Bill (No. 42) respecting the Edmonton and Slave Lake Railway Company.-Mr. Cash. .
Bill (No. 43) respecting the Hudson Bay Insurance Company.-Mr. Knowles.
Bill (No. 44) respecting the Montreal Central Terminal Company-Mr. Ethier.
The order for Private Bills being exhausted, House resumed the debate on second reading of Bill (No. 12) respecting a certain supplementary convention between His Majesty and the president of the French Republic.
I had no intention of taking part in the debate on this, motion until I heard the Minister of Finance speak of the change that had been insisted upon by the French authorities in regard to the importation of cattle. I come here, Sir, as a farmer representing farmers, and I can flatter myself that perhaps I know as much about the beef industry as any man in this House. And knowing that, I know that the Minister of Finance should have had with him, at the time when he agreed to that change, a chaperone or a caretaker. I made a note of a question which 1 intended to submit to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher). But when that lion, gentleman spoke, I expected that as the member of the Cabinet specially charged with the conservation of the interests of the farmers, he would have stated that he did not approve of this particular clause in the treaty. But I was surprised to note the airy manner in which the hon. minister put aside this phase of the treaty referring to the cattle industry. His argument is virtually this: In the
past Canada has not entered into the market of France in the matter of beef cattle, and therefore it matters not that the maximum tariff is charged against the beef cattle we desire to ship to that country. The hon. gentleman surely did not consider for a moment the difference in duty charged under the maximum and the minimum tariff. The maximum is $27 per 1,000 pounds, and the minimum is $18, a difference of $9 per 1,000 pounds, or an average of about $15 per steer. Surely, no man in his senses will say that that is not a matter of very vital importance. Perhaps, coming as I do from the west, I realize more than the Minister of Agriculture does what the beef trade means to Canada. Let me point out what evidently the hon. member does not know. The export trade in beef cattle in Manitoba commenced in 1882, when one shipment was made of two cars of 42 head, of a total value of about $1,500. In the years from 1900 to the present day, the annual shipments from Manitoba and the west have been between 50,000 and 100,000 head, of a value of from $1,750,000 to $2,750,000. This trade, already of such
large proportions, is growing year by year, and it must be taken care of. To take care of it in the proper way it is requisite that the government should take every opportunity to find a market for pur products, and here was an opportunity to open a market for our surplus beef cattle. Let me call your attention for a moment to what has been done in the United States, in Chicago alone. In 1865, the Chicago market handled only some 600 head of cattle. Last year the Chicago market handled over 4,000,000 head of cattle. The growth that has taken place in forty years in Chicago is only a small example of the growth that is going to take place in the Canadian west in the next forty years, for the Canadian west is growing very much more rapidly in every branch of trade than even the United States did. The Minister of Agriculture argues at one time in one way and at another time in another way. Where he is speaking to farmers instead t>f to the lawgivers of this House he would not for a moment advocate the doctrine that through this treaty Canadians would be able to sell in the markets of France their stocker cattle. By stocker cattle, I mean cattle that are not finished. If he were speaking to agriculturists in this country he would tell them that the proper way to get the greatest benefit in the cattle industry is to finish the cattle here, use Canadian feed, and put them on the market not one moment sooner than they are absolutely ripe, and will fetch the greatest possible price. That is what he will say to the farmers speaking as Minister of Agriculture. But he tells this House, and I think we are justified in saying that he misleads this House when he says it, that it is a good thing that the French stocker market is left open to us, and that we have an. advantage in that market over our American competitors. He did not tell the House, when he was speaking of the American competition, that we are sure to be up against it, that three years ago Secretary Root and Ambassador Jusserand, the French representative at Washington, had made a provisional arrangement of a reciprocal character wherein France agreed to afford to the United States several advantages: first, the admission of American
meats upon a guarantee of their purity and soundness made in compliance with the meat inspection laws; secondly, the admission of American cattle for slaughter with- in ten days after arrival; thirdly, authority to transport American cattle through French territory, more considerate treatment of American salt meat imports, and greater leniency in the regulations for the entry of American imports generally. This arrangement still holds good between France and the United States, so it means that without any treaty Secretary Root and the
French ambassador have agreed that Americans should have just as good if not better terms for their farmers and their producers than the Canadian government have procured for our farmers by this much vaunted treaty. It seems to me that the Minister of Agriculture, when he speaks on these subjects, should take the same stand at all times. He cannot prove to the farmers of this country what he tried to make good in his argument here to-day. I think he should be honest when he makes an argument in this House with regard to-a matter of that kind. So, Sir, for that reason alone, if there were no other, I as a farmer, knowing the possibilities of the great west, will vote against this treaty if I have an opportunity. It is a matter of the greatest importance to the Canadian farmer, particularly in the west, that the future of this great cattle industry should be protected at all hazards. . Why should we not follow the example of France in this matter? France saw the danger, and insisted on the protection of her farmers. Why should we not follow her example and insist on protecting our farmers when we make a treaty with France? Let me mention that in Chicago, the cattle industry of which I have already spoken, the live stock industry to-day exceeds in importance the grain industry of that great centre, the lumber industry, and the wholesale grocery business combined. That shows the immense proportions of the live stock industry in Chicago, which is the great centre of that industry in the United States, just as Winnipeg is of the Canadian west. Therefore I urge that care should be exercised in this regard by our government when signing treaties with foreign governments.
