July 19, 1911


Uriah Wilson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WILSON (Lennox).

Well, I do not know anything about Mr. McKay, and therefore, I am not going to say anything about him, because I think a man should be very careful when talking about publi-c men n-ot to malign them in -any way.

Let me now contrast some of tne exports of Canada to the United States with some of our imports from that country. We are told by the Liberal party that the Lnited States is the great market for our products and that if we had access to that market of 90,000,000 people we would get better prices for our goods than we do at home. Let me show the absurdity of that contention by the figures taken from our trade returns. Take the article of butter, we exported to the United States:

1906 $ 36,167

1907 35,078

1908 43,015

1909 54,894

1910 201,968

Total $371,152

Or in the whole five years we exported butter to the United States-and I have taken these figures from the return of trade and commerce-$371,152. That is ail we exported to that market of 90,000,000 people.

Take the article -of cheese we exported as follows:

1906 $16,389

1907 6,918

1908 27,247

1909 28,936

1910 63,309

Total in five years $142,799

Then take the article of eggs, about which we have heard a goo-d deal of talk from hon. gentlemen opposite. We exported eggs to the United States, as follows: ,

1906 $11,924

1907 9,047

1908 9,846

1909 14,952

1910 13,896

Total in five years $59,665

Now let us see what we imported from the United States of the same articles. If we

imported a good deal more than we exported, surely that would indicate that our market is really better than theirs. Our imports of butter from the United States, were as follow.:

1906 $54,126

1907 87,997

1908 77,794

1909 156,443

1910 18,075

Total..' $394,937

That is quite a little more than we exported to them. Take the next article of /feheese. We imported cheese from the United States, as follows:

1906 $ 45,904

1907 84,084

1908 116,851

1909 55,030

1910 48,739

Total $350,608

As contrasted with $142,799 which was the amount we exported in the same period. Take the next article of eggs. We imported eggs from the United States as follows:

1906 $ 92,172

1907 142,868

1908 216,278

1909 238,842

1910 179,408

Thus our total imports of eggs in these five years was $869,568 worth, and all we exported to the United States in the same period was $59,665 worth, showing a balance of trade against us in eggs alone of $809,903. It certainly does seem to me that in that case we got decidedly the worst of the bargain.

Let us now look to our exports of cattle. Cattle, over one year old, shipped to the United States:

1906 $ 185,213

1907 471,620

1908 532,523

1909 ' 508,416

1910 619,995

Total $2,317,767

Contrast that with what we shipped to the old country-that country whose market, if this pact goes through, we will lose to quite an extent, because it looks as though the Americans would do everything they could to break up the connection that now exists between the mother country and Canada. To Britain we exported of cattle over one year old:

1906 $11,074,199

1907 10,200,137

1908 8,584,806

1909 10,115,793

1910 9,976,918

Total $49,951,852

Comparing that with our exports of $2,-

317,000 to the United States, we have a difference of over $47,000,000 in favour of the English market and against the United States market-that market which the government are now making such great efforts to get.

Our total imports from the United States in 1910 amounted $239,070,949, and our exports to $106,026,137. These figures are taken from our trade and navigation returns and they show a balance of trade against us of $152,944,412. Of these goods we allowed to come in free of duty from the United States, $79,257,600 as against $23,480,217 allowed to come in free from Great Britain. So that from what I can see our best policy is to stick to what we have and not make this leap in the dark when we are doing very well as it is. Should we go into this reciprocal arangement, we do not know what will become of us. I never yet heard that the Yankees when they wanted to make a bargain, did not do their level best to get the best of it.


An hon. MEMBER.

As they will in this instance.


Uriah Wilson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WILSON (Lennox).

Yes, but I do not believe that the country will ratify that policy.

I can say with the greatest emphasis that I believe the county I represent will, in the next parliament, be represented by another gentleman who has pronounced himself strongly against reciprocity. If he had not done so I do not think he would have received the nomination in our county.

Canada's exports of wheat for the last five years to Great Britain and to the United States were as follow:

Exports to Exports to Year. Great Britain. United States.

