1. What part or parts of the Prince Edward Island railway, if any, did that province cause to he built previous to confederation?
2. How many miles of said railway did the province build and pay for?
3. In what years wras such construction carried on by the province?
1. How much did the province expend on such work ?
5. Was such expenditure paid to said province? If so, how much, when, and in what manner P
6. Was such expenditure charged to the province on the arrangement of debt account with Canada? If so, in what year or years was it arranged and settled?
7. Did any other province in Canada except the maritime provinces construct railways at their own expense, and transfer them to Canada without compensation? If so, what province or provinces, what railway or railways, and at what cost to such province or provinces, respectively ?
Subtopic: GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS BUILT PREVIOUS TO CONFEDERATION.
Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair, I desire to make a few remarks on the proposed motion in respect to the subject that has engaged the attention of the House for the last two weeks. I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech of the Prime Minister yesterday but I trust he will pardon me for saying that in the absence of any convincing argument contained in that speech I am more absolutely opposed to this treaty after hearing it than I was before. The right hon. gentleman is sometimes fond of epithets. He indulged in them yesterday to a very con-
siderable extent. The protests of the market gardeners and fruit growers, the protests of the men engaged in the packing and milling industries in this country, even the earnest views of many men in this country who have as good claim to the title of Liberal as he has, are described by him by no better term than the howling of wolves. I would like to say to the right hon. gentleman that wolves sometimes stand savagely at bay. I observe in the Montreal ' Gazette ' of to-day that another gentleman who had not before given his opinions very fully, Sir William Van Horne, has now written a letter indicating his views upon this subject. I suppose that the opinions of Sir William Van Horne as a man of great business experience and knowledge of the conditions of this country, a man who, as he says, has not taken any part in politics, ought to be entitled to some respect. I do not know whether the right hon. gentleman would regard him as an addition to the pack of wolves which he described yesterday, but I do want at the very outset to read one or two paragraphs from that letter which has been made public only to-day, to the end that we may have recorded in Hansard another expression of opinion from one of the leading business men of this country. Sir William Van Horne says:
To my amazement and distress and shame I now see the magnificent work of a generation traded away for a vague idea or a childish sentiment-the splendid commercial and industrial position we have reached and our proud independence bartered for a few wormy plums, and I feel it my duty to join in the protest which is heard from every section of the country.
To-day we are in an enviable position, with a commerce three times as great per capita as that of the United States, and without a cloud in our sky save the one which has just now been raised. Does not common sense tell us to stay where we are and to let well enough alone?
I suppose the answer of the right hon. gentleman to that protest would be some fatuous reference such as he made yesterday to conditions as they are in China. I had not been aware that this country, according to the claims of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House had been governed during the past fifteen years by Chinese traditions and yet that is the direct logical result of the argument the right hon. gentleman made yesterday. I shall read also the concluding paragraph of the letter:
Let us not run away with the idea that if we make a mistake in this matter of reciprocity we shall be able to correct it at pleasure. We may not be permitted to do it. It should be remembered that there are such things as vested interests with nations as with individuals and corporations, and that Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
tho vested interests of nations, real or alleged, are terribly binding upon the weaker party. When Mr. Hill has extended his seven or eight lines of railway into the Canadian northwest lines which have for some years been resting their noses on the boundary line waiting for reciprocity, or something of the kind, to warrant them in crossing-and when other American channels of trade have been established, affecting our territory, and when the American millers have tasted our wheat and the American manufacturers have got hold of our markets, is it probable that we shall be permitted to recede? Not a bit of it. We are making a bed to lie in and die in.
A very considerable part of the time of my right hon. friend yesterday was devoted to resuscitating very old speeches of himself and others of twenty years ago. Has the right hon. gentleman been asleep? Must we in future dub him Sir Wilfrid Rip Van Winkle. This is not 1854, this is not 18G6, this is not 1879, this is not 1897. Will the Prime Minister wake up and remember that this is 1911? The question is one of national gravity and the country is not very seriously concerned as to whether the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has a good memory or a bad memory. About twenty or twenty-five minutes *were devoted to that subject yesterday. The right hon. gentleman indulged in an occasional sneer in the course of his remarks; and he sneered at the business ability of the hon. member for North Toronto. It is not very customary in this House to go into criticisms of the private affairs of any hon, member; and I would like to say to the Prime Minister that if any man is unfortunate enough to make mistakes in respect to his own private affairs he bears the penalty, but if a man at the head of affairs in this country makes mistakes, he does it at the expense of the country and not at his own expense.