Another matter to which I wish to refer is that even under this minimum rate the Finance Minister had to admit that Canada had nothing whatever to do with the inspection of cattle when they land in France. Canada has nothing to say as to whether these cattle shall he considered as belonging to one class or another, it is left solely to the discretion of the French officials to say what treatment shall be accorded to shippers from Canada. Surely it would have been fair to provide that Canada should have a representative on the board of inspection, and I think the government was guilty of a great oversight in that respect. But knowing the record of this government in the past in the one treaty they have negotiated with a foreign country, the treaty with Japan, I do not wonder at their relegating to the authorities of another government the say-so with regard to what shall be or what shall not be done in the protection of our own interests.
In concluding, I desire to express a word of sympathy with my hon. friend for Centre Huron (Mr. Chisholm) in all he said of the
necessity of prohibiting the importation of absinthe. I intended to go fully into that matter, but as my hon. friend took up most of the points connected with it, I will add nothing more about it on this occasion. Mr. Speaker, I have pointed out several strong reasons why I intend to vote against this treaty. I think it is up to every representative of an agricultural constituency to lay aside his partyism and to remember that he is here representing the farmers whose interests it is- his duty to conserve, and the best way he can conserve them is to vote against this treaty.
When this treaty was passed two years ago I thought that very slight benefits were likely to accrue to Canada under its operation. In sizing it up, however, I reached the, conclusion that if it was likely to be of any benefit to the agriculturists of Canada, it was in the privilege of introducing into that country our fat cattle. I scarcely expected that we would ever succeed in establishing a trade in stackers with France, because of the distance and other disadvantages that we would have to overcome.
But I would think that there might come a time when from either the importation of cattle disease into Canada or its outbreak in Canada, our cattle might be shut out from England entirely and would also be shut out from the United States. It seemed to me desirable to have some other string to our bow, some other market to which, in case of extreme need, we might be able to send our cattle, and I thought that although it might not be of much advantage it might afford an alternative market for our fat cattle. For that reason and that reason alone I supported the treaty. I did so with a good deal of reluctance because from my casual examination and all 1 could learn I thought it was going to be of very little benefit to Canada; but now, since the French people have amended that treaty and our own Finance Minister and the government of Canada have been consenting parties to those amendments, to a practical repeal of the very clause in the treaty above all others that would be of value to the agriculturists of Canada, I do not see any justification for supporting that treaty. Looking over the whole field of possible trade with France, there seemed to be but one line in which we could hope to derive any benefit from this treaty, and that is in the exportation of agricultural implements and our manufacturers of implements are not doing a very large trade there now.
