapolis No. 1, and hon. members will see that our No. 2 is better than their No. 1, making the spread still greater.
No. 1 Northern Spring wheat shall be dry, sound, sweet, and clean, may consist of the hard and soft varieties of Spring wheat, and weigh not less than fifty-seven pounds to the measured bushel.
No. 2 Manitoba Northern wheat shall be sound and reasonably clean, of good milling qualities, and fit for warehousing, weighing not less than fifty-eight pounds to the bushel, and shall be composed of at least forty-five per cent of hard red Fife wheat.
That is, No. 1 Northern Minneapolis Spring wheat does not require to have any hard wheat in it, and it may weigh one pound less than Manitoba No. 1 Northern. There is a foot-note here in regard to Northern Spring wheat that further widens the difference, and shows the anxiety of the American millers to have Northern hard wheat. The note is as follows:
Hard, flinty wheat, of good colour, containing no appreciable admixture of soft wheat,
may be admitted into the grades of No. 2 Northern Spring wheat and No. 3 Northern Spring wheat, provided weight of the same is not more than one pound less than the minimum test weight required by the existing rules of said grades, and provided further, that such wheat is in all other respects qualified for admission into such grades.
The variety of wheat known as "Humpback," owing to its inferior milling quality, shall not be graded higher than No. 3.
The inference is very strong that the Americans cannot produce sufficient hard wheat and are consequently ready and willing to pay a good premium for the hard wheat grown in the West.
Now, I want to speak for a few minutes in regard to freight congestion. Since I have been in the West, in every year that we have a good crop there is always a great deal of congestion, suffering and loss; and it seems to me that free access to the market to the south of us would alleviate that condition of things to a very large extent, because I would imagine that the railway companies there would immediately provide in some way for transportation of our wheat to the South. At the present time our Canadian railways are not able to handle all the grain that is grown, and they should not be dogs in the manger and expect that the grain will be held at the expense of the farmers and the country generally in order that they may have the hauling of it. A good deal of the wheat, by being held in that way, would be spoiled, although, of course, as the weight would remain the same, the railway companies would get the same freight on it. As the country develops, as we hope it will do, and produces more, the railways will not be able to increase the transportation facilities in the proper proportion, and therefore it will be no detriment to them if the market to the south of us is thrown open. No doubt, however, the profits of the great milling concerns would be affected; but evidently they are making quite enough money at the present time, and I think that the Minister of Finance, under the 25 per cent clause in his Budget proposals, will find that enormous profits will have to be disgorged by the Canadian millers. They can, however, stand the loss of a certain amount of their illegitimate profits, and they will not have to pay more for their wheat than it is worth.
Although grain is put on the American market on grade, the Americans buy, not on grade, but on sample. Unfortunately I lost some statistics which I had, showing that quantities of No. 1 and No. 2 in car

lots were purchased at different prices on the same dates, thus proving that they were bought on sample. Therefore, Canadian wheat would be sold in the United States on its merits. Now, there is always a great deal of grain of inferior grades, which does not receive the price which it should receive in the Canadian market. I will just take the liberty of reading the description of one more grade, American No. 4 wheat, which is evidently a milling wheat, because it is officially graded. In the West it would not even be called chicken feed, but still the millers in the States seem to want it. The description is as follows:
No. 4 Northern Spring wheat shall include inferior spring wheat that is badly shrunken, or damaged, and weigh not less than forty-nine pounds to the measured bushel.
In our markets that wheat would not receive the price for No. 1 feed. I have raised some of that quality of wheat myself, and I have been offered 23 cents a bushel for it when good wheat was selling at 65 cents. There is no good reason why this Government should not open the market to the south of us, and they could do so easily. If the manufacturers decided that their protection should be removed, no doubt it would be done away with at once. Now, the farmers are asking, almost demanding, that their protection shall be taken away, and still it seems as if their request were not to be considered, when the only possible interest that might be affected would be the millers who are well able to take care of themselves.
Another argument advanced is that the dairymen of the East would have to pay more fox their bran and shorts. That is no argument at all;, but, even supposing it is, as flour is put on the market cheaper in Minneapolis than in Canada-according to the statistics, it is some sixty cents a barrel cheaper

it follows that bran and shorts ought to be cheaper, and in that case the dairymen of the East could obtain their bran and shorts from the United States. I do not consider that a good argument anyway. We cannot possibly get more for our wheat than it is worth, but are indebted to its full value. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) is, very properly, endeavouring to open markets throughout the world foT Canadian manufactured products. But there is a market immediately to the south of us for wheat that will open almost automatically at a word from this Government.

The opening of that market could not do harm to any interest, and there is every reason to believe that to the great bulk of our people it would be a decided advantage.
There are some Conservatives who have been impressed with the soundness of this proposal. The Toronto News of the 15th of October, 1913, said-I suppose " in a moment of weakness ":
No doubt the Western grain growers desire to have the Canadian duty removed. Probably it would be unwise to resist the demand. *	*
The grain crop of the West, however, will steadily increase, and in consideration of the action of Washington the farmers may fairly demand that the American market be opened. The Canadian mills, which manufacture chiefly for foreign markets, may not be greatly prejudiced, while possibly freight rates may be favourably affected. If the trade agreement three years ago had covered only free wheat, it is not likely that the Conservative parliamentary party would have resisted the proposal. Removal of the duty under existing conditions involves no contract with the United States, nor any limitation of the fiscal or legislative freedom of Canada.
It is most
undesirable that any legitimate appeal from the West should be rejected, or any grievance perpetuated which can be removed without endangering national interests
But
since the West clearly demands free wheat, it would probably be unwise to continue the Canadian duties which prevent free, shipments to American milling centres.
I do not know what argument can be successfully used to refute the opinions thus expressed.
I wish again to say a word on the subject of grain congestion in the West. We had a visitor here from Alberta recently, Mr. McColl, a member of the Alberta Legislature, and a large farmer. He represents the constituency of Acadia, which is on the Saskatchewan boundary and in the Goose Lake country. I understood from him that his mission was to try to arrange some way by which cars could be brought in so that the wheat could be taken out of the country. There are millions of bushels there yet unshipped. It is a magnificent country for the growing of grain of all kinds-and there has been a splendid yield this year. But the grain is still on the farmers' hands and much of it is in danger of being spoiled. The only response that Mr. McColl could get was the statement that all that was humanly possible would be done. It would be unreasonable to expect more than that. But at the same time conditions could be changed so -as to give a much greater effectiveness to that action, and there would be a great change in relieving the -situation if our wheat were admitted free into the United States. There can be no doubt that

it would have the effect of bringing into play greater facilities than we now have for the marketing of the grain. If the West is to be made productive in the way of graingrowing it is more than ever necessary that it should be possible to realize the greatest return from the crops. There is no benefit whatever in raising a lot of stuff unless you can put it on the market. It is one thing to produce and quite another thing to turn the product into money. The very object of production is to get as much money as possible. In the interest of settlement and of future grain production for the benefit of the country at large, every available market should be opened at once. To gain free entrance for our wheat into the United States certainly cannot do any harm, and we have every reason to expect that it will be of great benefit. If you are going to ask people to go to the West and to settle and become producers, you must make the country attractive to those people. There is no use in telling them merely that the country will grow all kinds of grain; you must be able to show them also that that grain can be turned into money. Many farmers have the grain to-day who are not able to turn it into money. And as time goes on this condition will grow worse, except when we have a lean year, as we sometimes do in some parts of the country.
There is no need for me to go over ground that has already been covered so ably by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff), and so I conclude with the hope that the Government will take this matter into their most serious consideration and will deal with it favourably at once.


Sir THOMAS WHITE (Minister of Finance) :: I have listened to-day, as always,
witii close attention to the hon. member for Saltcoats (Mr. MacNutt). He is a man of practical judgment who puts forward his argument moderately and temperately, and is always heard with interest in this House. The - question involved in the resolution moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) is one which has on many occasions during the past few years engaged the attention of the Government. Many representations have been made, both for and against the proposal. As Minister of the department immediately concerned with tariff matters, and recognizing the importance of the question and of the discussions which have proceeded regarding it, especially in the West, I have given the subject a great deal of close personal attention. I have caused a record to be kept of prices
of grain both in Canada and in the United States, with a view to thoroughly familiarizing myself with the merits of the question in order to reach a sound and just conclusion in the national interest. When I say in the national interest, I need not say how important a factor in the national interest I consider the interest and material wellbeing of the three great grain growing provinces of the West. It is in that spirit that I have approached, from time to time, the consideration of this question.
The provisions of the Underwood Tariff, to which attention has been directed by my hon. friend from Assiniboia, are not generally understood. I do not mean to say that my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff), or my hon. friend from Saltcoats (Mr. MacNutt) does not understand them.
I think they do; the wording of the resolution indicates that the hon. member for Assiniboia understands the provisions of the Underwood tariff relating to this matter, but it is a fact that the provisions of that tariff are not generally understood throughout Canada. Even my hon. friend from Assiniboia, the other evening, made what I may regard as a slip in his speech. At page 829 of Hansard he said:
Two years ago the United States put wheat on the free list to any country that adopted the same policy with regard to their wheat. All we have to do to secure the American market for the Canadian farmer is to put our wheat on the free list.
I prefer to regard that as a slip, because that is not in accordance with the facts. The Underwood tariff does not provide for the free entry of Canadian wheat to the United States upon condition of Canada admitting wheat from the United States free.


Mr. TURRIFF:: I stated in another part of my speech that wheat and wheat products and potatoes are all in the same category.


William Thomas White: I desired to do my friend no injustice, and I stated that I did not think he was misinformed. I have quoted this to show that even he is apt to make a mis-statement about the matter, and there is a very considerable body of opinion in Canada which believes that if we admit wheat free from the United States our wheat will then automatically be permitted free into the United States. That is not the fact, and in order that we may lay a proper foundation for the discussion of this important subject, I will

place upon Hansard the provisions of the Underwood Tariff relating to it:
Item 644. Wheat, wheat flour, semolina, and other wheat products, not specially provided for: Provided, that wheat shall be subject to a duty of ten cents per bushel, that wheat flour shall be subject to a duty of forty-five cents per barrel of 196 pounds, and semolina and other products of wheat, not specially provided for, ten per centum ad valorem, when imported directly or indirectly from a country, dependency, or other subdivision of government which imposes a duty on wheat or wheat flour or semolina imported from the United States.
I desire to bring to the attention of the House, as it has a bearing on my argument and the proper discussion of this question, especially as to the matter of price, what are known as the drawback provisions of the American tariff. These provisions are to the following effect:
1.	Wheat may be shipped through the United States to other countries without payment of duty thereon;
2.	In the case of flour exported from the United States which has been manufactured in that country from imported wheat, a drawback of ninety-nine per cent of the duty upon such wheat is refunded, the American miller therefore obtaining the by-products, bran and offal, free of duty upon the wheat from which they came. In other words, the duty payable on the wheat so used is $1 per thousand bushels, or one-tenth of one cent per bushel.
3.	Upon wheat imported for consumption in the United States, the duty is ten cents per bushel.
I have given the provisions of the Underwood Tariff so far as they relate to the free entry of Canadian wheat to the United States. Their effect is, that in order to get our wheat, to say nothing of our flour or semolina into the United States, we must admit into Canada free of duty, American wheat, American flour and American semolina. The question at issue of course is: is it advantageous in the national interest and as a most important factor in that national interest, is it in the interest of the wheat growing provinces, to bring into effect the provisions of this Underwood Tariff. The deduction which I draw from the provisions of the Underwood Tariff which I have placed before the House and the drawback regulations in the American Tariff is that, so far as concerns Canadian wheat shipped through the United States or Canadian wheat manufactured in the United States into flour for export, no tariff change would materially alter the position so far as the Canadian grower or exporter of wheat is concerned. Let me repeat that: So far as concerns Canadian wheat shipped through the United States for export, or Canadian wheat manu-