To come down to a question of reasonable business statement, where do we find the Prime Minister in his remarks of yesterday? Why, Sir, the Prime Minister of this country used as an argument in favour of his reciprocity proposals these statements-I do not know whether he intended them to be serious or jocular.
One thing is certain, one thing cannot be denied, that the relations which have existed between the two countries for the last fifty years, especially for the last twenty years, still more for the last twelve years, and which almost came to a crisis a year ago-those relations have been a blot upon the civilization of the two countries.
Mark what follows:
They have amounted practically to a proclamation of non-commercial intercourse between the two countries, so far as legislation could bring that about.
Later on, in the following column of * Hansard/ he reiterates the same state-
ment that there has been substantially a policy of non-intercourse between Canada and the United States especially during the past ten years. I take the last ten years and I find that during that period our imports from the United States amounted to $1,555,000,000; our exports to the United States during the same period amounted to $763,000,000, and the Prime Minister of Canada, making I suppose, a serious statement, tells us as an argument in favour of his reciprocity proposals that there has been practically no commercial intercourse between Canada and the United States during that period. Did the Prime Minister intend to be taken seriously? What does he say about the conditions between this country and Great Britain? Has there been a condition of non-intercourse between Canada and the mother country absolutely so, according to his own argument yesterday? Because if you take the total trade between Canada and the mother country during the past ten years, you will find it is about $300,000,000 less than the trade between Canada and the United States. If the Prime Minister desires to modify that outrageous statement to which I have just called attention, I will give him an opportunity to do so at this moment. Why, Mr. Speaker, last year the imports from the United States into Canada amounted to three-fifths of the total imports into this country; and yet the right hon. gentleman as the head of this government declares, as a serious argument that these proposals should be put through the parliament of Canada, that there has been a condition of practical commercial non-intercourse between Canada and the United States in the past ten years.
The right hon. gentleman went on to say that you cannot control trade, you cannot affect trade, by legislation. What, then, is the object of these proposals? Why, at the Imperial Conference of 1907 the Prime Minister referred over and over again to efforts made by legislation in this country to direct trade into British channels, a policy which he has absolutely departed from in bringing these proposals before parliament. At that conference he said:
So far as legislation oan influence trade, we have done everything possible to push our trade towards the British people as against the American people.
Then Mr. Asquith interposed:
May I say I did not in the least dispute that? My object was not, os I think I made clear, in any sense to complain of the Canadian preference; on the contrary, I recognize both its intention and its effect. My point was that natural conditions were such that it was inevitable that the Americans should get the best of it.
To which the Prime Minister responded, 'exactly.' He went on to say;
Not only have we done it by preference, by legislation, but we have forced our trade against the laws of nature and geography. If we were to follow the laws of nature and geography between Canada and the United States, the whole trade would flow from south to north, and from north to south. We have done everything 'possible by building canals and subsidizing railways to bring the trade from west to east and east to west so as to bring trade into British channels. All this we have done, recognizing the principle of the great advantage of forcing trade within the British empire.