Examining this treaty and recalling the history of the present government's treaty makng, I do not wonder that Canada derives little benefit because all their efforts heretofore at negotiations with other countries for the purpose of extending the Mr. CAMPBELL.
markets of Canada or securing for Canada better markets than she has, nave resulted in one-sided, jug-handled arrangements. In 1897 they started off by throwing off part of the duty on English goods, giving a preference to- England. That action was proclaimed all over the world as some wonderful act of great statesmanship, great prescience, great knowledge that was to bring some wonderful financial result to Canada. What has been the practical result of that course? It practically killed our woollen trade in Canada, closed up nearly all our woollen mills, threw the artisans employed in these mills out of employment, reduced the market for Canadian wool and swept away the greater part of the hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in the woollen trade of Canada. Yet this government have absolutely refused since to do anything to help that crippled industry. Which side derived the advantage from that one-sided arrangement? Not Canada. It is true that England got an advantage but Canada received no advantage, from it whatever. I was rather amused to-night to hear the Minister of Agriculture say: I was in England and I found everybody satisfied, remarkably well pleased with what we had done, it was the very thing that suited them. Why would it not suit them? They received the whole advantage and we got nothing in return. The Minister of Agriculture went to England and discussing reciprocal preferential trade said that what we did we did voluntarily and of our own free will and accord, we did it for England's sake, we did not want anything in return, did not ask for a duty on grain imported from other countries, while ours got the freedom of the market, or anything else, and he asked them not to give us any preference in their markets over any other country in the world. Is it any wonder that they were satisfied? They were satisfied and he was satisfied. He thought he represented the whole Dominion of Canada, when if he had gone among the farmers of Canada they would have regarded him as one of Mark Twain's innocents abroad.
Before the Liberals came into power they said that the Conservative party were trying to find markets everywhere in the world except right at home, at our very door, where there was a market of 85,000,000 people. They said that if they were returned to power they would secure, by their sunny ways and their .statesmanship, this market of 85,000,000 people that would be more valuable than any market that could be secured anywhere else in the world. They were returned to power but did not make any effort to secure that market and apparently have no desire to secure it. Have they ever attempted to secure it except on the one occasion when they went to Washington, for which trip Canada paid ,
$35,000 or $40,000? They came home with their heads down and we never heard a word about it. They made no success of their efforts there and only demonstrated how unsuited they were for carrying on negotiations with any country in the world in the interests of Canada. The arrangement they made with England was onesided and Canada sustained a great injury from it without deriving any benefit in return. They not only gave that preference to England, but by it lost the important market of Germany which was likely to be of much more value in the future than it had been up to that time. Yet they were warned. I remember Sir Charles Tupper, over and over again, warning the Finance Minister that as sure as they forced that through the House, they would get into trouble with Germany over the favoured-nation clause. They answered that there was no fear, they knew too much about it, they had ways of doing these things that Sir Charles did not know. Sir Charles said: We have considered that carefully and made sufficient inquiry in the past to satisfy ourselves that there is a danger of complications arising from these foreign treaties. He said that if we could have them terminated in a friendly way we would have been glad to do so, but if the Canadian government first entered into negotiations that would afterwards compel the denouncing of these treaties then they would be denounced in an unfriendly way and the result would be that when Canada wished to resume negotiations the country whose treaty had been denounced would not be prepared to treat with us on reasonable terms. Sir Charles Tupper did everything he could to persuade them to abandon the suicidal course they were pursuing. The preference was forced through, and in less than nine months it was brought home to them in a way they could not ignore. And what were they obliged to do? They were compelled to ask England to help them out. England denounced the treaty and Germany has been a commercial enemy ever since. Any effort made since then to negotiate a treaty has been a signal failure. Why? Because they had offended Germany when they need not have done so, and Canada to-day would he in possession of all the advantages she ever enjoyed in regard to German trade. Then they made a blunder when they put a surtax on German goods. I do not think they then took the right way to commence negotiations in a proper and conciliatory way with Germany, but of course they were in trouble and were seeking to get out of it by whistling to keep their courage up, and they were very brave. In connection with this treaty, there seem to be two or three dangers ahead of us. One is that we may come in conflict with the Americans in the
change in their tariff under the Aldrich Bill. I agree with those who say that our first duty as a parliament in passing any law in this country, whether it be a tariff law or any other, is to have regard to the interests of Canada.