fatcured in the United States into flour for export, no tariff change would materially alter the position so far as the Canadian grower or exporter of wheat is concerned. The question can only arise in the case of wheat imported into the United States for consumption there. It is contended by those who favour this legislation that the Canadian farmer would obtain the benefit of the higher prices prevailing at Minneapolis. I have pointed out that the change would only be necessary if it should be considered advisable to supply the home market of the United States, because of the drawback provisions which I have mentioned. Today the American miller at Minneapolis can buy Canadian wheat and pay the duty of ten cents per bushel upon it; he can grind it into flour and he can export it from the United States and get a drawback of ninety-nine per cent of the ten cents per bushel duty which he has paid. So, as I have stated, the question narrows itself down to this: Is it in the interest of the Canadian farmer and of Canada, that our wheat should find its way to the great milling centres of the United States, to be ground into flour there for home consumption.
I desire to point out in this connection that the United States has a continually increasing surplus of export wheat, which is exported either in the form of grain or flour. The surplus wheat for export in the United States from the last crop is no less than 390,000,000 bushels. The exportable surplus from Canada will be 264,000,000 bushels; so that the situation on the face of it, although! I do not put this forward as a conclusive argument, but subject to qualification, that the United States presumably has not only -sufficient wheat for its own domestic requirements, but sufficient to enable it to export, either in the form of wheat or of flour, 390,000,000 bushels, while Canada has a surplus of 264,000,000 bushels, which -she can export -in the form of wheat or of flour.
The outstanding fact, therefore, with regard to -the two nations in respect of their production of wheat, is that they aTe in competition in the wheat and flour markets of the world. Canada and the United States are two of the keenest competitors in the export markets of the world for th-eir surplus production of wheat, either in the form of the grain itself, or of flour. It is not as if the United States consumes all her wheat; -she has this large exportable surplus. It was pointed out by the hon.

gentleman (Mr.. MacNutt) and by the hon. member for Assiniboia, that there is at times a substantial spread dn favour of Minneapolis and Du'luth as against Winnipeg and Fort William. I think these are the proper points of comparison because, as they contend, the price is higher at Minneapolis than it is at Winnipeg, or higher at Duluth than it is at Fort William, my hon. friends assume that if the existing tariff were changed the Canadian farmer would be able to get the higher price prevailing at Minneapolis. I desire to point out the fallacy that underlies the argument of the hon. gentleman (Mr. MacNutt) and it is this: he has placed upon Hansard figures which show a spread at times under the existing tariff situation, and he has not, and of course could not, place figures upon Hansard showing what would be the result, in regard to the prices at Minneapolis and Duluth, if the present tariff situation were changed. I purpose developing that argument a little later.
One would think, Mr. Speaker, that as the United States has an exportable surplus, and that Canada has an exportable surplus, the export price would govern; and yet it is a fact that at times-and it is alleged, although I do not concede it, that more frequently at Minneapolis than at Winnipeg-the price is in favour of the American market. I need not tell the House, because this question has been up for discussion on many previous occasions, that the reason for the higher price which prevails at Minneapolis in the fall, and sometimes at other periods, is that Minneapolis is a great milling centre, and that the milling industry requires hard wheat to grind with the softer varieties from the southern and western States for the purpose of making flour. In other words, a local demand exists at Minneapolis which is, in a measure, independent of the export price. That is the substantial outstanding fact with regard to the Minneapolis price of wheat; that it is dependent upon a local demand which is, as I have stated, in a measure independent of the export price. There is truth in the statement that the Minneapolis price is higher than the Canadian price. Since last September I have caused statistics to be gathered, and the spread in price has been from three to eight cents a bushel, or even more, in favour of the American market. A little later, I shall mention some exceptional features of the economic situation of the past year which would account, or tend
to account, for the continuation of that spread. There is some truth in the statement, but as they say in the law courts, *it is not the truth, tiie whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It is that we desire to get at.
I intend to maintain that the supposed advantage which the Canadian farmer is being led to believe he would obtain at Minneapolis, is largely, -if not wholly, illusory. That is to say, I contend that if the tariff were taken off by the United States to-day, the price of wheat at Minneapolis would fall to the export price, or very close to it. Personally, I believe it would fall to the export price.
Mr. MkcNUTT: There is some room for it to fall.


William Thomas White: It would fall, and my hon. friend knows that the greater distance you fall the greater the drop and the greater the shock.
Mr. MaoNUTT: It could not fall lower than it is at Winnipeg.


William Thomas White: It would not fall lower than the Winnipeg export price, but it would fall to the Winnipeg export price, or very close to it. I believe it would fall to the Winnipeg export price, because the export price would govern. Freights are precisely the same from the United States to the great market of the world in Liverpool as they aTe from Winnipeg or Fort William. The freights are equalized, and therefore I maintain that the export price would govern. In that connection I desire to read an extract from the Wall Street Journal, which is a very reputable and well known financial organ in the United States. The extract was copied in the Montreal Gazette of November 8, 1915, and I quote it simply to show the point of view of that Journal. The article reads:
The Canadian farmer believes he would get at least five cents more for his wheat were he free to ship direct to Minneapolis. He does not stop to think that were the American markets free to him and he chucked 200,000,000 bushels of Canadian wheat on the American markets in the first three months of the harvest, the price of wheat in America would utterly collapse. The American millers and the American railroads, as well as American bankers and merchants naturally desire to see all Canadian grain marketed through Chicago and Minneapolis.
But such a process would most certainly demoralize prices, and both the Canadian and American farmers would get lower prices for their grain. Were all duties on grain and flour eliminated from the tariffs of the United States and Canada the millers would be the

chief beneficiaries. The American millers would draw on the Canadian prairies for the brands of wheat they lack for mixing purposes, and the Canadian millers would buy cheaper than they are getting.
I put that forward, not as endorsing it, but simply as the view of a reputable financial journal in the United States. I put forward, also, not as endorsing it, but as a western view, an article from the Regina Evening Province of January 15.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Thomas White: I put it forward as showing a western point of view, because what we are really arguing is the question, not so much of the spread that exists between Minneapolis and Winnipeg, but whether or not a spread would exist if the tariff wall were down. This extract from the Regina Province is:
If a favourable result on this resolution

he is speaking of the resolution of my hon. friend (Mr. Turriff).
-resulted, does any one doubt what the effect would be? On a mere rumour that Canada intended to remove the duty on wheat, last fall, the price of wheat In Chicago broke sharply, going several points downward, and it did not recover until the free wheat rumour was discredited. If free wheat were actually put in force the result would be to lower immediately the price the Canadian farmer is now getting for his wheat at Winnipeg.
-I have been trying to deal with this matter fairly and judicially, and I think there is a very great deal of merit in the argument put forward in these articles, and for this reason: Tbe price of an article depends upon supply and demand. If there is more than enough wheat to supply the local demand what will happen to the price of wheat? The price of wheat will fall. I am dealing with this question on general business principles, and i it is inconceivable to me that, if the American tariff were down, and there was ready to descend upon Minneapolis a tide of hard wheat from our prairie provinces, the price of wheat at Minneapolis would not fall. It must fall.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Under such circumstances would it not necessarily follow that the millers of Canada would not have to pay any more than they now have to nay?


William Thomas White: I have not yet dealt with the milling question; I will come to it in due course, and I hope to be able to deal with it to the satisfaction of my hon. friend. The question of free wheat did not arise actually last year. Why did it not arise last year? Because, as a mat-
[Sir Thomas White.!
ter of fact, the Canadian price for wheat during last year was very much better than the American price. Let me place upon Hansard a memorandum prepared by my office, where, as I have stated, a careful record is kept of the comparative prices of wheat. The memorandum is as follows: 1914-1915 Wheat Prices.
Wheat for December delivery was quoted at Winnipeg during the three months starting with October 1 and ending with December 31- seventy-four business days at Winnipeg. During that period there were only three days when Minneapolis delivery was quoted higher than Winnipeg, and seven days in Duluth, while the average of the official closing quotations for that period was $1.16.3 for Winnipeg, $1.13.3 for Minneapolis, and 1.14.8 for Duluth.
May delivery was quoted between 1st October and 31st May-a period of eight months, or 189 business days at Winnipeg, and during that period there were only two days when Minneapolis sold higher than Winnipeg, and only on thirteen days was Duluth above Winnipeg, while the average for this delivery during this period was $1.40.6 for Winnipeg, $1.35.9 for Minneapolis, and $1.38.1 for Duluth.
July delivery was quoted from 1st January, 1915, until 31st July-seven months, or 165 business days at Winnipeg, and only on nine days in Minneapolis and twenty-eight in Duluth were those markets higher than Winnipeg. - The average for this period was $1.45.6 for Winnipeg, $1.38.4 for Minneapolis, and $1.42.5 for Duluth.
This means that the average prices for the three deliveries of December, May and July
were:
Winnipeg	
Minneapolis ..	..
Duluth	
138.3	138.3
132.9 1134.3 135.7 j
Difference 4c.
In other words, that Winnipeg was 5%c. higher than Minneapolis, and 2%c. higher than Duluth, or 4c. higher than the average of both Minneapolis and Duluth.
That was the' record of the year before last-1914-15.


John Gillanders Turriff: Is my hon. friend quoting No. 3 wheat in Minneapolis against No. 2 wheat in Winnipeg?


William Thomas White: I understand
what my hon. friend has in view. These are the figures on the same grades. I understand the difference which my hon. friend pointed out the other day. The Winnipeg and Fort William markets were better than the Minneapolis and Duluth markets for the year 1914-15, but not this last year.


John Gillanders Turriff: For the corresponding
grades?


William Thomas White: For the corresponding grades.	-


John Gillanders Turriff: My hon. friend knows
perfectly well that he is comparing two

absolutely different kinds of wheat, that No.
3 Canadian wheat is better than No. 2 Minneapolis wheat and in many eases better than No. 1 Minneapolis.


William Thomas White: I read what the hon. gentleman said the other day as to that, and while attaching some weight to it, at the same time the figures which I have given here afford a fair basis of comparison. I may say to my hon. friend further that, allowing his argument, there is enough margin to spare in the difference of five cents between Winnipeg and Minneapolis in favour of Winnipeg, and two and three-fifths cents in favour of Fort William as against Duluth.


John Gillanders Turriff: In these days we would not sell in Minneapolis; we would sell at home.


William Thomas White: I have handed to me a chart prepared by Mr. Sanford Evans as to quotations of grain prices, and I propose to lay it on the table of the House.
1 think any hon. gentleman will find this chart interesting. It shows the variations and fluctuations in the prices of grain on both sides of the line. Sometimes the price is higher on one side and sometimes on the other, but this is to be said, and it is a point to which I intend to revert later, that when Canadian wheat is being pressed forward for sale .the tendency is for the Canadian price to be lower than the American.


