May 2, 1911

RATES OF DUTY ON CANADIAN PRODUCTS ON IMPORTATION INTO NEW ZEALAND.


Cattle, $2.43 each. Swine and sheep, free. Barley, 48 6 cents per 100 pounds. Beans, 18-2 cents per 100 pounds. Wheat, 18-2 cents per 100 pounds. Potatoes, 21.7 cents per 100 pounds. Butter, 20 per cent. Cheese, 20 per cent. Eggs, 20 per cent. Hay, 20 per cent. Let me now refer very briefly to our hog production-certainly a very important industry. I find that in the United States they have 49,000,000 hogs and in Canada 3,000,000. That is they have sixteen hogs to our one in the slaughter houses of the United States. Hogs in Canada and the United States average about 200 pounds or a little more. The average price in the United States is $6.85 per hundred, or $13.70 for the average hog. The price in Canada is $8.10 per hundred or $16.20 per hog. So, you would have a loss to the, Canadian farmer under this agreement of $1.18 per hundred, or the loss of $2.36 per hog. This is on the basis of five years' average for the two places. No man will pretend that the one hog is going to govern the prices for the sixteen hogs; the price will be regulated rather by the sixteen hogs. Let me give you the prices in Chicago and in tngersoll for the last ten years:


AVERAGE PRICES OF HOGS IN CHICAGO AND IN INGERSOLL-


Price at Price at Year. Chicago. Ingersoll. 1901 $5 71 $6 701902 6 701 6 681903 5 88 6 071904 5 04 5 321905 5 18 6 411906 6 23 7 171907 6 091 6 851908 5 364 6 871909 7 531 8 041910 8 59J 9 11 And now, a few figures showing prices in Chicago and Montreal, respectively: AVERAGE PRICE OF HOGS IN CHICAGO AND MONTREAL FOR THE FIVE YEARS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1910 : Chicago. Montreal. 1906 $6 20 $7 771907 6 10 7 431908 5 70 7 101909 7 35 8 641910 8 90 9 60 I also have some figures in connection with the large amount of hogs which we are delivering from year to year to the packing houses, but these I will not Tead. These figures were somewhat a surprise to me. I will not give each month, though one thing that struck me as important, was the great regularity for the different months. The total for the year was 1,133,000. Now, if we take cattle, we find that practically the same conditions exist. Let us compare the prices in Chicago and Toronto. Here are the figures: Comparative prices of cattle in Toronto and Chicago. Table of prices from 1901 to 1910, in the month of May each year: Toronto. Chicago. 1901 $4 25 $3 951902 5 25 5 001903 1 90 4 061901 5 20 4 901905 5 70 5 501906 5 10 4 001907 5 12 h 4 001908 5 50 5 001909 5 75 5 101910 7 00 6 25 So we find that cattle in Canada also bring a better price than on the other side, I see no reason to believe that we should gain in that connection by the reciprocity pact. When it comes to horses, we stand to lose a very great deal, not only in Ontario, but in the western provinces. The average price of horses in the United States to-day is about $108, while the average price in Canada is about $130. Not only that, but take my own country, where we used to buy a great many horses, but where to-day, we are exporters of horses. We sell many of them and sell them at good prices. What occurred two years ago? The very same thing that will occur when this pact is signed. We have coming into that country a lot of these western horses, cheap horses, whose coming was exceedingly detrimental to that country. We could not keep them out except through our customs. It was provided that horses of the value of $50 or less had to pay $12.50 in coming in. That absolutely stopped that class of horses coming in. Of course you would not bring in horses costing $25 and $30 and pay $12.50 duty on them. Hence we have got rid of all that class of horses, and at present I think I may say without boasting that we have in Manitoba as fine a class of working horses as are to be found in any other province in the Dominion. Perhaps when you come to driving horses, we cannot boast much. But it is draught horses that are of commercial value, and there is scarcely a town of 500 or 1,000 people in that country that did not export last year four or five carloads of horses. Now we do not want that


CON

Frederick Laurence Schaffner

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SCHAFFNER.

trade interfered with, we do not want this pact signed, we do not want this reciprocity in horses after we have spent so long a time in bringing up the splendid class of horses we have to-day, and we don't want these cheap horses coming in, as they will if this pact is signed.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-RECIPROCAL TRADE AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   AVERAGE PRICES OF HOGS IN CHICAGO AND IN INGERSOLL-
Permalink
LIB

John B. McColl

Liberal

Mr. McCOLL (Northumberland).