Let us act in the interests of Canada; let us act in the conciliatory spirit always, but let us not forget that it is the interest of our own countrv which should be our first concern. I remember very well that in 1887 when the Conservatives were in power the Liberals complained that we could not negotiate with our neighbours to the south because our tariff policy was irritating to them. To-day, however, these gentlemen on the government benches have changed their tune, and the Minister of Finance has told us that it was not the duty of Canada to wait and see what action the United States might take with reference to any question of Canadian policy. I agree with the Minister of Finance in that and I only mention the matter to show the inconsistency of his party. Now, it appears to me to be well worthy of our attention that there is a probability of our being able to negotiate with the mother country in the near future for inter-imperial preferential trade. The House of Lords will no doubt throw out the budget by a large majority so as to force the present government to appeal to the country, and I am very much mistaken if the people of England will not in the near future express their desire for a readjustment of the tariff so that the mother country may negotiate for inter-imperial preferential trade with her dominions beyond the seas. If we have a treaty of this kind on our hands we will be hampered and restricted in these negotiations, and therefore it is that I say there should be no hurry on our part in ratifying it. The more I study this treaty the more I am convinced that we will get no great advantage from it. In the past our cattle trade on the great.west-ern prairies was a thriving business, but, as has been recently reported by the veterinary inspector of the government the ranching business of the west has been declining for years, largely because of the difficulty in sending live cattle to the English market so far distant from the western prairies. The need of the hour is to establish abattoirs all over the west, so that we may export chilled meat to England, but neither the government nor the Minister of Agriculture has taken any action in that regard. Some years ago a commission was appointed to look into this question and an elaborate report was presented recommending that Canada should engage in this chilled meat trade, but the government naid no attention to the recommendation of that report. If bv any accident our live cattle were shut out of the American market, and out of the British market as well,
then no market would be left for us and the ranching trade would be ruined and those interested in it bankrupted. The home market of Canada is not able to absorb the products of both the eastern and western provinces and hon. gentlemen can easily see what a calamity it would be if we could not export our live cattle. If we had abattoirs; spread throughout the west and if we had steamship lines supplied with chilled meat chambers we might get some advantage from this French treaty, but until the government exert themselves to establish such'a trade in Canada little benefit will come to us from this treaty. It would seem to me that the benefit of the treaty is all on the side of France, and while we cannot but admire the French statesmen for making the best bargain they could for their country, we must regret that our own representatives did not look to the in-tefests of Canada in this bargain. I supported this treaty before, but in view of the changed conditions, if there is a vote called I shall now vote against it. I represent an agricultural constituency from which we ship a good many fat cattle and I thought that this treaty might be of some advantage ter us, tout now that there is no advantage given us in the export of cattle to the French market the treaty is of no benefit to us at all. Many of those interested in the cattle trade in rav constituency have pointed out this to me and have stated that the treatv had better never be signed. There is nothing now in this treaty to induce me to support it, and I sincerely believe that Canada would be better off without it.
I would not have sooken on this question were it not that the Board of Trade of Winnipeg have been giving it consideration, and it would seem that the opinion of that influential body of business men is that although we u%.nt our commercial relations extended in every legitimate direction yet there is a very grave question as to whether the beneficial results of this French treaty will be worth the effort and trouble bestowed on it. France is a country which grows practically all her own food stuffs and in that respect she is very unlike her neighbour Germany which is a large importer of just such natural products as we have to export. Germany has a population of 62,000,000; she imports about one billion dollars worth of food stuffs _ a year, and of that Canada supplies practically not one dollar's worth. Germany imports $56,000,000 worth of horses in a year and Canada does not send a horse. Germany imports $216,000,000 worth of grain in a year and Canada supplies the merest fraction of that. If then we cannot get back this trade without forfeiting our own national self-respect, there is an end of it. But the people are not Mr. SPROULE.
thinking . in that "direction; they are beginning to look in another direction. The city of Winnipeg has a fairly active Board of Trade. Many of the officers of that board are known personally to the members of this government. On the 28th of October last, at a meeting of that board, reported in the Winnipeg ' Free Press ' of the 29th of October, I find that a resolution was moved by Mr. James H. Ashdown and seconded by Mr. F. W. Drewry, two of the most prominent members of that organization, and both engaged in trade in a very large way, as they have been for the last third of a century. Mr. Ashdown is a very strong supporter of this government, while Mr. Drewrv is a good consistent Conservative. The.report as given in the Winnipeg ' Free Press ' is in these words:
The matter of Canadian trade with Germany, both import and export, was discussed by the meeting, which unanimously adopted the. following resolution, moved by J. H. Ash-' down and F. W. Drewry.