1906 $30,622,824 $ 298,1601907

20,710,973 630,3491908

42,911,610 102,8491909

51,350,211 602,6611910

58,538,772 1,883,637Total in 5 years. $204,125,390 $6,201,114

According to the Trade and Navigation Returns, we imported from the United States a great deal more wheat than we exported to them. The wheat imported into Canada from the United States for these five years was:



Year. 1906 $ 578,622 1907 1,167,402 1908 5,138,455 1909 9,431,346 1910 12,070,811 Total in five years.. .. $28,387,706 We, a small people of eight millions, took from them $28,000,000, while they, a large people of 90,000,000, took from us $6,200,000. Does that look as though we were getting a great market where we

would be able to sell our surplus at a great profit? When you want to sell goods, you must find the man who wants to buy them for his own use; the speculator always wants a profit. The American Bureau of Statistics estimates the value of Canadian farm produce for the year 1907 at $532,992,100. That is quite a large amount, and from that amount I wish to pick out some of Canada's specialties. I do not think any one who has studied the pork business can believe it possible for us to compete with the American corn fed pork, they can outdo us every time if they try, and I think they have been doing it. Our exports of these products to the United States and their exports to Canada, for the same period were: BACON AND HAMS. Canadian American Year. Exports to Exports to United States. Canada. 1906 $ 59,551 $ 782,3361907 19,190 650,2351908 5,211 851,8071909 208,915 744,6911910 8,589 829,242Total, 5 yrs. $301,466 $3,858,298 Or, our imports of ham and bacon from the United States exceeded our exports to that country by $3,356,832. Where do we sell our bacon and hams, for we have quite a surplus of them, and you can see that we do not sell them to the ninety million market? We send them to Great Britain, our best customer. According to the Trade and Navigation Returns, our export of hams and bacons to Great Britain were:


Year. 1906 $12,119,804 1907 9,196,305 1908 11,153,749 1909 8,625,005 I 1910 6,836,392 Total in 5 years $17,931,255 These figures, I think, demonstrate that the market which we want is the English market. The Americans, of course, produce a great deal more of agricultural produce than they know what to do with. For instance, the United States exported in 1909 5,207,151 dozen of eggs valued at $1,199,522; of butter 5,281,261 pounds valued at $1,268,210; of cheese 6,822,842 pounds, valued at $857,091; of condensed milk, $1,375,104; of lard, $52,712,569; of pork, $4,599,431; ham and shoulders, cured, $23,525,307; beef, fresh, $12,698,594; beef, salted and pickled, $3,438,048. The total value of the meat and dairy produce exported, by the United States in 1909 was $166,521,949. It does seem to me that a country with such an abundance of everything that they exported over $166,000,000 worth of goods exactly similar to what we are raising does not afford a market for our surplus products, because the American who buys the surplus from us in this country must be a speculator. He certainly will not want it for use in his country; he must have a profit, and our people who raise these articles must pay the freight to take the articles to their destination, as well as the middlemen's profit. Now I want to take up a little more time on the pork question. I have a circular here issued by the lngersoll Packing Company, signed by U. E. L. Wilson, manager and director. I will read what he says before I give the figures: This is absolutely correct as taken from our books and open to inspection by any government officer for verification. That seems to me to make it very strong, because the books are open for verification if the government see fit to send any of their officers there to look at them. He gives the prices for ten years: Memo showing the Total Receipts and Prices of Hogs at Chicago Market and the price paid by Boyd, Lunham & Co., Chicago, and the price paid by the lngersoll Packing Co., Ltd., lngersoll, from 1901-1910 Year. Chicago. Total Receipts. Chicago. Average Price. Delivered at . Chicago. B. L. & Co. Average Price Delivered at Chicago. I. P. Co. Average Price Delivered at lngersoll. lngersoll Price above Chicago. Chicago Price above lngersoll.1301 8,290,494 $ 5.85 $ 5.71 $ 6.70 $ 0.85 S1902 7,895,238 6.85 6.704 6.08 0.171903 7^325,923 6.00 5.88 6.07 0.07 1904 7,238,746 5.15 5.04 5.32 0.17 1905 7,725,738 5.25 5.18 6.41 1.16 1906 7,275,063 6.25 6.23 7.17 0.92 1907 7,201,061 6.10 6.094 6.85 - 0.75 1908 8,131,465 5.70 5.36J 6.87 1.17 1909 6,619,018 7.35 7.534 8.04 0.69 1910 5,586,858 8.90 8.59§ 9.11 0.21 Mr. WILSON (Lennox and Addington.l