Where were those horses exported to?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-RECIPROCAL TRADE AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   AVERAGE PRICES OF HOGS IN CHICAGO AND IN INGERSOLL-
Permalink
CON

Frederick Laurence Schaffner

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SCHAFFNEE.

Perhaps I made a mistake in saying they were exported; I meant to say that they were sent out of Manitoba, sent to British Columbia, Alberta, Kainy Eiver, and other places. Manitoba is doing a large interprovincial trade in horses, and we found them a great benefit last year when the crop was not goon There is no question that this pact would destroy absolutely our interprovincial trade in horses. On the question of interprovm-cial trade, I may remark that last year there was an interprovincial trade of about $14,000,000 between the prairie provinces and British Columbia. Now does any hon. gentleman in this House suppose for one moment that that interprovincial trade will continue, or that it will prosper if this pact is signed? For my part I do not.

I have here a comparison from a United States government report showing that land values rose more rapidly in the Bo-minion than in the republic:

Between 1900 and 1910:

Maine.. . [DOT]

Nova Scotia

New Hampshire

New Brunswick

Vermont

Prince Edward Island .

Quebec

Michigan

Ontario

Minnesota

Manitoba

Saskatchewan

Alberta

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-RECIPROCAL TRADE AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   AVERAGE PRICES OF HOGS IN CHICAGO AND IN INGERSOLL-
Permalink
?

Per Cent. . ..@

67 . ..181 . .. 37 . ..120 . .. 33 . .. ' 70 . .. 80 . .. 39 . .. 43 . .. 77 . .. 123 . ..201 . ..185

Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to dwell a little while on the question of these favoured nations. We have favoured nation treaties with the Argentine Kepublic, Austria-Hungary, Bolivia, Colombia, Denmark, Japan, Norway, Eussia, Spam, Sweden, Switzerland, Venezuela. Now we are asked many times: Do we need to fear these favoured nations? They do not send anything into Canada. But I find they do. I find they send a great many million dollars' worth of their products into Canada, even while they have been paying a duty, and it stands to reason that when the duty is taken off their imports will be greatly increased. Take the case of eggs and butter, there is now a duty of 4 cents

a pound on butter and 3 cents a dozen on eggs. Take off that duty, and it gives so much more profit to the exporter of those articles into Canada. We have had $30,000,000 worth of the products of those countries coming into Canada, and we may reasonably expect that the trade will greatly increase when the duties are taken off. And we must keep in mind the fact if we wish to send our natural products to any of the countries named we are met with a light tariff, while this pact permits their natural products to come into Canada free. I have a table showing the imports into Canada for home consumption from the most favoured nation countries during the period of six years:

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-RECIPROCAL TRADE AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   AVERAGE PRICES OF HOGS IN CHICAGO AND IN INGERSOLL-
Permalink

IMPORTS INTO CANADA FOR HOME CONSUMPTION FROM MOST FAVOURED NATION COUNTRIES DURING SIX YEARS.


Article. Quantity. Butter lbs. 2,894,416 Cheese " 2,901,815 Eggs doz. 4,600,534 Poultry Potatoes bush. 1,422,829 Beef (salted) lbs. 10,610,533 Bacon and hams.. .. *' 35,140,613 Mutton " 6,317,785 Pork (in brine) .. .. " 51,826,804 Other meat products.. " 13,028,060 Cattle head 45,086Horses " 57,565Sheep " 359,447Swine lbs. 184,779Barley bush. 280,314Beans " 307,211Buckwheat " 6,311Oats " 1,168^266Pease " 51,241Bye " 145,920Wheat " 373,979Hay tons 49,974Flaxseed bush. 4,702,090Apples brls. 239,647 Vegetables (except potatoes) __________ Value. 685,306 566,786 944,704 276,648 926,693 502,831 4,312,359 440,317 4,250,673 1,567,251 640,514 2,920,117 1,151,022 12,696 174,504 490,343 6,177 603,264 120,840 112,950 317,748 853,059 5,747,612 975,870 4,755,980 1903 over $4,000,000 worth of cattle, and over $1,500,000 of butter. Austria-Hungary exported of eggs and cheese more than $10,000,000. Denmark, to my great surprise, a little country with a population of 2,500,000, made 169,000,000 pounds of butter, and exported $10,000,000 worth. Russia exported animals valued at $12,000,000, and butter valued at $24,000,000; wheat flour and barley, $200,000,000. Australia and New Zealand, although not favoured nations, will come in under this pact. Australia exported butter, cheese and eggs to the value of $12,000,000. New Zealand sent out $16,000,000 worth of meat, and $12,000,000 worth of butter^ and cheese. Speaking of wheat, the question has been put up to me that we have been exporting wheat already through the United States. That is quite true, but it has been going through in bond, and that is a very different thing. When wheat goes through bond the by-product could not be utilized in the United States, and had to be sent through bond also. After this pact is signed our wheat will go to the United States to be ground by their millers and the by-product will be sold in the United States for feeding their hogs. If we wish to get any of that by-product returned to Canada, as my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Sharpe) said last night, we will.have to pay a duty of 12$ cents per 100 pounds. I would like to place on record a statement of some of the natural resources of Canada as estimated: Standing timber, 500 billion feet. Wheat lands, 117 million acres. Coast fisheries, 12,500 miles. Fresh water fisheries, 440,000 miles. Our coal is estimated at 172,000,000,000 tons; we have produced $260,000,000 of gold; silver mines rank third in the world; nickel, we have three-fifths of the world.