William Erskine Knowles: What period does that chart cover?


William Thomas White: 1912-13-14-15. It is said that the price is more frequently higher at Minneapolis, but, as I say, that begs the question. The real question is not whether the price is higher at Minneapolis under existing tariff conditions, but the question is: what would be the state of affairs if the present tariff situation were changed?
I desire to again emphasize that the Underwood tariff does not provide for the free entry of wheat in exchange for free wheat, but the Underwood tariff provides for the free entry of three products in exchange for the free entry of three products. I now proceed to deal with that aspect of the question. Why did not the Underwood tariff, as in the case of potatoes, provide for free wheat in exchange for free wheat? What object had the framers of the American tariff in view when they provided, not for the free entry of wheat from countries
which afforded free entry of American wheat, but provided that three products should be admitted to that country in return for the admission of the same three products from another country? It is perfectly obvious that the framers of the Underwood tariff desired to gain for their flour free access to markets of the countries whose wheat was admitted free.
I do not blame the framers of the Underwood tariff for that; I think it was wise from their standpoint to make that provision when dealing with the question. In substance, what they say to Canada is this: If we allow your wheat to come in free, we want to grind it, and sell it back to you in the form of flour. That, in a word, is the idea that the framers of the Underwood tariff had in mind when these provisions were enacted. I am not finding any fault with that policy; it was for them to determine what the provisions of their tariff should be. The framing of a tariff is essentially a domestic matter, and each country has to provide as seems best to its legislators in the interests of the country which they represent. It is to be pointed out that the United States is one of the great milling countries of the world. The United States has 7,500 mills, with a daily capacity of just about 1,000,000 barrels. Minneapolis alone, the great centre that I have been speaking of, has a daily capacity of 73,800 barrels, representing a consumption of 330,000 bushles of wheat. The object of the Underwood tariff was to secure a great export business for the American flour merchant. Now, what about the capacity of Canada. Canada is a great flour milling country too. The flour milling industry in Canada has been encouraged by all Governments, and just here I should like to point out that when my right hon. friend's Government framed the provisions of the reciprocity agreement they insisted that there should be a protection of fifty cents a barrel on Canadian flour; so do not let it be said that the Government of my right hon. friend, when in power, overlooked the question of protection to the Canadian miller. The flour milling capacity of Canada is as follows: Canada has 550 mills, with a capacity of 100,000 barrels per day, or one-tenth of the flour capacity of the United States mills. I have given the flour milling capacity of the United States and of Canada, and it is to be pointed out that if we bring into effect the provisions of the Underwood tariff the Canadian milling industry will at once come into compe-



tition with the highly specialized flour milling industry of the United States, which, holding its own home market, would at the same time seriously injure the Canadian milling industry.
Now, I do not contend that if it appeared to be clearly in the national interests that one industry should be hampered or crippled, that that should not be done; but I do say that before any such action should be taken it should appear to be clearly in the national interests, and in the interests of those who think they would be advantaged by the legislation in question. I contend that the advantage should be sufficiently wide to constitute a national advantage, and further, that it should have the element of a permanent advantage before .any steps should be taken which would have the effect of crippling or even destroying a great Canadian industry.


William Erskine Knowles: 
William Thomas White: I have not the figures, but one of my colleagues informs me that the export business is comparatively small. .The figures are very easily obtainable. Let us assume foT a moment that the position taken by my hon. friend from Assiniboia is correct.


John Gillanders Turriff: It is quite correct.


William Thomas White: Sometimes we make very far-fetched assumptions in this House. Let us assume that he is correct in supposing that our wheat would flow down to Minneapolis if the duty was removed. It is obvious that if our grain did flow down to Minneapolis it. would not remain in Canada to be ground by our mills, nor would it be carried from Canada by our transportation systems to the markets of the world. If free wheat will be a real, and not an illusory, advantage to the farmers of the West, that is what would happen. My hon. friend put forward the argument, with a great deal of force I must say, that the Canadian millers would not be injured because they would have open to them the American market. Now, in that connection it is to be pointed out that it takes a very considerable time for any industry to establish itself and develop in a foreign country. The question of brands, for instance, is one of great importance. In order to develop their business in the United States, the Canadian millers would have to spend large sums of money in the

United States, and they would have to dc that-and I desire to emphasize this point as strongly as I can-in the face of the utmost uncertainty as to the continuance of the provisions of the .Underwood tariff. My hon. friend from Assiniboia said that the farmers of the Northwest States were restive with regard to this question, and did not like i the idea of Canadian wheat being admitted. Is there any certainty as to these provisions of the Underwood tariff? How far will business interests be justified in spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for the purpose of developing their trade in a foreign country, if they are confronted with a possibility, or a strong probability to the minds of many of them, that tariff changes may be put into effect in the not far distant future which will shut them out from that market? I desire to say again that I do not contend that if the change appeared clearly in the national interest, and in estimating that national interest the interest and welfare of three great provinces have to be taken into consideration-the interest of one industry should be determinative. If it was perfectly clear to me that it was in the interest of the country that the milling interest should take its chances, I know the view that I would take; but it is not clear to me and it is not clear to any member of this House that, with the tariff down, there would be any substantial advantage to the Canadian grain grower to have the Minneapolis market. It is not clear that there is any element of permanence in the provisions of the Underwood tariff which we have now under consideration, and therefore from the milling standpoint and from the standpoint of the grain growers themselves, it fwould seem to me that we should be very sure of our ground before we take a step which may have irrevocable consequences.
Now, I have dealt with the matter from the standpoint of the milling industry, but there are other standpoints. This country has a great mixed farming industry and I suppose that in no part of Canada has the mixed farming industry made greater strides in the past few years than in the western provinces. I stated the other day, and I state now, that I always assume that farmers know the class of farming which it is best for them to carry on, having regard to all the conditions. Suppose a homesteader takes up land in the Northwest; it is all very well to talk about his going into mixed farming, but the immediate problem that presents itself to him is how he can

get a crop in and get a profit from it. Having regard to the conditions with which homesteaders and settlers generally are confronted, I say it is reasonable to assume that they know the class of farming which it is best for them to engage in.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: And the class of markets too.


William Thomas White: Therefore, as I
stated the other day, I have never written essays nor delivered lectures as to the class of fanning which should be carried on by the intelligent farmers of this country or of any part of it, and I do not propose, to do so. I am going to be pragmatical and assume that the farmers in any particular section of this country know what is best for them so far as the carrying on of farming is concerned, in the section in which they are engaged in agriculture and under the conditions in which they find themselves. My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) speaks of markets. This question has been made a political question, but if it wrere discussed dispassionately by hon. gentlemen opposite, and if the farmers were told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, I do not believe that the farmers of the West, en masse, or in any large majority, or in a majority, would be desirous of seeking the illusory market at Minneapolis. This is more a political question than an economic question to-day. My hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff), on page 829 of Hansard, made a rather extraordinary statement with regard to the export price obtained by the Canadian farmer. These are his words:
But what do we find when the wheat got to Liverpool? Instead of the Manitoba farmer getting seven or eight cents less a bushel than the American farmer, he received from the Liverpool merchant from six to eight cents a bushel more than the American farmer, and that cannot be denied by any one who knows anything about the grain trade.


John Gillanders Turriff: If the hon. minister will allow me, I was not correctly reported there, and I changed that portion of my speech when I got the copy of Hansard. I did not say those words at all, nor say words that meant anything like that. What I said was, that while the Canadian wheat was seven or eight sents a bushel lower, when that wheat got to Liverpool, it sold for seven or eight cents higher than the corresponding Minneapolis grade.


William Thomas White: Now let us see what follows from that. The Canadian
wheat brings more at Liverpool. The transportation charges are precisely the same. Who gets the six cents or eight cents?


John Gillanders Turriff: That is for the Government to explain.


William Thomas White: All right. Who buys the grain from the farmer in the Northwest? Who is the greatest grain buyer in the Northwest? The Grain Growers' Grain Association. I ask my hon. friend to go to the source of authoritative information in this matter, and ask the Grain Growers' Grain Association why it is that his statement is correct, as he states it is correct, and when he has explained that to the farmers of the West, let him come down and give us also the benefit of the explanation.


William Erskine Knowles: I do not think the Grain Growers' Grain Association export any wheat.


William Thomas White: But they buy it.


William Erskine Knowles: Certainly.


William Thomas White: Well, that is the point I am making. I am told by the Solicitor General that they are great exporters.


William Erskine Knowles: I would not rely on the Solicitor General's experience in the matter.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend from Assiniboia has got himself into a dilemma from which he cannot extricate himself.


John Gillanders Turriff: Not at all.


William Thomas White: He says that
Canadian wheat sells in Liverpool at from six cents to eight cents more a bushel, and that charges are equal. Well, who gets the difference? The buyers. And who are the buyers? The principal buyers are the Grain Growers' Grain Company. One useful result of this discussion may be that my hon. friend who, I have no doubt,' will say he approaches this question conscientiously and judicially, will interest himself in finding out why the Grain Growers' Grain Company does not pay more.


John Gillanders Turriff: I can tell the hon. minister that I took the very information I gave to the House from the Grain Growers' Guide.


William Thomas White: I do not doubt it. I do not blame my hon. friend for taking

information from the Grain Growers' Guide, but I cannot help expressing surprise that he should be so unsophisticated as to put it forward here as a conclusive argument in favour of bringing our tariff into conformity with the Underwood tariff. If my hon. friend got that information from the Grain Growers' Guide, I think he had better ask the Grain Growers' Guide for an explanation of it. He made another observation :
But during September, October and November, the farmers of the West lost over $10,000,000 in not being able to have the American market for their wheat.


John Gillanders Turriff: That is right.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend, as we used to say in the old school days, is begging the question.


John Gillanders Turriff: I never do that.


William Thomas White: I think he is begging the question. He finds a quotation of wheat in Minneapolis, and at once assumes that if the tariff were down our farmers could get that quotation. But if the tariff were down, the quotation would drop with the tariff, and instead of the farmers gaining 'ten million dollars the only effect would be that the price in Minneapolis would be equalized with the price in Winnipeg. The hon. gentleman proceeds :
The Government would not give them ,the American market, they sent their wheat to the old country, and the farmer is paying from 40 cents to 45 cents a bushel to take his wheat from tide water to Liverpool.
Just to show the unfairness-I will say the unintentional unfairness of the hon.
gentleman-


John Gillanders Turriff: Do not be so particular.