Now, I think I have read enough to satisfy most people that the American market is not better than ours for most of our goods. 1 think that our pork is a better pork than the pork they raise, because our pork is fed on barley, pease and other hard feed, while theirs is fed, I believe, on corn; and as a matter of course, their cheap corn-fed pork and beef will come into competition with our business, and interfere seriously with the farmers of our country. Now, there are some other things this government did not take into onsideration when they made this arrangement. It does not seem possible to me that a government with its eyes open would go to Washington and make a contract to regulate the duty on goods, and have that contract apply to ten or twelve other nations from which we get no compensation whatever. It seems to me absurd, and I am going to read some of the duties. 1 think if we are going to have reciprocity at all, we ought to have it all round. We ought not to he made a dumping ground. In fact, our government has already passed a law some years ago against allowing the Americans to dump cheaply bought goods in our market. But they did not seem to take any notice of these other things. If it is necessary to prevent men who go to the United States^and buy goods at low prices to put them in here at the same price they pay, why should we allow other countries to come into our markets and sell their products without paying any duty, while we have to pay a large duty to get into their markets? Now there is the Argentine Kepublic, Austria-Hungary, Colombia, Denmark, Japan, Norway, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Venezuela and Bolivia. That list does not include the British possessions. As I understand it, this contract applies to all the British possessions as well as those countries I have mentioned that have the favoured-nation clause. If that is the case, let us see what some of these countries do. Take New Zealand. Barley, 48-6 cts per 100 lbs. Butter, 20 per cent, cheese, 20 per cent; eggs, 20 per cent. That is the duty we have to pay to get these articles into their market, while we will allow them to bring their articles of the same character into our market free. Then take Australia. Butter, 6 cents per lb; cheese,. 6 cents per lb; eggs, 12 cents per doz. We will allow them to bring in their eggs, butter and cheese free under this arrangement. Austria-Hungary: Wheat, 58 cents per 100 lbs. Butter, natural, salted, $3.22 per 100 lbs. Other fine cheese for the table, $5.52 per 100 lbs. Denmark: Butter in hermetically sealed vessels, $4.86 per 100 lbs. Cheese, $2.43 per 100 lbs France: Calves (live weight), $3.51 per 100 lbs. Pigs (live weight), $2.20 per 100 lbs. Fresh butter, $2.63 per 100 lbs. Fine cheese (affine), soft, $1.75 per 100 lbs. Italy: Oxen, $7.33 each. Wheat, 65-8 cents per 100 lbs. Salted butter, $1.75 per 100 lbs. Soft cheeses, $1.32 per 100 lbs. Japan: Swine, 25 per cent. Butter, 10-02 per 100 lbs. Cheese, $6.40 per 100 lbs. If necessary I can go over this whole list, but I think this will show us what we are doing. Now, I come to the list of exports of farm produce from the United States. United States exports of farm produce have increased from $370,000,000 to $490,000,000 in a year, as follows Animals from 23,000,000 to 47,000,000Breadstuffs 161,000,000 " 216,000,000 Provisions, including meat .. .. 134,000,000 " 180,000,000Fruits and nuts 17,000,000 " 18,000,000Hides, about 1,000,000 " 1,000,000Hops, from 1.000,000 " 4,000,000Vegetables, about .. .. 3,000,000 " 3,000,000 Tobacco, unmanufactured .. .. 30,000,000 " 31,000,000 These are the people that we are expected to deal with and it is in their country, that we are asked to find a market for our surplus at a profit. Mr. Taft, that genial gentleman who captured the two ministers who went over to meet him accepted their proposition at once and said: ' Boys, here is more; you can have it all if you want to, but do not take more than you can get through/ Here is something which appeared in the Montreal ' Star ' on the 28th April, 1911, to which I desire to call the attention of the House. It is a comment on the speech made by President Taft in New York on the 27th April, 1911. He met there the American Newspaper Publishers' Association: In New York last night, speaking before the American Newspaper Publishers' Association whose president, Mr. John Norris says that they would save $6,000,000 a year on their paper mills if they could only secure access to Canadian pulp wood, President Taft again put in a stout denial that reciprocity means annexation. He said that ' the talk of annexation is bosh/ and that to present it as an objection to reciprocity should be treated as ' one of the jokes of the platform/ He denied as well that the Americans desire to annex Canada, giving as proof his belief that they already have all the territory they can possibly govern. _ A robust denial is a fine thing; but the big President of the United States should take