Now we can easily imagine that when tire door is thrown open and their goods can enter Canada free of duty, these 307,000,000 people inhabiting the favoured nations will very greatly increase their exports into Canada. The question of eggs is an exceedingly interesting one. The hen seems to be a very valuable bird. I was surprised to learn that the United States, whose greatest natural product is corn, has its second greatest product, eggs. I find that in the month of February alone we imported from the United States over 700,000 dozen of eggs, paying the duty. Australia last year exported $6,000,000, and the Argentine $5,000,000 worth of frozen mutton and other frozen meats. New Zealand exported $17,500,000 of cattle; the Argentine, $4,000,000. These cattle can come directly into Canada, paying no duty. The Argentine exported in In 1904, we produced 509,000,000 tons of iron ore and in 1910, $507,000,000; dairy products, $98,000,000; timber cut, $63,000,000; fisheries, $30,000,000. The United States having been extravagant, according to the confession of President Taft, their resources are becoming scarce, and it is only natural that, although they have ignored us for 40 years, they are now exceedingly anxious to get our raw material. That was_well explained by my hon. friend from Dundas (Mr. Broder), the other night. What do they want it for? They want us, with our unskilled labour, to gather up this raw material, send it over to the United States in order that they may employ their skilled labour and machinery in manufacturing it and that they may then send it back to Canada in the form of manufactured articles for which we are expected to pay an increased price. A good illustration of