Whereas, in consequence of the late tarifi legislation of the United States, there is a probability of increased restrictions being placed upon our trade with that country, and
Whereas, the increase in population, products and known resources of the Dominion of Canada is so large, and so rapidly increasing, that it is especially desirable that our trade relations should be extended as far as possible, and kept upon the most friendly basis, and
Whereas, the German government, forgetting our right to deal as we saw fit with our mother country, did impose an extra charge on goods from Canada, and as a consequence a surtax was placed on German goods entering this country, and it is advisable that the unfriendly relations brought about by these actions should cease;
Therefore, be it resolved, that this board would urge on the Dominion government the advisability of meeting in the most friendly spirit any advances made by the government of Germany looking toward again placing the trade relations of the two countries on a mutually satisfactory and friendly basis.
If the same efforts were expended in that direction, without any derogation to the honour or the self-respect of this country, I 'think the results would be much better than we are likely to obtain from the treaty which has been the subject of discussion in this House this afternoon.-
Mr. Speaker, in speaking of the ratification of the French treaty it is not my intention to make any extended remarks, as the ground has been pretty thoroughly covered already by men more competent to deal with the subject than I can pretend to be. But as I had not an opportunity of voting on this question when it came up two years ago, and as I represent a rural constituency, I think it only right that I should express my views on this occasion. 1 have listened with a great deal of interest
to the addresses which have been given on this subject by gentlemen on both sides of the House. I was very much imnressed the other day with some remarks about the necessity of Canada maintaining her dignity in her [DOT]international relations, and not submitting to anything of the nature of dictation from the United States or any other foreign country. With that sentiment I am entirely in accord. In regulating our trade relations with other nations we should be governed solely by business considerations in the interest of Canada. I was especially struck with a remark made by the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) to the effect that we should maintain the dignity of Canada in such matters. But I could not help contrasting the present attitude of that hon. gentleman with his attitude previous to this government coming into power, when his motto was free trade as they have it in England *or unrestricted reciprocity, or anything or everything that would enable him to get into power, and he was ready to cast the dignity of Canada to the winds. I congratulate him on the different attitude he assumes to-day. Since he got a seat on the treasury benches, a change has cpie over the spirit of his dream, and he has been acquiring a little of that dignity as a Canadian that he should have had years ago. There is a phase of this trade question which lias not yet been touched upon, and to which I wish briefly to allude. Reference has been made by speakers on this side of the House to our trade with other countries. It is absolutely necessary that the people of Canada should look about for other markets for the products which this country is bound to produce in the years to come. But while we are seeking markets in France, Germany or any other country, to which I have no objection, I contend that we should consider the best market of all, that is, the home market; and in this respect I claim that the present administration has not shown either dignity or good sound common sense. Is it good sound common sense, for instance, for us to allow the Americans to bring their hay into Canada by paying a duty of $2 a ton, while they charge us $4 a ton on all the hay we send over there? Is it consistent with our dignity as a people that we should nermit American bacon to come into Canada to the extent of over 7,000,000 pounds at a duty of 2 cents per pound while they charge us a duty of 5 cents per pound on our bacon? Is it consistent with our position as a nation to permit them to export to this country potatoes, barley, oats, peas, beans, wheat and other products at less duty than they charge us on similar products? Is it good common sense for us to subsidize steamship lines which traverse the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and hunt up foreign markets while we allow American products to come in at an advantage although by their tariff they shut out our farm products? I protest against that jug handle policy. If the government would impose duties on American agricultural products equivalent to those imposed by the United States on our products, they would be doing more for the farmers of the Dominion than they could possibly do by five hundred French treaties.
Surprise has been expressed at the remarks made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) with reference to our cattle going into France. I am sure there is not a member in this House who will not agree with me that, under the restrictions imposed by that treaty, not one head of Canadian cattle will ever enter the French market. Not one cattle dealer here would undertake to export cattle to France under the restrictions imposed by the French treaty. I am not surprised, however, at the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture because he has already stated in this House that the farmers of the Dominion are a slipshod set of people, that they are indifferent, that they lack industry and enterprise. That statement was made by him last session, as will be found on reference to page 2030 of the ' Hansard,' March 3 last.
Certainly, I am most happy to oblige my hon. friend. On the 3rd of March last in this House the hon. minister said, speaking of the farmers of Canada and of their failure to take advantage of the work of the Department of Agriculture :
If they would make use of one-tenth of it and carry one hundredth part of it into their every day operations, the result would amount to tens of millions of dollars more from agricultural produce than there is today.