To-day he is entering upon a policy which is absolutely divergent from that which he laid down at that conference. Trade cannot be controlled by legislation? Ask the millers of the western United States whether or not trade can be controlled by legislation. Look at the exultation of these men. I have their views under my hand, but I will not weary the House with them, as they have already been quoted. They point out the enormous advantage to the milling interest of the United States and to the industries associated with that interest which would be brought about by their having a supply of raw material from Canada. Ask also the American Newspaper Publishers' Association whether or not these proposals will have any effect upon the manufacturers of the United States in relation to our pulpwood. I will quote a memorandum of these gentlemen under date of January 28, 1911, and signed by Mr. John Norris, chairman of the committee on paper. These gentlemen say:
This draft is entirely satisfactory to publishers. It will provide for the immediate entry of print paper and wood pulp from Canada, The snarl with' the provinces of Canada has been completely avoided by an entirely new turn to the stipulations, which now follow the wood-not _ the province. If wood is free from restriction, such as wood from private lands, the products of that wood will come into the United States free of duty. A province owning land holds the same relation to the Dominion government that an ordinary land owner maintains. The province has no power to stop the exportation of wood from private lands in that province. Recent tariff legislation in the United States aimed to coerce provinces of Canada to part with Crown land wood and those provinces resented such coercion. In the reciprocity arrangement, each province can do with its own land as it pleases and can do this without affecting the immediate and free entry of paper and pulp made from wood cut on private lands in that province. The distinction between wood free from restriction of exportation and wood that is not free will show itself in various ways. Print paper made from wood cut on lands subject to restriction will he liable to a duty of $5.75 per ton of paper. That duty will be prohibitory in competition with paper made from wood cut on private^ lands. The provinces of Quebec and Ontario have been offering premiums and inducements for the transfer of American paper industries to Canada. Brown
Bros, of Berlin Mills, N.H., recently installed a plant at La Tuque, Quebec, and propose tr expand it materially. That plant depends on Crown lands for its timber supply. The International Paper Company bas been flirting with the Quebec government for similar concessions. The reciprocity clause will give no encouragement to such diversion of industry from the United States to Canada. A barrier of $5.75 per ton on print paper will confront such products until the Quebec government removes the prohibition. The revenues which the province now obtains on wood cut from its Crown lands and shipped in manufactured form to the United States will be diverted from the Quebec treasury to the owners of private lands. The pressure from holders of Crown lands limits upon the provincial authorities for an opportunity to reach the greatest market in the world, that of the United States, will be irresistible and a diplomatic victory in the removal of restrictions will have been achieved without harshness, or coercion, or ill feeling of any sort. Each side will obtain an advantage, and that is the element of a good trade.
Then the memorandum goes on to show in what respect each side does get an advantage, and I quote its concluding words:
Under the new arrangement, American paper makers will gain a large market for their products in Canada, especially in the higher grades of paper.
The ultimate outcome of the proposed reciprocity arrangement, if ratified, will be a tendency toward the concentration of the pulp business in Canada and the conversion on this side of those pulps into paper, with great growth and advantages for each side.
Every one knows what that means; the finished product is to be manufactured in the United 'States with a maximum of wages paid to the labouring men of the United States, and the minimum labour on that product will be expended in Canada with a minimum of wages to Canadian workingmen.
My right hon. friend says that present conditions are not really altered by these proposals at all-that we can now export in bond to the United States, and that everything will go on exactly as it does at present with respect to the export of our products through United States ports. I am not going into that subject to-day beyond saying this, that if my right hon. friend will consult any business man in this country who has had any experience in such matters, he will find that he never made a greater mistake than he did when he made that statement. Conditions have been entirely altered, and there will be facilities for exporting through United States ports which are unknown to-day.
My right hon. friend says that these proposals will not affect the possibility of a preference. How is it possible that American wheat can come freely into Canada,- and no restrictive conditions can be imposed under this arrangement-and that Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
Great Britain can at the same time give an effective preference on Canadian wheat? I would like to see how the right hon. gentleman can work that out. That may be his opinion, but it is not the opinion of business men, who, in respect of a matter like this, ought to be able to offer a judgment entitled certainly to as great respect as that of the Prime Minister. Mr. James J. Hill, one of the shrewdest men on the American continent, puts the matter squarely as an issue between Imperial confederation and continental union The two, he thinks, cannot go together. He pays no heed to the effect of the latter on. Canada, but thinks only of its advantage to the States. A fifteen cent import tax on grain in England, he says, would retain the whole of the grain industry and all its allied industries to Canada, and develop the all red imperial lines of communication, and the building up of manufactures in Canada and the old country. But if this reciprocity treaty be accepted, such a duty will not be imposed. The grain grown in the central provinces of Canada will be shipped across the border, will be milled there, the flour will be shipped along American lines, and the by-products will be retained to feed and fatten American stock. And so with all other natural resources^ of this country. So with many articles which we could with advantage work up in this country into the finished product and export to the markets of the world.