that is afforded by the item of pulpwood. By the employment of unskilled labour at costs $6 to produce a cord of pulpwood. 'They send that to the United States where, with their skilled labour, they manufacture it and then send it back here and charge us $45 for it. I for one cannot consent to give my vote for a pact which does that for Canada. I would rather that we should continue to build up our country in the way we are now doing. We are not only doing that but we are causing a good deal of worry to men on the other side of the line, like Governor Foss, of Massachusetts, and others. They are not pleased with the fact that Americans are sending their money over here to establish mills and industries. Something like $223,000,000 of American money has been utilized in that way in this country and that fact is worrying these gentlemen very much. Now, I desire to refer to the question of barley. There has been a great deal said about barley and my hon. friend from Lisgar made some statements that I would not like to make. Before 1893, the duty on barley was 30 cents a bushel. Between 1893 and 1897 the duty was reduced to 15 cents a bushel and the price of barley went down 11 cents. We find that when the duty was raised to 30 cents again _ the price again increased, and we flncj_ that during the three years preceding the lowering of the duty the average price in thd United States was 44 cents a bushel and that during the three years since the restoration of the duty the price went up. There is another important feature in connection with barley that does not perhaps so much appeal to us in the west at this moment, but I think there is no hon. gentleman in this House but will agree with me that we will have to do a little different system of farming in the west. The best thing that ever happened in Ontario was the raising of the duty on barley going into the United States. The Ontario farmers went into hog raising and the Ontario Agricultural College at Guelph informs us that three and a half pounds of barley makes a pound of pork. It is stated that the adoption of this process makes barley worth 97 cents a bushel. It has been flashed all over this country that barley is worth 90 cents in the United States. While we get a much lower figure in Winnipeg, it is very easily explained. In the west, and I believe also in Ontario, they are not growing very much malting barley. I believe that 90 per cent of the barley that is grown is feed barley and there is not a tremendous difference in the price of barley. The barley that is bringing 90 per cent a bushel is malting barley grown in South Dakota. I would like to say a word in regard to Mr. SCHAFFNER. the preference. I believe that British mutual preference would be of very much more benefit to us than any thing in connection with this pact, and I believe that they are rapidly coming to it in the old country. Hon. gentlemen in this House may not agree with me, but the fact is that about 48 per cent of the people of the old country in the last election voted for mutual preference. I would like to read to the House the words of Mr. Balfour: There could not be a prelude to controversy more clear and more decisive than that of coming to a friendly arrangement between the mother country and the Dominions, though the Dominions ask for it, and though a vast section of our own population ask for it also. I really cannot imagine on what this is founded. . . They will not treat the colonies better than they treat foreign nations, and that is the broad difference between us. We think that, it would be for the benefit of the empire as a whole, for the benefit of the empire as an economic whole, if we did treat our self-governing colonies better than we treat the foreigners. That is the difference between the government and ourselves, and upon that difference I am perfectly certain that in the long run the good sense of the people to which the right hon. gentleman appeals, certainly the verdict of history will be on our side. That is what Mr. Balfour says in connection with the mutual preference. I call the attention of the House to what Mr. J. J. Hill thinks about it; he says: The pending reciprocity treaty before Congress is the most important this country has had before it since the civil war. If, after having Canada waiting for years, they turn her down again, our country will suffer, and one of the hardest hit of our industries will bo that of wheat raising. England is waiting and watching for just that thing to happen. Within itlie fortnight Austen Chamberlain had called up for decision in the British parliament the measures providing an imperial federation for England and her colonies. Suppose that Canada joins the imperial federation of English colonies, as is proposed. A reasonable differentia! that England might impose upon our wheat would be 15 cents a bushel, and that would mean our wheat growers would find their whole product lowered that much per bushel in value. Great Britain would take over practically all of tb [DOT] $200,000,000 in round numbers that Canada now pays us for manufactured articles, then add the six hundred and more millions we export to Great Britain, and we find that, if we fail to adopt a reciprocity agreement with Canada and drive it to an imperial federation, we are cheapening our wheat crop annually, say, 15 cents per bushel, and at the same time we are losing $800,000,000 of export business to England and Canada. Now, may I refer to the question of timber. What the Americans would do to Canadian forests may be judged by what they have done to their own. Any one who fifty years ago could have seen the vast extent of virgin timber in the United States, an area of forest which in quality, quantity, variety and value had not its equal in the world, would surely have exclaimed: 'Here is a forest which can supply all the needs of man for all time to come.' Within one short half-century the American people have, before their arable lands were ail brought under cultivation, before their population reached 100 millions, so reduced that forest by wasteful exploitation, by Are and by lack of skilful management that they are now seeking access to a foreign supply. Within fifty years the American people, though fewer in number than they are now, though dealing with their own property, have consumed a forest wealth at least thirty times as great as that of Canada at the present day. The rapid wasteful exploitation of forest areas in the United States has left that country in an unenviable position. With a population twelve times as great as that of Canada the United States has forest resources only four times as great. The timber in the United States will last the people twenty-ftve to thirty years. The timber of Canada would last them seven years. Combined, the timber of both countries would supply the citizens of both countries under present conditions of use perhaps thirty-five years. There is the secret of the great American desire to secure free Canadian timber, the ' far-sighted policy,' of which President Taft speaks. In the United States the securing of free Canadian timber will have a great effect in giving United States forests a rest. On the other hand the free entry of Canadian lumber into the United States will have quite different results in Canada. The chief effect will be the hastening of the destruction of Canadian forests. In short the wholesale selling of our timber to the Americans at the present time can only have one result, the denudation of our forests without adequate provision for their renewal, and the subsequent development of a timber famine in Canada. If I remember correctly the Minister of Customs gave an expression to sentiments that I would rather not hear coming from a minister of the Crown. He told us he was quite willing that the Americans should have our raw material including our timber, but I do not think that such a policy would be in the interests of Canada; on th [DOT] contrary I believe that such a policy would be most detrimental to our future prosperity. Now, Mr. Chairman, I shall briefly refer to the transportation question. One of the greatest difficulties of making farming profitable in the west is the high rates for transportation in this country. We have spent a great deal for the construction of Canadian railways, as the following figures will show:


EXPENDITURE ON RAILWAYS UP TO


Federal government $127,000,000 Provincial governments .. .. 36,000,000 Municipalities 18,000,000 The total cash expenditure for railways by the people of Canada since 1878 amounts to nearly $500,000,000. In addition to that the federal and provincial governments guaranteed bonds for railway construction in Canada to the extent of $27,000,000, and in addition to that the various governments federal and provincial have granted in aid of railway construction no less than 35,000,000 acres of the public domain. I have said that one of the great difficulties in making farming profitable in the west is the high cost of transportation, and I say that our way out of that difficulty is not through the south. That is not going to help us. It is just as far from the town in which I live to the seaboard of the States as it is to the seaboard of Canada, and the only way you are going to help us in the matter of transportation is by carrying out the policy advocated by the Conservative party for years, and building the Hudson Bay railway over which there will only be 500 or 600 miles of land haul for our wheat. That, no doubt, will settle the question of transportation and consequently make our wheat more valuable to the farmers. Notwithstanding that the hour is late, I must put on ' Hansard ' the remarks made by iSir Wilfrid Laurier when he introduced the measure for the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and what he said was true then, and is true to-day. But, why has he changed his mind so frequently, and why did he change his mind so frequently on the tariff before and after he came into power? They say that if you ask an Oriental a question his great desire is to find out what answer you want him to give, and it does seem to me that the right hon. the Prime Minister has an Oriental tinge to .his character because he appears to be so anxious to please with his answer that he finds himself in a maze of contradictions. The argument advanced by the First Minister for the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific is absolutely opposed to this reciprocity agreement with the United States. He said in July 10, 1903, * Hansard ' page 7670: Now, Sir, we lay it down as a principle, upon which we are to be judged by friend and foe, that we are- to have a transcontinental railway, that its terminus must be in Canadian waters, and that the whole line, every inch of it, must be in Canadian _ territory. We say further that such a line is of necessity to our commercial independence. Sir, I am surprised at the levity displayed by some hon. gentlemen on so grave a question. The right hon. gentleman was surprised again. He told us at the beginning of the



session that there would be an investigation before a change was made in the tariff. The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Harris) told us that he had the word of the Prime Minister that before any tariff changes were made, there would be an investigation. The right hon. gentleman also said the same thing to the farmers of the west, and in making that declaration, spoke in a constitutional businesslike manner. He went on to say: What have you to say to-day to this? What are your minds running to when you have facts staring you in the face which show you that at this.moment Canada is not commercially independent of the United States? What do you think of that? The American government granted us the bonding privilege. They granted us the privilege of using their harbours for our imports and exports without paying them tolls and customs dues. But my bon. friends opposite are aware that this privilege has always been held over our heads by (be American authorities as a sword of Damocles. My hon. friends on the other side are aware that the abrogation of this privilege has been used again and again as a threat to obtain from us concessions. Again, he said on July 30: We consider that it is the duty of all those who sit within these walls by the will of the people to provide immediate measure whereby the products of those new settlers may find an exit to the ocean at the least possible cost, and whereby, likewise, a market may be found in this new region for those who toil in the forests, in the fields, in the mines, in the shops of the older provinces. Such is our duty; it is immediate and imperative. It is not of to-morrow, but of to-day, of this > hour and of this minute. Heaven grant that it be not already too late; Heaven grant that whilst we tarry and dispute, the trade of Canada is not deviated to other channels