William Thomas White: I will take him at
his word then, and say, just to show his unfairness, I will quote a little further:
For ' the munition manufacturers who were able to charge this and the~British Government four prices for their goods, they could get a rate which was practically the same as the rate before the war, but the rate for carrying wheat which, before the' war, was from 5 to 7 cents a bushel, went up to from 40 to 45 cents a bushel. The Government were either powerless or careless, or they did not have the interest of the farmers at heart to the same degree that they had the interest of the manufacturers, they did not give them the American market and they allowed them to be robbed on this last year's crob to the extent of $30,000,000 or $40,000,000 in excessive freight rates.
Now, my hon. friend has a conscience, and how he could cause a statement like that to

be put on the wire to be sent to the people of the West, I cannot understand. I think he underrates the intelligence of his constituents and of the people of the West generally if he thinks that they will believe any such statement. It is true that freight rates on wheat have been seven or eight times what they were. But I can tell the hon. member, as a matter of economics, that the *Canadian farmer does not pay those freights. If the freights could be put down to normal, the price would drop in Liverpool. He takes the freights from Canada or New York. But consider also the freights from Argentina and Australia. If we consider the whole situation, there is no conclusion possible except that the consumer in Great Britain pays, almost in entirety, the increase in the freight rates.
Now, I have dealt with this question from the standpoint of the farmer of the plains, and I have dealt with it from the standpoint of the milling industry; I now propose to deal with it from the standpoint of general Canadian policy. There is no man. in this House who does not know the policy that has ruled in this country. That policy is this: that as far as practicable Canadian raw material should be manufactured in Canada, transported over our railway systems, and sent out through Canadian ports to the markets of the world. That has been the national policy of the Conservatives, and, despite what may be said to the contrary, it has also been the policy of the Liberals. That policy has been followed with the object of building up our industries. I said a moment ago that we weTe charged with being solicitous about the millers. I do not think I was very solicitous about them yesterday. I think we should be regardful of all great interests. Even in the *reciprocity pact of the late Government of which my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) was a distinguished and important supporter, the Government were so solicitous-would my hon. friend say over-solicitous?-about the millers, that, in order to protect their interests, they insisted on a duty of 50 cents a barrel.


John Gillanders Turriff: That is what defeated us.


William Thomas White: I can tell my hon. friend what among other things, defeated them. For one thing there was no advantage to the Canadian producers in the pact And for another thing, there was the fact, of the pact itself, the fact that it was an agreement, an interlocking of our tariff with the tariff of the country to the south. I

have been an attentive listener to debates in this House ever since I had the honour of becoming a member, and I believe I have heard this theme of manufacturing within Canadian boundaries, transportation over Canadian rail and water routes, and the development of Canadian harbours, for the export of our goods to the markets of the world more frequently discussed than any other subject. Let the question of transportation come up and what aTe the Maritime Provinces interested in? Ports. Our canal system is one of our most frequent subjects of discussion. Money has been poured out by hundreds of millions of dollars to develop our transcontinental railway systems. No subject has been discussed so extensively in this House as this of manufacturing our own raw material, building our own transportation systems, and improving our harbours for extension of our trade to the markets of the world. Now, I ask this House, is that a sound national policy, or is it not? I do not believe that any member of this House dare rise in his constituency and say that we should reverse this policy, which has been followed by all governments in this country practically since Confederation, or, at all events since 1879. This involves a departure from that'policy which has been followed by all governments and which has commended itself to the people of this country. I made it plain in my Budget speech of 1914 that if it were clearly in the national interest that that policy should be departed from in some respect, I would not say it would not be the duty of the Government to depart from it. I would he disposed to say that would be the duty of the Government, because national policy is based upon national interest; and if it was clearly in the national interest to change any part of it, why, of /course, the Government would be wise in making the change. But I contend that the advantage must be clear and unmistakable. If it is contended that an advantage will be gained from the American market for Canadian wheat secured through our adopting a policy which involves-a departure from the principles which have governed the Conservative Governments of the past and the Liberal Government of the past, I say that the advantage should be clear, that it should be substantial, and that it should have a character of permanence. I have, shown that it is clear that this is going to be of no substantial advantage to the grain growers. I have stated that the supposed advantage is largely illusory, and
I think I have proved it. At all events, it is not substantial. My hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) admitted the other night that the prices would equalize, that the Canadian growers would not get the whole advantage of the Minneapolis price, but only a part. I think they will get such a small part, if any, that the advantage would not be substantial. At all events it is not clear to me that it would be substantial.
Now, what about permanence? Is there any man in this House who can say that the provisions of the Underwood tariff will be in operation two years from now? Whether we change our tariff under the terms of this resolution or not, a tariff is a domestic matter. The Underwood tariff makes an offer which can be accepted by the Canadian Government in its tariff, but there is nothing to hinder the American Government, this fall or a year from this fall, from radically changing its tariff in this regard and rescinding the provisions of the Underwood tariff to which I have referred. Therefore I contend that the supposed advantage is not clear, that it is not substantial, and that it has not the character of permanence. I say that all those three elements should be present, and present unmistakably, before we should depart from what has been regarded by the people of this country as a sound, national policy. Is there a man in this House who believes that with a production of hard wheat such as we have in our Northwest, increasing from year to year, that if the tariff were taken down and a tide of fifty or one hundred or one hundred and fifty or two hundred million bushels of wheat was ready to descend on Minneapolis, the price would not break? Every one of us knows that the price would break.
There are other aspects of this matter which I touched upon in the Budget speech. I summed up the arguments pro and con. In connection with the discussion of this subject and the agitation for the change in our tariff which would bring into effect the provisions of the Underwood tariff, I have received from certain railway employees a petition urging that their interests would be very seriously affected, that if the wheat went south-and the assumption of my hon. friend is that the wheat will go south or else there is no point in his argument-serious injury would be done to them. 1 do not say that any of these grounds that are put forward against this proposal are

conclusive; I have only put them forward to show the doubt which exists as to the result which would accrue from taking this very radical step and changing this policy which has been in the past regarded as national.
Then we have had petitions from mixed farmers. The mixed farmers say that bran and offal are more expensive in the United States than here and that consequently, if this went into effect, both in the Northwest and Ontario the farmer would have to pay more for his bran and offal. It is put forward also that if we took the step contemplated by this resolution the milling industry would certainly not be extended into the Northwest. I have given that matter as careful consideration as I think I ever gave a question in my life, and I have come to the conclusion that if this were done the Canadian milling industry would not be extended further into the Northwest for this reason, that the markets lie to the [DOT] east and south and while the milling would be done in Canada east of Winnipeg, to the extent that our millers might he able to carry it on with American competition, there is no likelihood, so far as we can judge at present, of an extension to the Canadian Northwest of the milling industry. I need not tell hon. members that upon the milling industry mixed farming largely depends for its well being. The offal, the bran which the farmers use for the rearing of their livestock, is of supreme importance to the farming community and this proposed change would have an important bearing upon the supply of bran and offal for the rearing of stock by those engaged in the mixed farming industry. .1 think the small miller would probably disappear and that the business of the large millers would be very seriously affected if not crippled, and that the extension of the milling industry in the Northwest would be prevented.
I have pointed out that in the year preceding this last year's crop, 1914-15, the prices were better at Winnipeg and Fort William than at Minneapolis and Duluth. Now we come to this year. This year has been an extraordinary year. In the first place, we have been engaged in a very terrible war. Ocean transport has been interfered with as never before in the lifetime of any one in this Chamber. All the conditions have been abnormal, and to add to the abnormal conditions brought about by the war, we had the further condition that rains set in in certain parts of the

United States and that wheat which was expected to be marketed at a certain date was not available for market until a later date. What resulted from that? There resulted speculation in the great American grain centres. The Canadian farmer might well contend, if he believed, as my hon. friend does, that this would be an advantage to him, that he does not care if there is speculation or not so long as he gets his price. I think that is a proper position for him to take. But I am pointing out that this is an exceptional, an unusual, an abnormal year, and that consequently this is not a year upon the record of which we should take a step involving so radical a departure from the policy which has been followed in the past by both Liberal and Conservative Governments.
There was another feature this year: It was expected that the Dardanelles would be opened and Russian wheat released. Hon. gentlemen know that that was expected for a very considerable time and this expectation had an important bearing on the price of wheat; it tended to facilitate the speculation in the large grain centres of the United States. Another feature I think is well worthy of the consideration of this House, with a view to seeing if there is any way in which it could be overcome, and it is a problem to which I have given a good deal of thought and intend to give a good deal more.	-
If it could be overcome, I think conditions would be much better for the farmer in the western provinces; that is, that the grain movement is hurried too much. I have no faulty to find with that situation. I assume that if a man rushes his grain to market it is his own business; he is the judge. But as a matter of fact it is when our grain is hurried to the market in immense quantities that this disparity exists in a larger degree between the markets in our country and the markets of the United States. It is when we have a big load that the Canadian grain usually stands lower than the American grain. That statement may not be quite accurate, but I think it' is sufficiently accurate for the purpose.
Great Britain purchases grain as she needs it. She does not purchase in advance, and consequently, if you have immense quantities of grain seeking a market, and grain being purchased in Liverpool or the other grain centres of Great Britain, or of Europe, as required, you have of course an excess supply and a limited demand, and consequently a fall in price. I desire

to put on record here the remarks which I made in my Budget speech of 1914 with regard to this subject. In that speech I summarized, the arguments, both pro and con, as fairly as I could, and at' the conclusion of my remarks I indicated the position of the Government upon the subject of free wheat so called. After putting forward the arguments which I have advanced here to-day, and, I think, all the arguments put forward on the other side by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) and the hon. member for Saltcoats (Mr. MacNutt); after pointing out that we were engaged in the construction of transcontinental systems of railway, of the Hudson Bay railway, and in the development of our ports; that the Panama canal was about to be opened, and that we might expect that Vancouver would be an outlet for Canadian wheat going by the Panama canal to the markets of the world, I made these observations:
Haying regard to all these considerations, we have been unable, after having given the question most painstaking attention, to bring ourselves to the view that so great a change, involving by possibility such serious consequences, should be favourably considered until at least we are more certain as to the outcome of our vast railway development and the result to the western grain grower of the opening of the competitive routes which will be afforded by the Hudson Bay Railway and the Panama Canal. It is surely the part of wisdom to await the outcome of the developments rather than to take a step now which might involve the risk of grave and irreparable injury to our milling industry and by consequence to our live stock industry and to our transportation systems through the diversion of traffic to routes other than Canadian,
That was the attitude of the Government at that time upon the arguments and considerations put forward on this question in the discussion of this resolution.
There is a further consideration which I regard as of supreme consequence. We are in the midst of the greatest war, as has been said, of all history, and we are part of an Empire which, I believe, is sustaining the largest burden of that war. A national debt is being piled up by Great Britain to an amount which a few years ago would have staggered the imagination of the financiers and statesmen of the world. We are in the midst of this war. Are we half way through? How much further have we to go? What will be the debt of the United Kingdom when this war is concluded, as we hope and pray, in a lasting peace? What will be the fiscal burdens of the United Kingdom? How will these fiscal burdens be met? Will the same system that has
prevailed, continue to prevail, or will the statesmen of the United Kingdom, and possibly the statesmen of the Empire, have to sit down altogether, either alone or with Allies, and consider what is the wisest fiscal policy to adopt to meet the altered situation. Will that have to be done? So far as I can see, it is expected that it will be done; it is inevitable, it must be done. I do not pretend to say-he would be a presumptions man who would guess-what the fiscal policy of the United Kingdom will be after this war, but I feel perfectly satisfied in my own mind that it will not he the fiscal policy that prevailed before the war.


Wilfrid Laurier: 'That will be sad for England. '


William Thomas White: If it will be sad
for England, I have no doubt the wisdom of British statesmen, if they agree with my right hon. friend, will find some other way. But I am expressing my own view, and I have great respect for the view of my right hon. friend, when I say that, having regard to the obligations that are being incurred by the United Kingdom, that will be incurred, and must be incurred before this war is concluded, I do not believe that the same fiscal policy can prevail in the United Kingdom as prevailed before the outbreak of this war. I do not believe further although I do not desire to interfere in the domestic affairs of even the Mother Country -that the policy which has been adopted is the wisest policy for a nation which has as powerful enemies as Great Britain has had during the last few years.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Does that include Mr. Runciman?