note of the fact that it is possible for a denial to deny too much. However, there was the denial, big, bold and all-embracing-almost amounting to a denial that the Americans are human like other people and desire to extend the boundaries of their beloved Republic-but, side by side, with this denial, were such statements as these: ' There are other natural resources which I need not stop to enumerate which will become available to us as if our own if we adopt and maintain commercial union with Canada/ ' But there are other-even broader-grounds than this which should lead to the adoption of this agreement. Canada's superficial area is greater than that of the United States between the two oceans. The government is one entirely controlled by the people, and the bond uniting the Dominion with the mother country is light and almost imperceptible.' I am not going to read the whole of this hut there is a paragraph at the bottom that I would like to have placed on record. Then, again, the President makes no bones of saying that the timber resources of Canada ' will open themselves to us inevitably under the operation of this agreement.' How? The agreement does not open them. It leaves our Crown lands still protected by the provincial governments. What does the President mean? He probably means what Mr. John Norris meant when the latter told the Congressional committee that, once they obtained the leverage of free access to our privately-owned forest lands, ' the pressure will be irresistible ' upon the provincial governments to throw open the rest. There are other speeches here about annexation and all that, but I am not going to refer to them just now. There is one thing that I particularly would like to call the attention of the House to and that is tnat for every $6 worth we export to the mother country there is $5 worth grown on the farm. That is. well worth considering. If we are going, to try to help our farmers the country that wants the product of our farms is the country that we should deal with. It is a stale story to tell of the value of the British market to the Canadian farmer. But it may toe as well to remind ourselves of a few facts. First, the British market is largely a farmer's market. Out of every six dollars' worth of Canadian products that we export to Britain, five dollars worth come off the Canadian farm. The figures are these: Total Canadian exports to Great Britain for 1909-$126,384,726. Food products exported from Canada to Great Britain-$101,992,448. Our other markets are not of this character. Out of every six dollars we export to foreign markets, only a little over one dollar comes from the Canadian farm. And out of every six dollars exported to other British possessions, less than three dollars are Canadian farm produce. They may talk just as much as they like about their 90,000,000 market, * Mr. WILSON (Lennox and Addington.) but they have now a market in England that takes five dollars worth of farm produce of every six dollars we export. It seems to me that is the market we should cultivate. It is easy to see how little of this enormous market Canada has supplied when we remember that the total Canadian exports to Great Britain this same year were $101,992,448 of farm produce-less than half the British imports of wheat alone. Both Argentine and the United States 'beat us. Argentine sold the British people £37,717,295 ($184,900,000) worth of farm products; and the Americans sold them £118,353,893 ($574,000,000) worth. It seems to me that the Americans would have more difficulty in getting rid of that immense amount of stuff if we had preferential trade as we should have instead of trying to make a reciprocal treaty with the United States. We know that the Americans are very anxious for this arrangement, one reason being that their manufacturers have invested their money on this side, already to the extent of 226,000,000 dollars, and what they want to do is to keep that capital in their own country, give employment to their own people, and sell their goods to us. That's the trick they are up to. There was a considerable amount of evidence taken before the Ways and Means Committee of Congress-although no evidence has been considered necessary by the Canadian government-and Mr. Aaron Jones made the following statement before the Congressional Committee. The principle on which the protective policy has been defended during the past twenty years (20) is that all classes and interests of the country, should receive equal protection against the competition of foreign products. It was to carry out this principle that the duties on farm products were imposed by the McKinley law, and reimposed by the Dingley and Payne Tariff Act. Had it not been for the tariff on farm products the protective system would long ago have been abolished. The purpose of the tariff on farm products has been to exclude those of Canada from our markets, and if this Bill becomes law it means the end of protection, so far as the farmers are concerned. Is it possible that they believe that 6,000,000 farmers will tamely submit to free trade in fiaFm products and high tariff for manufacturers ? Why are cattle, sheep and swine on the free list, while meats, fresh and cured are taxed li cents per pound? Are not the farmers as much entitled to protection as the millers or great meat packers of Chicago? Against this proposition we earnestly protest, and we insist that there shall be no free trade for farmers and high tariff for manufacturers, but that if farm products go on the free list, manufactured articles must also be made free, and they will inside a very short time. Now, Mr. Speaker. I have spoken longer than I ought, and in conclusion I will say