When I first began my Sipeech, I referred to the Canadian Pacific railway, which was built when there were very few people in the west, and built under great difficulties, and that road was completed in a shorter time than the contract called for. But here is our great Transcontinental which the government have been building since 1903, and which it not yet built, although all the conditions were most favourable. My right hon. friend then was very much exercised lest the trade of this country might be diverted into other channels: -and that an ever vigilant competitor does not take to himself the trade that properly belongs to those who acknowledge Canada as their native or their adopted land. What splendid sentiments those are. They are the kind I like to read: Upon this question we feel that our position is absolutely safe and secure; we feel that it corresponds to the beating of every Canadian heart. . Mr. SCHAFFNER, On July 30, page 7671 of 'Hansard,' the right hon. gentleman said: Lett me observe that if we have used American ports it is not because for five months in the year our own ports are ice-bound. Everybody knows that our ports in winter are just as open as the American harbours. Everybody knows, except Mr. Andrew Carnegie and the bulk of American public opinion, that if vve have used American ports and the bonding privilege it was not because our harbours were ice-bound in winter, but simply because we bad no railways to reach them. In the face of this, are the Canadian parliament and people going to stand on their manhood and place us in such a position that all times of the year, not only by one railway, but by two or more, we shall have access from January to December to our own harbour, and be able to say to our American neighbours: Take off your bonding privilege whenever it suits you, we are comparatively independent. Again, he said: Sir, our relations to-day with our American neighbours are friendly; they were never more so, and I hope they will so continue. For my part, I never made any secret of it, I have the greatest possible admiration for the American people. I have always admired their many strong qualities. But I have found in the short experience during which it has been my privilege and my fortune to be placed at the head of affairs, by the will of the Canadian people, that (be best and most effective way to maintain friendship with our American neighbours is to be absolutely independent of them. Does anybody want any better sentiment than that? We could not have anything better. How is it our neighbours to the south want us so badly just now? They want our natural resources, our raw materials. They have a large population and large industries, and they want to make use of us to feed those industries. There is another subject to which I would like to refer. I have not waived the flag since I started, I have not referred to the annexation subject, but I should like to. quote a few of the statements made in that connection. I propose to read a few of the remarks made on the other side of the line giving the reason why they want this pact. This winter it has been my experience to come in contact with shrewd business men who were spending the winter in the south; and there is not one I met who did not tell me that whenever this pact is spoken of on the other side it is taken to mean annexation. Here is a dispatch in a leading American journal: Minneapolis, Feb. 12.-In an editorial leader which bears every evidence of Washington inspiration, the Minneapolis _ ' Journal,' the leading newspaper of the Twin Cities, makes a frantic appeal to congress for the ratification of the reciprocity agreement. The 'Journal' urges that this is for the United States the golden hour of opportunity which, if it passes, may never return. It shares with Hon. Joseph Chamberlain the view that the reciprocity arrangement spells the doom of empire federation and colonial preference, and asserts that the United States has the greatest, opportunity ' to unite the continent, to avert future jars and wars, and to change history that has arisen in this generation's time.' We all have heard of our friend Champ Clark. It was he who let the 'cat out of the bag, and our opponents have been trying ever since to explain away what he said. He said: Reciprocity in raw materials, in natural products, and in some of the simpler and more generally nsed articles of manufacture, as provided for in the pending agreement, is the obvious road to a relation profitable to both countries. . The time, probably the last time, when this can be realized has arrived. _ The future union of all parts of the British Empire in a commercial federation is almost certain. When that shall have been concluded, under a system of preferential advantages securing the English market to the colonial producer of raw materials and food products, and the colonial market to the English manufacturer, it will strike the United' States a double blow. _ Our best customer, Great Britain, and our third best, Canada, will trade less and less with us and more and more with each other. And it will then be permanently impossible to repair our error. . . Political and economic weather signals indicate that, should the present measure fall no other can succeed for many years, if ever. Then he goes on to speak of the price of wheat. _


?

Representative G. W.@

Prince, of Illinois, gave his version of the proposal.

I say to our neighbours on the north, be not deceived. When we go into a country

and get control of it, we take it. It is our history, and it is right that we should take it if, we want it, and you might as well under-"Stand it. The Speaker has so said; the party back of him has so said, and it does not deny that that is its desire. Now let us see if the people of Canada believe in reciprocity and annexation.

Only in to-day's paper Mr. Madden, of Illinois says:

My hope is that if we can have closer com* mercial relations with the people of Canada,, he said, some day this relationship may blend the two peoples into the harmonious whole; and that the territory lying north of us may become a part of the United States, as it should he. I have always believed we should be one people, under one flag, and under one form of government; and it will be better for us when such a thing happens, if it ever does.

I might keep on reading such extracts all night.

Just a word as to what we offer, and what we believe to be far better than reciprocity. We stand for an improvement in transportation rates by the building and government operation of the Hudson Bay railway. We stand for the complete identification of our wheat, for maintaining the quality and price by government operation of terminal elevators. To my mind it does not make so much difference who owns a railroad or a terminal elevator, the important point is, who operates it. The whole Conservative party have voted this session for the government operation of terminal elevators. We will soon have a Bill before this House. I am not a prophet, and perhaps I should not prophesy to-night but, so far as I have seen that Bill, it does not meet the exigencies of the case, they stand about where they were before, but I am afraid that every man from the west supporting the government will be found supporting that Bill, for they have voted against the government operation of terminal elevators so far.

