I can remember when hon. gentlemen opposite sent out literature when they were running the immigrartion affairs of this country, and that literature had very little effect in bringing in immigrants. The complaint raised about it is that it did not tell the truth.
Why, as I am reminded by an hon. friend near me they even sent out campaign literature last session which they had to withdraw. For my part, I do not see anything wrong with this article. It tells the truth and that is what we want. There is no use making things out different from what they are. Why, fault is found because this writer speaks of frost. You have frost in Ontario or in Quebec
There will be a political trost in the province of Quebec about the time of thfe next general election. I hope it swill not strike my hon. friend from Compton (Mr. Pope), but it may even extend that far. Now, the hon. gentleman (Mr. W J Roche) speaks of the cuts in this paper. Well, here is one of these cuts. A wall is represented and behind it the United States is pictured in the well-known figure of Uncle Sam. There is a placard showing that farm lands there are at from $70 to $150 an acre, and that there is no more government land'. Another placard says: 'None but the trusts deserve the dough.' What is wrong about that ? Every one knows that in the United States they have followed a system of excessive protection such as hon. gentlemen opposite would like to foist on us and so have built up trusts that are driving the people out of the country.
I would like to ask the hon. gentleman a question. He tells us that he believes in stating the truth in these matters. That cut shows that there is no more government land in the United' States, let it was stated by the Minister of the Interior that one reason whv the immigration was not greater was that in the United States they had a lot of unoccupied' government land that they were offering to the settlers. Does that paper tell the truth there ?
My hon. friend must remember that they are constantly opening up , Indian reservations and so on and there might not have been any government land when this paper was published. The part my hon. friend from Marquette objects to-is this : ' The protective tariff makes the farmers sweat.' He says that that is poor advertisement for the United States for it
is running down their country. Well, 1 have a lttle knowledge of the people who are coming over from the United States, and I think that ninety per cent of the men are coming to get away from the high protective tariff and the trusts that are fostered by that tariff. Then, on the other side of this cut, Canada is represented with the placard ' Millions of acres free.'
How much did these American immigrants get for their land before they came to Canada ? According to that newspaper cut, land there is worth from $75 to $100 an acre. That is the effect of high protection.
Surely the hon. gentleman does not say that it is high protection that has made the land worth $75 an acre. High protection has not made land worth $75 an acre. If high protection made land dear, it is strange that in 1896 farm lands in Ontario had gone down so far that you could'nt sell them for enough to pay the mortgage. Since the duty has been reduced farm lands have gone up 50 per cent.