that I am fully persuaded in my own mind that this trade arrangement made by two cabinet ministers with the United States government is not in the best interests of *Canada. I am strongly opposed to it, and what little I am able to do in my constituency and elsewhere I shall willingly do to defeat this pact. I believe with Sir Mortimer Clark, ex-governor of Ontario, that we should put country before party, and that if we are loyal Canadians desirous of building up an empire on this northern half of the .North American continent, it becomes us to stick close to the mother country because we need her protection and her capital, and we need her markets in which to sell our goods at remunerative prices.


Edward Guss Porter

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. E. GUSS EORTER (West Hastings).

At this late stage of the debate upon this very important question misnamed reciprocity, the members of the government seem to be exhibiting an insatiable desire for information, and an undying interest in their country, by, with the exception of three ministers out of fourteen, all being absent from the House and these three ministers being supported by the presence now of fourteen Liberal members out of a total of 135, the remainder of the government members being represented by empty chairs. That is not a very inspiring thing for the member who is addressing the House, and I am sure if the people of the country knew of the lack of interest the government is exhibiting in this important question it would not inspire confidence in 1he government or faith in it. Why this government should with such undue haste endeavour to force this measure through parliament at this- unseasonable time of the year, and, to use a crude expression, cram it down the throats of the people of this country, one is at a loss to understand. It suggests, to put it in the mildest form, that there must be some sinister motive behind the whole thing; something more than an interest in the welfare of the country that is actuating the government to press this measure with such undue haste now.