Then my right hon. friend dealt with the question of natural resources, and here he was delightfully amusing. He referred to my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) as an Indian, because the Indians had not developed the natural resources of this country. I would like to call my hon. friend's attention to one or two other characteristics of the Indians. In days gone by they owned the whole of this continent, and there are traditions, and even veritable history, that some shrewd trader, with a few old muskets, some gaudy cotton, bright coloured scarves and attractive beads, would often acquire 20,000 or 30,000 or 40,000 square miles of land in exchange for them. Well, unfortunately for Canada, the political Indians of the country are on the treasury benches to-day. Mr. Speaker, I do not desire to depart in any way from parliamentary language; therefore I withdraw that expression, and apologize to the Indians, because I am sure that there are thousands ' of Indians in Canada to-day who would be too intelligent to have embarked this country on such an enterprise as that which is before this House at the present time.
My right hon. friend says that the proposals he has made do not in any way imperil our industries. Well, let us look at that for a moment. Let me read what the
right hon. gentleman says with regard to the matter:
There are men who believe that we are going to recklessly ruin industry and capital. Capital is timid under all circumstances and the man who is at the head of affairs and the ministers who assist him, would not be worthy of the public confidence if they were not always careful to see that capital will be safe, whenever it is invested in any industry in this country.
Topic: WAYS AND MEANS-RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH UNITED STATES.
Not in the least. My hon. friend will observe that we have not obtained for the manufacturers a free market on the other side of the line, but we have obtained a free market for the fruit growers.
What, then, will be the answer of the right hon. gentleman when he opens this country to the manufacturers of the United States? Exactly what is contained in the answer he has given to my hon. friend from Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell):-We have opened to you the markets, of the United States, and therefore, you have absolutely no ground of complaint. I am taking his own reason and even his very words. In fact, it is exactly along the line of what he said on 17th of November, 1891, in Boston, for I have his words as then reported, and they can be verified:
We are willing, therefore, whenever a new treaty is negotiated between the two nations that it shall not apply to one class but to all classes of goods, whether natural or manufactured.
Well, does the right hon. gentleman imagine for one moment that the farmers, of this country will submit to have competition with twelve or fourteen countries in the world, under a system of free trade in natural products whan they are called upon to pay taxes on every manufactured product that comes into this country? Will they be willing to undertake this 'burden for the benefit of our industries? I can best answer that question by a quotation which I will give .to my right hon. friend. This, is the view, not of farmers in Canada, but of farmers in the United States. It is a reasonable view from the farmers' standpoint, and I think it is much more convincing for the point it makes than anything uttered iby my right hon. friend in his long speech of yesterday, I quote from page 24t of the hearings before the committee of Ways and Means in the United States House of Representatives:
This Bill puts the farmers' products on the free list, and taxes the articles in the form in which they reach the consumer. Do you suppose for one single instant, gentlemen, that the farmers of this country who have
furnished the money, and are to-day furnishing the money for the best market of our manufacturing interests in this country, do not understand this argument? Do you believe they will ever tamely submit? No; never.
We insist that there shall be no free trade for the farmers and high tariff for the manufacturers, but that if the farm products go on the free list, manufactured articles must also be made free, and they will, inside of a very short time.
That argument, made by the farmers of the United States is precisely the argument which will he made by the farmers of Canada, and especially by those engaged in every one of these industries which have been injuriously affected by the proposals of the government.
Now, my right hon. friend dealt with the question of imports from the twelve favoured nations to whom our markets will be opened by these proposals. I am not going to spend very much time on that, but what the right hon. gentleman said deserves some .answer. What he says amounts to this: Because we have few imports under a protective tariff from these twelve or fourteen countries, therefore we shall have no greater imports when the protective tariff is abolished. What, then, is the object of these proposals? Will these proposals create no changed trade conditions between Canada and the United States? If they are likely to change trade conditions between Canada and the United States, are they not equally likely to produce changed conditions between all the countries I have referred to and Canada. Has the Prime Minister taken the trouble to investigate the products of these various countries? Has he any idea of the wages of labour and the cost of production in any one of the countries he mentioned yesterday? I have an interesting statement under my hand which has been compiled from official sources by my hon. friend from Grenville (Mr. Reid). I will not attempt to give the data with regard to these countries, but only one or two items with regard to one country, and the House can judge as to the value of the argument put forward by the right hon. gentleman yesterday. Argentine, in 1909, exported 461,595,818 pounds of frozen beef, the export value being $20,210,525, or an average of 4J cents per pound, when exported. The same country exported in the same year 146,555,326 pounds of frozen mutton, having an export value of $5,133,426, ot 3J cents per pound. What is tihe cost of transportation from Argentine to Canada? What will he the duties on these meats when .they reach Canada? Beef and mutton can 'be laid down from Argentine in Canada, freight and duty
paid, at between 6 cents and 7 cents per pound. And the Prime Minister seriously assured this House in his speech of yesterday that conditions in this country are not likely to lead to any competition with the products of Canada. Further than that, Argentine exported in 1909, 8,799,764 pounds of butter, the export value being $1,459,591 or 17} cents per pound. Under these circumstances, it is utterly idle for the Prime Minister to pTetend that trade conditions between Canada and the various countries which have been enumerated will not be altered by the consummation of these proposals..