William Thomas White: My hon. friend
can include him if he desires; I do not know to what he refers. What is to be the fiscal policy of Great Britain and the Empire? I do not know, but I would hope that the question of a preference within the British Empire is not a dead question. I would hope that it is a live question, that it'will be a live question. My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) is, I think, on common ground with me here, because it is only a few years ago since he desired a preference in the British market; so that unless he has changed his views since, and even if he has changed them, he is not likely to admit it in this House, , we are practically at one in the desire that there should be a preference within the British Empire. The Empire will nave to cuddle up after the war is over. What is the point I am making? Suppose that we bring into effect the provisions of

the Underwood tariff, is a preference possible without going back to the position which we now occupy? History is sometimes interesting and I want to place upon the record of this House, because it may be useful, if not in this debate, in some other, and it is sufficiently pertinent, a matter of historical interest which has a direct bearing upon the question of preference. I have in my hand the copy of:
"An Act for reducing the duty on wheat and Wheat flour, the produce of the province of Canada, imported thence into the United Kingdom" (6 & 7 Vic., cap. XXIX, 12th July, 1843).
And I am going to read the recital in order that the House may see my point:
"Whereas on the Twelfth Day of October One thousand eight hundred and forty-two an Act was passed by the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly of the province of Canada, and reserved by the Governor General for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure imposing a duty of three shillings sterling money of Great Britain on each imperial quarter of wheat imported into Canada, except from the United Kingdom or any of Her Majesty's Possessions, and being the growth and produce thereof: And whereas it is recited in the said Act that it was passed in the confident belief and expectation that upon the imposition of a duty upon foreign wheat imported in the province Her Majesty would be graciously pleased to recommend to Parliament the removal or reduction of the duties on wheat and wheat flour imported into the said United Kingdom from Canada: And whereas, in consideration of the duty so imposed by the said Act of the Legislature of Canada it is expedient that, if Her Majesty shall be pleased to give Her Sanction to the said Act, the duties imposed by an Act made and passed in the last session of Parliament, intituled "An Act to amend the Laws for the Importation of Corn', upon wheat and wheat flour, the produce of and imported from the province of Canada, entered for Home Consumption in the United Kingdom, should be reduced as hereinafter is mentioned:"
In other words, Great Britain was about *to give a preference to her colony, Canada and, what was the condition precedent? It was that Canada should adopt a duty as against com-the generic term for grain -imported from any other country except the Uniited Kingdom. Why? Canada could not get a preference in the British market for her wheat if wheat from a foreign country could find its way into Canada without paying duty and could be exported as Canadian wheat.
While I am on that point, let me refer for a moment to a matter -(hat I overlooked. It is conceded that if we adopted the principle of this resolution, and acted upon it, our grain would be mixed with the inferior grain of the United States and would lose its identity. My hon. friend from Assini-

boia said himself that our grain is worth six to eight cents a bushel more in Liverpool and how he can come to the conclusion that this change is in the interest of Canada, admitting that onr grain is worth six to eight cents more in Liverpool, if it involves the mingling of our wheat with American wheat, the de-grading of our wheat and the loss of its identity, passes my comprehension. Then this measure goes on and enacts the necessary legislation to carry into effect the idea embodied in the preamble. I have here also the Canadian Act-


Charles Murphy: Why not the Lord's
Prayer?


William Thomas White: Well, the Lord's Prayer is always in order and sometimes I have thought it would do my hon. friend good if it were said in this Chamber, especially that part of it in which we pray to be delivered from evil.


George Eulas Foster: And lead us not into temptation.


William Thomas White: I have here the Canadian Act in which it is recited that:
And whereas the introduction of foreign wheat, into the United Kingdom free of duty, after the introduction of the same into Canada free of duty, would be in manifest violation of the said intention of the laws of the said United Kingdom; And whereas the chief objection to the free admission of wheat and wheat flour into the said United Kingdom from Canada, arises from the free admission of foreign wheat into Canada-
I will put these recitals upon Hansard.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the date of that?


William Thomas White: That is before my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) was born, and when a wiser generation lived. The result was that they got a preference.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does my hon. friend remember that there was a movement for annexation in Canada at that time after the repeal of that preference by Great Britain, and that reciprocity which followed cured the evil.


William Thomas White: Let me ask my hon. friend another question-I want to teach him some of the history of those early times: What happened in 1S(T>
when reciprocity came to an end? Canadian trade with the United States had been developed under the Reciprocity Treaty, and the United States abrogated that treaty in 1865-


Rodolphe Lemieux: 1866.


William Thomas White: 1865 or 1866; let us say 1866-we will not quarrel about a year. In 1866 the treaty was abrogated, and what happened? As a matter of fact we all know what happened. It took about ten or twelve years before the country got on its feet, and when it got on its feet the people said: We are going to have a Canadian policy, the result of which is Canada as it is to-day. If my hon. friend wants to exchange views on history, I am quite prepared to meet him on his own ground. There is another feature of this question, and then I am done.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Thomas White: Oh, I know our friends are tired, but they have often tired me, and as they believe in reciprocity they should not complain. There is another feature of this matter, not to be set up against the clear national interest, if it is clear, but important in the consideration of the question. I do not believe it is a wise fiscal policy to fit your tariff into the notches of another country's tariff, because any action on their part relating to a matter in which your tariff interlocks with theirs causes you to change your tariff. In other words, you react to their action, and if you have not the element of certainty then you had better have your tariff stand on its own basis. Even if you have the element of certainty, it does not follow that you should enter into a tariff agreement unless you are sure that your doing so is in the interest of the country.
What may be the result of this change if we founded our autonomy upon it? To be effectual the grain would go south, with the interruption of our present economic system and with no certainty of permanency. I think this is one of the most important factors in the consideration of this question.
I have dealt With wheat, and my hon. friend from Kings, P.E.I. (Mr. Hughes) is anxious about the potato question. I think there must be some Irish in him, but he wants to know about potatoes. The Underwood Tariff provides that potatoes shall be free.
Provided, that any of the foregoing specified articles shall be subject to a duty of 10 per centum ad valorem when imported directly or indirectly from a country, dependency, or other subdivision of government which imposes a duty on such articles imported from the United States.
I do not believe there has ever been a better market for our potatoes than exists in the home market of Canada to-day.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: That is on account of the crop shortage.


William Thomas White: Crop failures
are not confined to any one portion of the hemisphere. Let me ask my hon. friend a question. If the Canadian prices were lower than the United States prices would the crop shortage prevent him from putting forward the figures? I know how strongly he would argue that, crop failures or no crop failure, we ought to take advantage of the Underwood tariff provision. So it works both ways. I desire to give some figures on the potato. It is a homely subject, but the potato is an honoured vegetable, and we might spend a worse five minutes than in considering the tariff with regard to it. The 'Canadian prices are taken from the Labour Gazette, an organ that I know will command the confidence of the former Postmaster General, and the American figures from the Monthly Crop Report of the Department of Agriculture, Washington::
Potatoes.
Retail prices per bushel 15th November each year.
City.	1914.	1915.Sydney	$0 60	$1 00Halifax	0 50	1 00St. John	0 70	1 00Quebee	0 50	0 65Montreal	0 56	0 83Ottawa	0 56	0 80Toronto	0 47	1 00Hamilton . . . .	0 55	1 00Winnipeg . . . .	0 93	0 67Regina	1 26	0 86Calgary	0 80	0 50Vancouver. . . .	0 60	0 33Maine	0 33	0 33New Hampshire	0 60	0 70State.	Vermont	0 47	0 81Massachusets . .	0 71	0 94New York . . . .	0 44	0 82Pennsylvania . .	0 58	0 75Michigan	0 30	0 56Ohio	0 53 .	0 70Indiana	0 56	0 56Illinois	0 61	0 59Wisconsin . . . .	0 30	0 45Minnesota . . . .	0 32	0 39North Dakota ..	0 42	0 41Idaho 	0 49	0 56Montana	0 64	0 50Washington . ..	0 55	0 53Average all States Union	. 48-9	61-6The prices above	given were	those paid
to farmers.
My hon. friend from Prince Edward Island (Mr. Hughes), who wants our potatoes admitted free to the United States in exchange for free entry of their potatoes to

us, will observe that the price at Sydney, Halifax and St. John in 1915 was $1, whereas the highest price in the same year in the United States was 95 cents, and the average only 61-6 cents. First, then, because it is not clear that there will be any advantage, and secondly, because if there will be any advantage it will be but a very minor advantage, and thirdly, because there is no element of permanence in an arrangement such as is contemplated in the resolution of my hon. friend, and because it involves a departure from the established national policy of this country, a policy which has been followed by all Governments in the past, and because we are in the midst .of a war and its abnormal conditions, and further because of the possibility of a fiscal arrangement not only of the tariff policy' of Great Britain, but of the tariffs of the Empire-on these grounds my view is that this resolution should be negatived.
Mr. MARCH,: We in eastern Canada are most interested in the price of flour. Can the minister tell us how it is that the price of flour is continually on the increase notwithstanding the increased competition in the West, increased railway facilities, and all the advantages of the national policy which have been so eloquently dilated upon by my hon. friend.


William Thomas White: The Prime Minister tells me that there has been laid on the Table this afternoon the report of the High Cost of Living Commission, which deals with the subject my hon. friend refers to.