The opposition, have taken occasion as it was offered, to criticise, as appeared to them to be just and warranted, this measure when it has come before the Chair; and because they have had the boldness to express their condemnation of it, hon. members of the government and the press supporting the government have seen fit to apply to us the name of obstructionists. Well, Sir, if the fair discussion of this measure, and the offering to,the people of this country of the honest conviction of the opposition in this House, and pointing out in their judgment the disastrous effects which the passing of this measure through parliament will inflict on this country, entitles the opposition to the appellation of obstructionists, then, Sir, I for one am perfectly willing to be called an obstructionist. I think, Sir, it is preferable to be called an obstructionist under these circumstances than to be called by a name that would fittingly characterize the conduct of any government that would try,, as this government is now trying, to force such a measure through parliament and upon the people of this country, against their wish, and without affording them an opportunity of expressing their opinion upon it. I have had the privilege of occupying a seat in this House for a period of upwards of ten years, representing during that time a constituencv containing a population of upwards of 40,000 people. I have always believed it to be the privilege of those 40,000 people, in common with ail other loyal citizens of Canada, to express through their representatives in parliament their opinion upon any legislation that might be introduced here. I do not mean simply that the voice of the representatives of the people should be heard, but that it should be effectively heard, accordingly as: the arguments adduced by that hon. member, the reasons given by him for his opinion, might meet with favour from the hon. members of this House and the country as a whole. I have always understood-that to be one of the first principles, the main spring as it were, of representative and responsible government. But, Sir, when this trade agreement was introduced' jin this parliament, ih 'the manner in which it was, the opinion which I had held for so many years received a very rude shock, and I was almost inclined to ask myself, are we living to-day in the dark ages,, when responsible and representative .government was unknown, or are we living in the twentieth century, which has been said to belong to Canada? If one would yield to the feeling imposed upon him by the action of this government in relation to this matter, I venture to say that he would feel that we were living in the dark ages. It has been the proud boast of the Canadian people, it is the proud boast of the Canadian people to-dav. that we have the freest form of responsible government -y and. Sir, when without warning and in a single instant almost, there is forced upon this parliament and upon the country a bargain, an agreement, a pact, or what ever it may be called, made by two hon. members of the government, without a mandate from the people, without a war-rent from this parliament, then I say that our proud boast of responsible government has just about diminished to the vanishing point. A great deal of time has been taken up by hon. members of the government, and particularly by the hon. Minister of Agriculture, in the speech which he addressed to this House some time ago, in


an attempt to convince parliament and the country that the opposition members of this House were opposed to any negotiations being carried on with the United States with a view to improving the trade relations between Canada and that country. I have listened during the course of this debate to a great many of the speeches that have been made by hon. members on this side of the House, and I have read a great many more, and 1 say without hesitation that I have never heard nor have I read in any of those speeches any expression of opinion or idea to justify that statement. On the contrary, it is not the desire of the opposition as I understand it, speaking for myself at any rate, that negotiations with the United States should not be carried on for the purpose of bettering trade relations between these two countries. That is not what the opposition object to; but what we do object to is the making of a hard and fast agreement with the American people, and that without warrant from parliament, and then bringing that agreement before parliament without affording an opportunity for amendment or for the alteration of a single line, a word, or even a letter; telling the hon. members of this House that that agreement must be given effect to. in every word, every line and every letter, just as these two hon. gentlemen have seen fit in their wisdom to make it with the United States. It is, however, in view of these circumstances, somewhat refreshing to know that all hon. members on the government side have not felt themselves bound to such an extent by party allegiance as to sacrifice what they believe to be in the interests of this country for the sake of advancing the interests of the political party to which they belong.

Those hon. members on the government side who had the courage to stand up in this House, and denounce this pact deserve credit, and the thanks of the people of this country.

Nearly every hon. member who has spoken on this question has referred to the language used by the President of the United States in discussing this matter before his people as regards its relation to Canada. The president, Mr. Taft, said that Canada stood now at the parting of the ways. In view of the history of the last forty-two years, it seems to me that Mr. Taft chose very unhappy language in which to express his ideas. And if I were to compare him to a second Rip Van Winkle, I think I would not be far from the truth because apparently he has been asleep for a very long time if he imagines that Canada is now only at the parting of the ways. Why, Canada was at the parting of the ways some forty-two years ago when the old reciprocity treaty between this country, and Mr. PORTER.