Now, I come more particularly to the matter which is touched by my motion. The Prime Minister thinks that he has had a mandate for these reciprocity proposals. He admits that no election has been held at which that subject has been discussed, since 1891. He admits that his own government took off the statute book the standing offer of reciprocity in 1897. He admits that there was no discussion and no issue raised in the elections of 1900, 1904 and 1908. Yet, for some mysterious reason, he finds a mandate where no one else in the whole country can find it. I venture to say to the Tight hon, gentleman that he had a better mandate at every one of these elections to abolish the Senate than he had to make this arrangement so seriously affecting the business of this country. He says he merely discontinued his efforts for reciprocity. He never asked or received a _ mandate to renew them. Did he receive a mandate to restore the standing offer of reciprocity? That is what he proposes to do. He abolished it in 1897 and, in addition, as has been pointed out over and over again, in this House, he most distinctly gave a pledge to this country that there should be an investigation by royal commission before any substantial change was made in the fiscal conditions of this country. He proposes now a standing offer of reciprocity-because that is the result, now that the Congress of the United States has declined to ratify these proposals and to put them into effect. Would it be wise and dignified for us in this country to put out another standing offer of reciprocity, after having maintained one on the statute-book of this country without effect for more than twenty years? Congress has declined to carry out the proposals. Another party has come into power in Congress, and it is altogether uncertain that the special session will pass these proposals. Meantime, we are to pass them and to wait the pleasure of the United States, as we did in the thirty years between 1866 and 1896.
My Tight hon. friend the Prime Minister says that wre wore out a good deal of shoe leather between 1866 and 1896 in endeavour-Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
ing to get reciprocity. He now proposes to wear out a little more. Well, I respectfully submit that the time has come when we should wear out no more shoe leather in endeavouring to obtain reciprocity, and that it is now the turn of the United States to wear out some of their excellent shoe leather in coming to this country for reciprocity if they desire it. What is the present situation? Is there anything to be lost by holding our hands? Let us look for a moment at the programme of the Democratic party in that country. Every one who has followed political events and political agitation in the United States knows that the Democratic party has been pledged for many years to a lower tariff. The platform of that party has been a lower tariff and a reduction of the high cost of living. What does their leader in Congress say on that point? I shall quote from Mr. Clark, of Missouri, who, I understand, will be the next speaker in the House of Representatives, and who is the virtual leader of that party in the United States Congress at present. Mr. Clark said on the 14th of February last:
I wish to suggest to my party fellows that if this Bill is passed it is not the end of the chapter, or the end of the world. At high noon on the 4th day of March. we shall come into the possession of this House, and if this treaty does not go as far as we want it to go, we can then make it go still further. (Applause on the Democrat side.)
Topic: WAYS AND MEANS-RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH UNITED STATES.
Mr. CLARK, of Missouri. I think we might amend it and pass it. The chances are that we would pass a tariff Bill that would very largely take the place of this Bill; a Bill that, to say nothing of this Bill at all, will go into every branch of the subject; a Bill or Bills. And I want to say that while I am in favour of taking a separate Bill for a separate schedule, in order to expedite revision downwards, in the end 14 separate Bills for 14 separate schedules would amount to an entire tariff Bill. The Democrats are committed to a revision of the tariff, and so far as this House is concerned, we are going to revise, wisely and thoroughly, according to promise.
Further on he says:
Topic: WAYS AND MEANS-RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH UNITED STATES.