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Edmonton):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the whole western country, if not the whole agricultural population of the Dominion, will feel a very keen sense of disappointment when they learn of the remarks of the Finance Minister. The more so, because by reason of his remarks on the Budget yesterday, they had every hope that a new era had opened, in which a new line of policy would be pursued by the Government by reason of those very conditions upon which my hon. friend has laid such stress in the speech he has just made. The Minister of Finance in his speech yesterday said':
The future of Canada rests with the development of its great resources, of which the greatest and most fundamental is agriculture, and this development is in turn bound up with the question of increase in population of the productive sort and the facilities afforded it for the application of its intelligence and industry.
It is probable that in the straitened financiai 
conditions which may prevail for some years forward the question of capital for the development of agriculture may be of paramount importance, and it is our intention to inquire carefully during the coming recess into this most important subject, with a view, if desirable in the public interest, to supplementing by federal aid existing facilities in this connection.
I gathered from those remarks that at last out Government, and especially the Finance Minister, had awakened to the fact that agriculture was the basis of our prosperity, and upon the development of that industry depended the ability of our country to carry those vast burdens which are laid upon us by reason of the war. I remembered when he was speaking in this strain that the Government of which he is a member had put an embargo upon the export of horses to the United States, and upon the export of wool and of hay; I remembered that that Government had seized thirteen and a half million bushels of the farmers' wheat at a low price; I remembered that on every occasion previous to the minister making his remarks his Government had considered the farming industry as the industry to be exploited in the interests of every other interest there might be in the country, that might claim for a moment the favourable consideration of the Government. And so I must say it was with pleasure I heard that the Government not only realized the importance of the farming industry, but that they proposed-at some time in the future, I noticed-to come to the assistance of that industry with a view to increasing the results of the labour of those engaged in it. To-day when a question is brought up in this House the answer to which involves an increase in the earnings of the agricultural population, and which, by reason of that increase of earnings, involves an expansion and development of the industry of agriculture resulting from the prosperity of those engaged in it, I find my hon. friend spending two solid hours in proving, to his own satisfaction and with the enthusiastic support of his friends behind him, that this resolution should not be agreed to; that the farmer of the West should not have the opportunity for better markets that would come to him under the terms of the resolution; that instead of the Government being the means by which the farmer is to get more money with which to carry on his enterprise, the Government is to be the means to prevent him from getting, that money; and whereas, my hon. friend's proposal for assistance was for some time in the future, his action in pre-

vention of profit is in the immediate present.
My hon. friend paid careful attention to the question of markets in the United States for Canada's wheat. He saw, year in and year out, the market records which proved, as absolutely as the multiplication table can prove, that the market price in the United States was better than the market price in Canada; that if the Canadian farmer had access to that market, he would get the benefit of that price; but he argued again and again to prove that 'what was, plainly and evidently so, could not possibly be so. He reminded me very much of the elderly and unsophisticated agriculturist who had an opportunity of attending a wild beast show which contained, amongst other wonders, a giraffe. This ancient farmer, after examining the different attractions, finally halted in front of this giraffe and examined him carefully with his eye, looked over his height and width and spots and other peculiarities, and finally turned away and gave his verdict in these words: ".There ain t no [DOT] such animal."
Now, either there is a market in the United States for our wheat _ or there is not. If there is a market at better prices than we can get at home, it would be good not only for the farmer, but foT the whole population of the country to have that market, because I have my hon. friend's authority for saying " of the resources of Canada, the greatest and most fundamental is agriculture." Therefore, if the farmer of the prairie West can have the market price for his wheat improved by access to the market of the United States, then not only does he benefit, but every industry and interest throughout the Dominion of Canada benefits; and if we argue on the ground of patriotism, the ability of the Canadian people to carry the burden of taxation necessarily laid upon them by and through this war can and will be the more easily borne. If any government of any country, at any time, ever had a duty that lay upon them more heavily than any other, it is the duty as set out by my hon. friend in the paragraph which I have read from his address of yesterday. If there is an opportunity of improving the markets for the produce of the West, our greatest industry, it is the duty of the Government to see that that opportunity is taken advantage of.
My hon. friend says: We must not sell our wheat in the States this year at a good price, because perhaps we shall not be able
to sell it there at as good a price next year; that is, because we can get a dollar a bushel for our wheat this year, we should not take it, because next year we may not be able to get more than ninety cents. I commend the Minister of Finance to a study of the logic of his own expressions and I think he will agree that if he is to be taken at his (word, according to his own argument, which, of course, he is not to be, the Premier made a mistake when he selected his Minister of Finance.
Either we better our position by reason of the American market, or we do not; if we do not better our position, then our wheat will not go South, and that danger feared by my hon. friend to the traffic of our railroads, that danger that was so remarkably brought to his attention by men employed on the railroads, does not occur. If the market is not there, the wheat will not go there, and our Canadian railroads will still carry the traffic. If the market is there, and the wheat does go there and the (Canadian railroads do not get the traffic, it will be because the Canadian farmer gets a better price for his wheat. There is no escape from the condition. The difference between my hon. friend and his Government, and his followers, and us on this side of the House is this, that he is prepared, as he and his colleagues and his supporters have always been prepared, to set the interests of the railroads, or the millers, or the manufacturers or any other industry under heaven against that of the farmers. Again, I call attention to his statement that agriculture is the basic industry of our country.


Mr. WRIGHT:: Is it not a fact that the Government of which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) was a member was willing to bonus the millers under the reciprocity agreement?


Frank Oliver: I am not arguing on the
reciprocity agreement at this time, but I may say that that agreement would have given the Canadian farmer exactly that which we are demanding for him to-day, and which this Government could give him if it would; but it will not. _


Mr. MEIGHEN:: But it would not have
given the Canadian farmer free flour, which the hon. gentleman considers important.


Frank Oliver: That is not the argument at all. This resolution relates to free wheat. The reciprocity proposal would have given the Canadian farmer free access to the American market for his wheat, which

would have been of great benefit to him, as was admitted by the Minister of Finance in the statement which he himself read. And this Government is able to give that to the Canadian farmer to-day, but it will not.
The Minister of Finance was deeply interested in the mixed farming industry. I do not recall a time, since I first took an interest in the public life of this Dominion, when the western settler was not advised to go into mixed farming, and when, from time to time, other sage and similar advice was not tendered him. I represent a constituency where the people are, and always have been, engaged in mixed farming. Let me . suggest to the Minister of Finance and to his colleagues that approximately twenty-five to thirty per cent of the so-called Prairie West is, and always has been, engaged in mixed farming, and that possibly the people there are not so much in need of either information or advice as to their business as some of our friends seem to think. When the hon. gentleman suggests that the mixed farmer is opposed to the grain farmer getting justice at the hands of this or some other Government, then, speaking for the mixed farmer, as I am entitled to do, I say the hon. gentleman misunderstands the position. The mixed farmer of the West raises the requirements for his stock on his own farm, in large measure. It is because the country is more suited to the production of that class of product that the farmer there is a mixed farmer.
The hon. minister was anxious that the mixed farmer should have the benefit of the bran and shorts that would come from the grinding of wheat, and he warned everybody that if free wheat to the United States were granted there would be no expansion of the milling industry in the West. Perhaps he is under the impression that there is not any milling industry in the West to-day. Perhaps he does not know that the big end of the milling industry in Canada is in the West, that the West grinds more wheat than it consumes. So, there is no injury to be done to the West by reason of the non-expansion of the milling industry. The milling industry of the West, if it is to expand, must expand by reason of its export market and not by reason of its local market.
The minister warned everybody-and I think this was one of the great national evils of which he spoke-that if this resolu-
tion carried it would be possible for the millers of the 'United States to get possession of the hard wheat of the Northwest and they would be able to mix it with their own softer American wheat and put the flour upon the European market in competition with the products of our mills. He considered that to be an evil to be guarded against by voting down this resolution. But in the beginning of his remarks he told us that under the law of the United States to-day the American miller can import our wheat and, having ground it into flour and exported it, can get a drawback of 99 peT cent of the duty. So, he was not fair to the House and the country when in his later remarks he suggested that if we passed this resolution the Canadian miller would cease to be protected against the competition of the American miller using Canadian grain in foreign markets. He was at that moment using an argument which was absolutely contradicted by the statement he made in the beginning of his remarks.


Robert Rogers: The hon. member is
entirely mistaken. The statement of the Finance Minister Was that on wheat shipped and ground in bond the United States miller could get a rebate of 99 per cent of the duty, but he cannot mix that wheat with American wheat in grinding. It must go through with its identity preserved.


Frank Oliver: Then, the case is just that much worse for the Minister of Finance. The American millers are able to go on the foreign market, not with a mixed product, but with flour made entirely of our Northwest wheat, and so can compete with our millers on equal terms.


Robert Rogers: That is right; so they
can.


Frank Oliver: So, I maintain that my
interpretation of the statement of the Minister of Finance is absolutely correct, and again I say that the argument he made in the latter part of his remarks is absolutely contradicted by the statement he made in the beginning of his remarks. The fact is, that the Minister of Finance or any other man who argues, ox tries ito argue that it is in the interests of the Dominion of Canada that our farmers should be excluded from an adjacent advantageous market, is arguing against the facts and necessarily must be guilty of contradictions and lapses such as this.
The Minister of Finance is sure that if the United States duty were

taken away, either by action of this Government, or by action of the United States Government without action on our part, the result would be an equalization of the prices between Minneapolis and Fort William. It is our hope that that would be the case; what we wish is that the prices shall be equalized. We want to get the benefit of whatever milling advantages there are in Minneapolis. We are entitled to that if we can get it, and if the policy laid down by the minister in his speech of yesterday is correct. Why is he so insistent that the removal of the duty would not be of benefit to the Canadian wheat grower, when he knows that exactly the same argument was made in regard to the producer of Canadian cattle and Canadian hogs? I have no doubt that my hon. friend, when he was championing the cause of high tariff against reciprocity in 1911; used exactly these arguments. Since then the United States have taken off the duty on hogs and cattle, and prices have been measurably equalized. The result has been that the Canadian price has come up, and the Canadian producer is getting the benefit to-day of access to the American market for his cattle and his hogs, notwithstanding the fact that the United States exports both cattle and hogs to the European market in very large numbers. I fancy they export to the European market more cattle and hogs than Canada exports to the United States. But that does not concern us. If by reason of our conditions as to transportation or quality of products or as to proximity to market, we get a better price by sending our goods to the United States, what matters it where the United States send their goods? That is no concern of ours.
There is another product of the West that in our part of the country is more important than wheat, that is oats. Some years ago the American duty on oats was cut down to six cents a bushel. The duty before that time had been prohibitive. But when the duty was cut down to six cents a bushel, our measurable access to the markets of the United States saved the situation to the farmers of Alberta in respect to the crop of three years ago. We sold many millions of bushels of oats to the United States in that year, and this saved us from having practically to give our oats away.
In view of these facts, in view of the contradictions into which my hon. friend's arguments necessarily lead him, there is
nothing to be said against the desirability of the Canadian farmer securing access to the United States market for his wheat free of duty. But we have the other side of the question.
My hon. friend has been frank with the House and with the country. While he has talked on behalf of the Canadian farmer and of Imperial interests and desires to convey the impression that it would be dangerous to the future of the Empire, in its consolidation after the war, to allow the farmer to get five cents more for his wheat at the present time, as a matter of fact he has informed the House and the country that the reason the Government will not agree to give the western farmer free wheat is because it is bound to maintain on behalf of the Canadian milling industry that protection which it enjoys at the present time. That is the reason he gives, that is the only reason he gives that can be understood- and it, of course, can be easily understood. The milling industry of Canada is an important and desirable industry. Many parts of the country are well adapted to that industry and we are glad to see it flourishing; but why should the milling industry flourish at the expense of the agricultural industry? If it has to be a choice between the two, if. there is not room in the same country for both to flourish on equal terms, then certainly the agricultural industry, on the authority of my hon. friend, should be the premier concern of the Government of the day. Certainly if either one has to take second place, that which is minor should take second place, not that which is major. And yet my hon. friend has urged here that it is the minor industry that must be protected to the loss and cost of many millions to the major industry. How, I ask, is this country to achieve prosperity through the development of its agricultural resources by any such policy as that?
This country is well adapted to the milling industry up to a certain point. For the supply of our own demands, there is no country in the world better situated than this Dominion of Canada for the establishment and maintenance of a successful and profitable flour milling industry. There is jjp other country that has the wheat and the water powers in such abundance and railway facilities equal to ours. Then there is no reason why the Canadian milling industry should require an extraordinary measure of protection at

the hands of this Government. It is entitled, no doubt, to whatever measure of protection would naturally fall to it under a revenue tariff: I would not suggest at all that it should not have the benefit of that measure of protection. But that the great farming industry should be penalized to the extent of twelve and a half million dollars on its crop this year because of the milling industry, I say is not good business for any country by any Government. The milling industry is a good industry, but it is not wdrth the money.