Then he went on to say, and I presume this is what my hon. friend is so anxious to hear:
It is the farmers' slipshod methods in this country which is the limit of our agricultural [DOT] production.
I _ want to enter my emphatic protest against that statement. I protest against it as an insult to the farmer. I have given the reason why our farmers are not making greater progress. That is due to the fact that the duties we impose on American farm produce milita'tes against the farmers of our own country and in favour of the farmers of the United States. The hon, minister said further:
We are fortunate in Canada in having established a reputation in the world's market for a fine quality of agricultural products.
A very strange remark in view of the hon. minister's statement that our farmers are a slinshod sort of people.
And to-day the great market of Great Britain and Ireland is reaching out and demanding more of our finished agricultural products than we are sending to it, and the prices we get for those articles which we do send are such as to give the farmers of this country who raise the goods and export them splendid results, and the only pity is that the farmers are not doubling and quadrupling their exports every year. If they do not do it, it is not for lack of teaching or for lack of knowledge; it is for their lack of interest in their work, their lack of industry and largely, I- believe, for the lack of that labour which is necessary in the carrying on of our farming operations.
If that is not a straight accusation hurled by the Minister of Agriculture, the man who is specially supposed to have the interests of agriculture in this country at heart-if that is not a straight charge by him that the farmers of Canada are a slipshod, lazy set of people, I do not understand the English language.
. We have had a statement made here by my hon. friend from East Elgin (Mr. Marshall) as regards the effect that the carrying out of this treaty would have on the industry in which he is interested and which is one of the most important in this country. That industry benefits the farmers of this country, and I am prepared to accept the statement made by the hon. gentleman that it will be seriously damaged if this treaty is ratified.
Other statements have been made by other members. The hon. member for Lincoln and Niagara (Mr. Lancaster) has expressed the opinion that the treaty will injuriously affect the farmers in the Niagara district. The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Campbell) has clearly pointed out that it vfrill have a bad effect on the cattle industry-of the west.
I am just going to make one statement further as to why I think this treaty should not be concluded at present. I am not going to say that we should not have a treaty with France. On the contrary I would hold up both hands for such a treaty as would increase the trade and prosperity of Canada. But the treaty now before us was brought up two years ago. Is it not true that the French Republic has taken ample time to consider how it affects their interests? No one will find fault with the French government for that. As business men they have given the matter very careful consideration. They have cut here and carved there and made the treaty to suit themselves, and in so doing they exercised their right as business men. But if they have taken ample time to consider the treaty from their standpoint, what harm will result from our taking a few months to consider it? There is undoubted-Mr. EDWARDS.
ly a spirit of unrest in England regarding tariff matters. I cannot predict what will take place there, but some change is likely in the course of the next few months, and I think it will be in our interest to wait a few months before ratifying this agreement. We ought to wait, because I believe that if we ratify the treaty now we shall pave the way for difficulties with regard to our trade with other countries which may result in very serious disadvantages to this country in time to come.
As one of the farmers of this Dominion, I would like to say that I do not think we are going to suffer at all through our cattle trade not going to France. I am sure my hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. Haggart) will agree with me, because some of his own friends along with myself did try shipping cattle to France, and I only wish there had been * some law against it ten or twenty years ago, for if there had, we would be all richer men to-day. It is impossible to ship cattle to France with any advantage to the shippers. I was struck, however, with the very unpatriotic speech made by my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule). It is quite unusual for him to be pandering to the United States as against the British empire. I could hardly believe my ears when I heard his utterances. Judging by his remarks, I can only come to the conclusion that he would prefer to have free trade with the United States rather than a preference for England. We certainly had one of the most unpatriotic speeches from that hon. gentleman that I have ever heard of anywhere, except some utterances at Lachine, in the riding of Jacques Cartier, a few nights ago.
With regard to the shipping of dressed meat our friend complains that there are no abattoirs. I can tell the hon. gentleman -and I am sure the hon. member from Winnipeg (Mr. Haggart) will back me up -that one of the best abattoirs in America is established in the city of Winnipeg and is under the management of good friends of his, Messrs. Gordon, Ironside & Fares. But the shipping of dressed beef from this country to Europe will not be a success owing to the climatic conditions and the short season.