We stand to improve our stock, cattle and hog trade through the establishment of a chilled meat industry, which has been moved in this House, and supported by every member of the Conservative party.

I consider this, as the ' Globe ' has said, the most important crisis in our history since confederation. Once this pact is signed, once it goes into effect I believe it is going to be detrimental to the interests and the nationhood of this great country of ours. One of our friends opposite asked me what my constituents thought. I have not had an opportunity of meeting all my constituents, and I dare say quite a number of them have been in favour of this pact, but if they are in favour of it the only thing they have heard about it is reciprocity, it has not been explained to them, they have not had a proper knowledge of what it means. I know from my own experience, and from that of those who have talked to these men in the west, that every man, when he thoroughly understands this pact, is opposed to it. The hon. member for Lis-gar (Mr. Sharpe) who held four meetings told me that only one man of the Conservative party who voted for him before stated that he still wanted this pact. That is a splendid record for the west. That is where the government have expected us to fall down, they have been looking for the western members on this side of the House to support this pact. I wish to say honestly that when this thing was first presented to the House on January 26, I thought there was something in it. I thought it would be my duty to support it, but every day since then, to the best of my ability, and with the time at my disposal, I have endeavoured to become familiar with the different facts, and it would take one all night to discuss the whole question. But I I believe that if our freight rates are too

high, if our wheat is not properly handled, if we have any other grievance, we should, in the name of all that is good and great, settle these difficulties ourselves. We have met as great difficulties in the past. We to-day have a Railway Commission, and 1 am prepared to give this government great credit for the creation of this commission. They have had two splendid chairmen. Where was there a better man in Canada that Mr. Justice Killam. We thought when he was lost to the commission that no man could be found to fill his place, but it seems to be the impression that Judge Mabee has filled the position, and is doing excellent work. Let them look after the freight rates. I say that the freight rates of this country are too high, but we are not going to get them lowered by turning to the south and asking the United States to helo us. Let our commission solve that problem. If the commission have not sufficient power this parliament has power to give them further powers to handle these railway rates as they should. Let us settle all our grievances in the same manner That to me is a very strong objection and a reason why I cannot possibly Support this pact; it does seem to me that by it we are tying ourselves up to our friends to the south.

I would support the hon. member for Lis gar (Mr. Sharpe) in his statement that the Conservative party is in favour of a permanent tariff commission that will handle this question in the interests of this country. I do not believe in privileged classes as I have said before, and if the manufacturers of this countrv are getting too high prices, a commission of the proper kind could easily remedy that, such a commission could go into the offices, and into the books of the different manufacturing interests in this country, and find out just what prices would be fair. There may be ignorance in connection with this matter. Our farmers complain that thev aTe paying'too much for binders. I think that thev are, but it would satisfy the farmers if through a commission we were able to ascertain what was the actual cost of that binder, and what would be a fair profit on it.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion let me say the attempt of a few men to force the resolution upon the country is contrary to democratic government.

Canada is shaping her own destiny. The request comes from the United States, who had squandered her natural resources to such an extent, that they are face to face with their exhaustion and were, therefore, anxious to get at Canada's Taw material in order to Telieve the strain on their own.

Sir, we are building up a strong Canadian nationhood. Let us take heed lest we take a false step now that we are so near the goal of our ambitions. Let us

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-RECIPROCAL TRADE AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   EXPENDITURE ON RAILWAYS UP TO
Permalink
CON

Frederick Laurence Schaffner

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SCHAFFNER.

take this false step and we may shatter with one stroke all the work of confederation.

When the old treaty was repealed, we were poor in skilled labour, banking capital, in agricultural and in manufactures. To-day we are rich in them all.

The repeal of that treaty threw us upon ourselves and we were roused to action. When the United States, in 1866, flung our poverty in our faces and told us our only choice was annexation or starvation, we refused to accept either, and have proven to the world that we can captain our own ship of state. Let us be friends with our friends to the south, but let us run our own affairs.

Mr. STANFIELD moved that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion of Mr. Stanfield, committee rose and reported progress.

On motion of Mr. Fisher, House adjourned at 1.02 a.m., Wednesday.

Wednesday, May 3, 1911.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-RECIPROCAL TRADE AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   EXPENDITURE ON RAILWAYS UP TO
Permalink

May 2, 1911