William Wright: How does the hon. gentleman figure out the twelve and a half million dollars?	[DOT]


Frank Oliver: I heard the Minister of Finance say that we had 250,000,000 bushels of'wheat for export. I also heard him read figures which would lead me to believe that the United States prices were at least five cents a bushel better on the average than our prices here. I figure that would work out about twelve and a half million dollars.


Arthur Meighen: But the hon. member for Assiniboia said the Canadian farmer would not get that.


Frank Oliver: Then I have to disagree with the hon. member for Assiniboia, because I think that, conditions being as they are, the Canadian farmer would get the benefit. I do not pretend that conditions are always as favourable as they are to-day. There is no doubt that the advantage of the United States market depends on the conditions as they exist from time to time. But it will be noticed in the figures that the minister read during the- afternoon, that whenever the Winnipeg price was higher than the Minneapolis price, in any year or at any time of any year, it was a time when the Canadian farmer did not have any important quantity of wheat to sell; that whenever the Canadian farmer had a large surplus of wheat to dispose of, in any year, or at any time of year, then the 'Minneapolis price in every case was much better than the Canadian price.
. Mr. SCHAFFNER: That was not so about the 25th of September last year. For about three weeks wheat was higher in Winnipeg than in Minneapolis last fall.
I understood the hon. gentleman to say that there was no time or season when wheat was higher in Winnipeg than in Minneapolis.	,


Frank Oliver: I said there were times and seasons when wheat was higher in Winnipeg than in Minneapolis, but that these were times and seasons when the Canadian farmer did not have the wheat to sell.


Mr. SCHAFFNER:: He had this year.


Frank Oliver: Oh no, he had not.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: At the end of September?


Frank Oliver: Oh no, his shipments
were held back in September, he was not getting his wheat forward. That is why the price was different, and my hon. friend knows it.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Why could he not get it forward?


Frank Oliver: It was not threshed.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I think the hon. gentleman is wrong on that point. I say that in September the price of wheat was higher in Winnipeg than in Minneapolis, and the conditions were all right then.


Frank Oliver: I will stand by the position I have taken, and I think it will be agreed that the only times when wheat is higher in Winnipeg than in Minneapolis are the times and seasons when there is a minimum of Canadian wheat coming forward, and a maximum of American wheat going forward. There is no doubt about that. Does my hon. friend suggest that the fact that there was a period in September when the price of wheat was higher in Winnipeg than in Minneapolis is a reason why this resolution should not be agreed to?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I do not; I was
simply correcting what I believed to be a misstatement, unintentional no doubt. If my hon. friend takes the three last months of last year, October, November and December, he will find that the price was higher in Winnipeg than in Minneapolis, and certainly wheat was coming forward then.


Frank Oliver: Undoubtedly, but the fact that my hon. friend does not consider that as a reason why the resolution should not be supported is evidence, I take it, that he agrees with me as to the general condition, that the Canadian farmer would benefit by the adoption of this resolution.
I turn from the question of wheat to the question of flour. We have had a commission acting for some years in Canada. I do not know what it has cost, and I do not

know what it has done. But there has been a commission on the high cost of living. I have noticed that from month to month and from year to yeaij-there have been exceptions to the rule, but I maintain that it is the rule nevertheless-the cost of living in Canada has been climbing, and nobody will say that the price of flour is not an important item in the cost of living. If we have enormous additional burdens of taxation to carry because of the war, and we have, it is surely one of the [DOT] greatest of the national interests which should concern this Government to see that other burdens upon the shoulders of our people are lightened as much as posible. If we are going to tax the people to pay the interest on war indebtedness, as we must pay it, surely it is our business to so adjust our trade and our affairs as to permit the people to pay that tax by relieving them of as many other burdens as possible. To maintain the milling industry in its present position, not only the producer must be sacrificed, but the consumer must continue to pay. There you find the great objection that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance had to agreeing to this resolution; it would relieve the consumer in some measure of the burden that he carries at the present time, and would thereby enable him the better to carry the burden of governmental taxation that must necessarily be laid upon his shoulders. The producer on the one hand, the consumer on the other, and the miller between; he takes from the farmer, and from the consumer, and the Government stands behind him and says: Yes, we are going to stand behind him. And the minister suggested that he is doing this in the national interest. I do not wish to speak otherwise than with the highest respect for the Minister of Finance, but after the deliverance which hb made yesterday in regard to the greatest interest that can concern us at this time, I say that his special pleading on behalf of the milling industry of Canada to-day was not worthy of the sentiments that he placed on Hansard yesterday.
My hon. friend the Minister of Finance wanted to know who it was that fixed the market price of wheat in the West, and he used the name of the' Grain Grower^ Grain Company. He received vociferous applause from his supporters when be used that name, and he seemed to think that it supplied a convincing answer to every argument and statement of fact made by the hon. member for Assiniboia. If my hon.
friend would look at the last annual statement of the Ogilvie Milling Company, he would find that a large part of the $1,600,000 of profits, which the company claims to have made last year, was made not out of milling at all, but out of the buying of grain. It is a fact that the great milling industries of Canada in large measure control the market price of grain in the West. Why should they not? They have the chance of working up their purchases in their mills as much as they desire, and of exporting the balance. As a matter of fact there is no doubt to-day that the great milling combines of Canada are combines to control the purchase of wheat in the West, just as much as they are combines to control the sale of flour in the East.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman say that the milling companies in Canada buy as much western wheat as does the Grain Growers' Grain Company?


Frank Oliver: I do not say that, but I do say that the milling industry of Canada is not, in effect, a competitor of the Grain Growers' Grain Company in the buying of wheat.


Arthur Meighen: Is there a combination between them ?


Frank Oliver: I could not say that. I am satisfied that there is a combination amongst the millers and 1 am a little afraid that there is an understanding between the millers and the buyers.


An hon. MEMBER:: Will you except the Grain Growers' Grain Company?


Frank Oliver: I do not know why that
name should appeal to my hon. friends. The Grain Growers' Grain Company is in the grain buying business, the same as the Ogilvie Milling Company is in the milling business.


William Wright: It is composed of grain-growers only.


Frank Oliver: It makes' no difference
what it is composed of, it is a business enterprise and it is carried on for the profit of the members of that enterprise. If a market condition exists, created by the legislation of this Government and assisted by the millers combine, which is also the creation of this Government, are the Grain Growers' Grain Company expected, because they are farmers buying grain, not to take some measure of advantage of the situation thus created? My hon. friend (Mr. Wright)

I
is a farmer himself and he does not claim to be an angel.


William Wright: This company was formed for the express purpose of coming to the rescue of the farmers of the Northwest.


Frank Oliver: I am not sure that they
have not achieved some measure of success in the fulfilment of the purpose for which they were formed. The antagonism with which my hon. friends opposite receive the mention of the name from this side of the House would lead me to believe that they had. But never mind about that-I say that the Grain Growers' Grain Company is a business enterprise. They are taking, and they are entitled to take, whatever profits they can by reason of the conditions which this Government, and the combines existing under it, have set up throughout the western country. I believe that they have ameliorated these conditions, but it would be too much to expect that they had absolutely ignored them.


Arthur Meighen: Is the hon. gentleman's argument, that the Grain Growers' Grain Company are really in a position to pay a much larger price for western wheat than they do, but knowing that they are in the position to make a big profit, they refuse to pay the legitimate value of the wheat?


Frank Oliver: I do not know why my
hon. friend should suggest these words to me. I have already given him the view which I hold in regard to the Grain Growers' Grain Company.


Arthur Meighen: Is the way I express it right or not?


Frank Oliver: I think my hon. friend
will have to take the expression as I give it and not the expression he gives it. If he will be good enough to do that I will be satisfied and I hope he will. I do not wish to delay the House longer in this matter. The appeal made by the minister as an excuse for not dealing with this question, that at some time in the future, when this war is over, there will have to be a readjustment of inter-imperial trade relationships, may have some bearing upon the matter in his mind that we on this side of the House do not understand. But I would respectfully isuggest that any proposals, any claim for special consideration of inter-imperial trade obligations and preferences, comes with rather, bad grace from the Minister of Finance in a Government which only last session increased the duties against British products coming into Cana-

da to the amount of 51 per cent. It will be enough for this Government, and this Parliament, [DOT] to consider the condition in which we find ourselves to-day and the condition that we will be called upon to face during the immediately following years. What will happen after this war is over may take care of itself. What we have to do is to see that the war is won, and that our country is in a proper position after the war is won. We have, as the minister said yesterday, to meet enormous obligations already accrued. We have to meet still more enormous obligations already in sight and we know not what further obligations we will have to meet before we will have occasion to consider what will take place after the war is over. Is this a time when tribute should be laid on the farmer, on the great producing industry of the West, on the one hand, and on the labouring man of the eastern cities, on the other, in the interest of a single industry in Canada? There may have been times and occasions in the history of our country when we could afford to sacrifice the larger for the smaller interest, but on the word of the minister himself, this is not such a time, this is not such an occasion. This is an occasion when the producer on the one hand, and the consumer on the other, should receive the benefit of every advantage that this Government, by its legislation, can confer upon them. No greater advantage lies in the hands of this Government to confer than to give, by acceding to .this resolution, to the farmer of the West a better price for his wheat, and to the consumer of the East, a lower price for his flour.


Robert Rogers: Mr. Speaker, coming from western 'Canada, as I do, I naturally have a very deep and lasting interest in everything that can possibly appertain to the welfare of the people of that portion of our Dominion. I was a little surprised at the statement of my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) regarding the export of wheat in bond to the United States. If my hon. friend has no clearer idea of the true conditions than that which he expressed in this particular case, then I am bound to say that he has a very limited knowledge of the grain situation. The case as stated by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) is absolutely correct. Wheat shipped in bond through the United States can be ground by any miller in the United States, the flour, the product of that wheat, can be exported to Great Britain, and the United States miller can get his drawback

of 99 per cent; or, in other words, the duty payable on the wheat which was used by the miller in the United States is simply one dollar per thousand bushels. That is the United States law as it exists to-day, but the proposed resolution before this House is a very different thing. It provides for the opening of the American market and the mixing of Canadian and American wheat, and thereby exporting it, after it is turned into flour, in competition with the Canadian farmers' wheat in the market of Great Britain. That is a sample of the arguments which have fallen from the lips of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House since the beginning of this debate. They are evidently not posted in any way whatever upon the conditions as they actually exist.
I am free to admit that the resolution before us concerns a question which in past years, especially in Western Canada, has excited a very considerable amount of interest, and I agree that any formal proposal from our neighbours to the south in regard to that question is entitled to our most respectful and careful consideration. But we must always remember that the Underwood tariff, on which the proposal now before us is based, was framed by those whose first and only duty was the preparation of a tariff which, in their judgment, would carry with it advantages in some form or other to the people of the United States, whom they were undertaking to serve. I am sure that no hon. member in this House would say that the provision in the Underwood tariff giving us free access to the American market, on certain conditions, was made for the purpose of giving the Canadian producer of Western Canada any special advantage. It, therefore, becomes our special duty to give this question most earnest and careful consideration, in order to ascertain whether there is justification for the statement thet the acceptance of this proposal would carry with it advantage to the farming community and to the people of Canada generally. But let me first express my regret at the very extravagant and unreasonable statements that have been made on this subject during the course of this debate. In my humble judgment this subject should be discussed in reason and in fairness from all points of view. It is quite true that there have been occasions in the past when the farmers of the western provinces did not receive full value for their products. To my mind, one of the principal reasons for that is that in the early days
we had the idea that we should set a very high standard for our wheat, and we carried that idea out. It is true that the farmers have lost a considerable amount of money in the past on that account; and. in my humble judgment, it is equally true that they have lost a considerable amount of money by reason of the fact that we have not had a sample market. These, to my mind, are the two principal causes of monetary loss to the farmers of Western Canada in past years. In order to make myself perfectly clear on these two important points, and in order that the House may better understand the true situation, perhaps I cannot do better than read the opinions of a very important commission which was appointed by the Government of the province of Saskatchewan, and which reported in 1914. The purpose for which they were appointed is set out in the Order in Council as follows: "To examine into ways and means for bettering the position of Saskatchewan grain on the European markets." The commissioners made a very . exhaustive examination of the subject; they spent months and months in Europe, visiting almost every wheat centre there, and in 1914, presented their report. This is what the commissioners say in regard to trading on sample at Winnipeg or Fort William:
It is, intended to create a sample market at Winnipeg and at Fort William. Considered theoretically and viewed from certain angles trading on sample is the ideal method. What the Saskatchewan farmer should ask, however, is: What will be the effect of sample trading on the price realized by the farmers for the crop of Saskatchewan? To consider the possible effect on a small proportion of the crop while Ignoring the probable effect upon the general level of values would be shortsighted. Consider these facts:
1.	The surplus of wheat over and above Canadian millers' requirements which must export determines Jthe prices at which our crop will be sold.
Here the commission is in conflict with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver). The report continues:
The competition of exporters forces the millers to pay at least export price for wheat, while, on the other hand, there is always enough wheat, arid usually enough of each grade to render it unnecessary for the millers to pay more than a slight premium over export price for what they need. Therefore, the all important consideration is to maintain the integrity or standard of our export grades.
2.	Any condition that creates or maintains confidence in our wheat abroad helps to raise or to sustain prices that are hid for opr wheat from abroad.
3.	Higher or sustained bids from abroad (relatively, of course, to the bids being made for the wheat of other countries) mean not only



a higher price for the surplus that is exported, but for all that is milled at home for which the millers must outbid the exporters.
4.	In exactly the same way any condition that weakens or destroys confidence in our wheat abroad will lower the prices at which our entire crop will be sold, because lowering the prices that exporters can afford to pay for it.
5.	At the present time Canadian wheat enjoys the confidence of the British and the continental trade, partly on its merits, but partly because it can be depended upon to be delivered as represented.
5. We should do nothing that will imperil that confidence unless we are sure that the financial gain to the producers that will result *will outweigh the financial loss that would follow all impairment of foreign confidence in the integrity of our certificate.
I entirely agree with the views of this commission, because they represent, to my mind, the responsible facts of the case, and the commissioners give good reasons why, in thedr opinion, we should go slow in the establishment of that sample market. It is due to that, in my opinion, that the farmers of Western Canada have suffered great loss. When I was in Winnipeg some time last autumn, I happened 'to meet in the Grain Exchange a farmer who had just . shipped in a car of flax. He had got his certificate from the grain inspector and his flax graded No. 2 whereas he thought it should have graded No. 1. He had eleven hundred odd bushels of flax in his car and he complained very bitterly about the grade which he had been given. Under the law he had a right to appeal to the survey board of the Grain Exchange as against the certificate handed to him by the inspector. He did this; the appeal was heard by the survey board, and they were just about to decide that the Inspector was wrong, and that the farmer should have a higher grade for his car of flax when the inspector suggested that it might be well for them to weigh the flax in order to see if it came within the weight prescribed by this Parliament which would entitle him to a certificate of No. 1 for his car. When the flax was weighed it was found to be just half a pound too light to come under the standard as provided by law, and therefore that farmer lost that particular grade on his car of eleven hundred bushels of flax, which meant to him a loss of thirty cents a bushel or something over {300; whereas /if he had had a sample market, he would have been able to sell that particular car at probably one or two cents a bushel less than the price of the particular grade which he had hoped to receive.
The same thing applies so far as high

grade standards Eire concerned. We in Western Canada for twenty-five long years have held the idea of sticking firmly to a high grade standard, believing, as the people and the farmers especially believe, that the day would soon come when they would reap their reward and when they would be able to establish in the markets of the world the great advantage that our wheat possesses as compared with the wheat of any other country that competes with us. A great effort has been made and a large amount of money has been lost in maintaining that particular position on behalf of the farmers. I would like to quote again from this report of the commissioners what they have to say on the matter of the high standards, and I am doing this simply in order to bring to the notice of the House the actual facts as they are understood by the farming community of Western Canada:
The Canadian certificate is highly thought of in the world's markets. It enjoys a better reputation than any other certificate. United States grain is exported under a variety of certificates emanating from different and unrelated sources, such as state authorities, boards of trade, chambers of commerce and port authorities. The reputation enjoyed by these certificates in importing countries is not such as to commend to Canadians any change in the source of the Canadian certificate. Seaboard inspections in particular are not popular among importing merchants.
Because it is imported on a dependable certificate, Canadian grain is dealt in on a smaller margin of profit than the grain of any other exporting country. Three-eights of a cent per bushel is the profit the importing merchants of Liverpool and London calculate on their Canadian business as compared for instance with as much as two and a quarter cents per bushel on Russian business owing to various elements of uncertainty connected "With that trade. The importing trade makes little or no distinction in its bids as between grain shipped through United States ports in bond and grain shipped through ail Canadian channels. Importers are satisfied that the integrity of the grades is preserved as well one way as the other. Liverpool prefers Canadian grain ex New York to that ex Montreal, if anything. Some markets claim that spring and summer arrivals are not of as high a standard as those of the fall and winter, hut make no distinction as between routes. On the other hand, the trade does not like to purchase Canadian wheat with only a United States seaboard inspection certifying the wheat to be of some specified grade but of " Canadian origin."
Now, this is the position to which I wish to draw the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite, because it is a very important one and one that interests the people of Western Canada in particular. I intend to discuss this matter later on, but I wish to say a word before six o'clock to some of my

hon. friends who have been dealing with the question of the prices of wheat at Winnipeg, Minneapolis, and elsewhere. I am indeed more than surprised at the extravagant statements that have been made first of all by my hon. friend from Assini-boia (Mr. Turriff), and then by others who have followed him. He told us, the other night for example, that which was quoted by the Minister of Finance to-day, that wheat in Winnipeg was seven or eight cents cheaper than in Minneapolis and that when it reached Liverpool it was seven or eight cents higher. I would like to ask my hon. friend if he believes that the Grain Growers' Grain Association, which embraces thousands and thousands of the best farmers of the West, and which was formed for the express purpose of .guarding the interests of the farmers of the West, is guilty of wrong-doing against the farming community. My hon. friend in his speech the other night when dealing with this particular point used the following language:
But what do we find when the wheat got to Liverpool? Instead of the Manitoba farmer getting seven or eight cents less a bushel than the American farmer, he received from the Liverpool merchant from six to eight cents a bushel more than the American farmer, and that cannot be denied by any one who knows anything about the grain trade. Why should there be this difference? Why should every man who grows wheat in Canada be crucified to the extent of ten cents a bushel on his wheat?


John Gillanders Turriff: If my hon. friend will
allow me, I pointed out to the Minister of Finance this afternoon-perhaps my hon. friend was not in the House then-that I 'did not use that language at all. It is a mis-quotation on the part of Hansard and I have corrected it, and my hon. friend will see in the Revised Hansard what I said.


Robert Rogers: Will my hon. friend deny that he used the word " crucified " with respect to the farmers of the West?


John Gillanders Turriff: No, that is the absolute truth.


Robert Rogers: Will he say that the Grain Growers' Grain Company are crucifying their fellow-farmers in Western Canada?


John Gillanders Turriff: I did not use the name of the Grain Growers' Grain Company in that connection. I said that my constituents, for ten or eleven months out of the year, could take their wheat across the line, if it were free of duty, and get from ten to sixteen cents a bushel more for it than they can get at home. That is the truth, and I stand by it, and state that under
the present system the farmers are being crucified.


Robert Rogers: That has no bearing on
the quotation I have been reading, which the hon. member says he stands behind- that the farmers are being crucified to the extent he stated. Will he say that Grain Growers' Grain Company are crucifying the farmers of Western Canada, for they are to-day the largest dealers and exporters of grain in the Dominion of Canada? They have shipped, I believe, something like 100,000,000 bushels of wheat.


John Gillanders Turriff: Does the hon. gentleman want an answer? The Grain Growers' Grain Company are more persistent than any other people in their demand for enabling our wheat to go into the American market free of duty. Both the Grain Growers' Association and the Grain Growers' Grain Company are demanding that. And if the Government will put wheat on the free list and let the Canadian farmer have free access to the American market they will satisfy the Grain Growers' Associations of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and the Grain Growers' Grain Company as well.


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend is trying to get away from the question. He made a distinct statement that the farmers of the West were being crucified in the sale of their wheat. Now the Grain Growers' Grain Company trade and deal in the wheat of the western farmer, almost in its entirety.


Frank Oliver: How did the Ogilvies make that $1,000,000?


Robert Rogers: The Grain Growers' Grain Company are handling over half of it in Western Canada to-day.


Frank Oliver: Does the hon. minister
deny the statement of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) as to the difference in the price as judged by the Liverpool market?


Robert Rogers: I do not deny that the price is higher in Liverpool. I say the price has been higher and is higher to-day. The prices that come into play and that we have to consider are the prices of cash wheat to-day. What does that represent when we compare the prices of cash wheat? These are the facts. Cash wheat to-day at Fort William and every other point in Canada is at a premium over the May option. Now, the option is regulated largely by the position of the wheat, the closer to the seaboard

the higher the premium, because the people of Europe want our wheat. It is true, the premium at Fort William may he Only five cents a bushel over the May option to-day, But if you have that wheat at Buffalo or some other point east of the Great Lakes, the premium on Canadian wheat over the May option is over fifteen cents a bushel. But on the American side what are the conditions? On that side, at any port on the seaboard, you can buy cash wheat at a discount of over five and a half cents a bushel. Come with me to New York, and you can stand on the docks and see Canadian wheat going to Liverpool at a price representing from twenty to twenty-five cents a bushel more than wheat from the United States.


Frank Oliver: Did the Canadian farmer get twenty-five cents a bushel more for it?


Robert Rogers: The Canadian farmer is
getting a good deal more for his wheat this year than the American farmer is getting for his, notwithstanding the statements made by hon. gentlemen opposite. The extravagant statements they put forth do not agree with the facts. Every person knows that in * trading in wheat there is no wide margin for the trader, for there are too many in the business and the profit is limited by competition. The fact is that Canadian wheat commands a price at the American seaboard of from t.wenty to twenty-five cents a bushel more than the American wheat. That is one of the reasons why I say this House would fail in its duty to the farming community of Western Canada if it did not reject the resolution of my hon. friend.
I have a good deal more to say, and it is now six o'clock. I hope to finish my remarks on this subject at a future sitting.
At six o'clock, the House adjourned, without motion put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, February 17, 1916.