the United States was abrogated. Then was the time when the Canadian people had to make a choice between adopting a policy which would lead them into a stronger, and a firmer alliance wlfli the mother land-a stronger federation with Great Britain-or whether they would choose the opposite course which would lead them into freer trade relations and ultimately into political annexation with the United States. Then was the time when Canada was at the parting of the ways. She then made her choice, and subsequent events during the past forty-two years have fully demonstrated that the choice then made by the Canadian people was a wise and patriotic one. It is true that when that choice was made it did not promise very much for the Canadian people; and perhaps if they had been actuated by the sole desire to benefit from trade relations they might have made a inherent choice, but there was something more in the Canadian mind, and heart, than mere commercial advantage, and a simple desire for pecuniary benefit. Canada, therefore, chose to stand by the mother country. True for a long time the course which Canada then adopted was not an easy one. True it was beset by many obstructions-not only natural obstructions, but artificial ones placed there by the American people in the endeavour if possible to wreck the Canadian confederation, and destroy the connection between Canada and Great Britain. During that forty years Canada has passed many mile-posts, not ordinary mile-posts, but monuments of progress that are bound to last forever to the glory of this Dominion. During ali these years we received no encouragement, not a bit of assistance, from the American people who are now so anxious to bring us into a closer alliance with themselves. Throughout all these years, the Americans, instead of holding out the hand of friendship to us in return for the hand of friendship we offered them, steadily opposed Canadian interests, and endeavoured to force Canada into such a position that we would be obliged sooner or later to join our fortunes with those of the republic. It is certainly something which Canadians may well be proud of that they were able, in spite of all these obstacles, and obstructions placed in their way by the United States, in spite of all these coercive efforts, to steer clear of these obstructions, and go ahead on a firm, and solid foundation with full steam upon the engine of prosperity, and with that engine headed towards the motherland, in the endeavour' to bind still closer the ties that have always existed between us and Great Britain. Canada, at the time of the abrogation of the old reciprocity treaty in 1866, was not in the position she occupies to-day. Con-

ditions then, were very different from what they are now. At that time we were not a united Dominion as we are to-day, and had not then the vast extent of productions from the farm which we now have. We had not then the means of transportation we now enjoy nor had we the population or the wealth. In fact our position was such that the total revenues of this country were insufficient to meet its wants.

When the reciprocity treaty first came into force there were special reasons why the United States desired a closer trade relationship with Canada. The fast approaching civil war in that country made it most "desirable that it should have a friend close at hand, and a source of supply. Canada then offered the greatest inducements in this respect. At that time also was effected the change of policy in Great Britain, under which the corn laws were repealed, and free trade inaugurated. All the advantages that previously existed in favour of the British colonies were practically wiped away, and Canada was not in a position to compete w'ith otheT countries in the markets of the world through her lack of transportation facilities. The conditions then were such that reciprocity with the United States was about the only thing that could help Canada.

Although the conditions were such as I have described, yet it took eight years of constant negotiations between these two countries to bring about the treaty of reciprocity that went into effect at that time.

A great deal has been said in this debate of the advantages that Canada derived from that reciprocity treaty. There were special reasons for that. Prices during a part of that period were inflated. Prices in the United States were better than could be obtained in Canada, but that was owing to the civil war in the United States. The effect of that struggle was to take from the fields of agriculture and production, a very large portion of the workers and to put them into the field of battle with the result that production in the United States fell off so that the wants of the people could not be supplied and the products of the Canadian people were at a premium in the United States. But it was not a continuous period of prosperity by any means. During the time that that reciprocity treaty was in force, the first bank failure in Canada, that of the old band of Upper Canada occurred, That was not due to the prosperity brought to Canada by the United States, it was owing to the circumstances in which Canada found herself at that time. But the moment it appeared to be necessary to the Canadian people and they undertook to exercise their undoubted right of putting on a duty and raising a revenue, just that moment, when it ceased to be to the interest of the United States to have that1

treaty continued with Canada, they repealed it. It did not take eight years to repeal it as it did to introduce it; notice was given just as soon as their interest in reciprocity and in Canada ceased. Sir, history is about to repeat itself, in my judgment, if this treaty comes into force it will be taken advantage of by the American people, just as they took advantage of the old reciprocity treaty it will be continued only so long as it is to the advantage of the American people alone. The moment it is perceived that the American people cannot derive from it the benefit that they anticipated, we may rest assured that the Americans will serve notice that this agreement shall no longer be continued in force between these two countries.

It appears to me, after giving this question considerable consideration, that the government of the day in introducing this agreement is reversing not only its well known and adopted policy of protection, but is also reversing its dften declared policy upon this very question of reciprocity. It will be remembered that only a few years ago the Liberal party in presenting this policy of reciprocity began by introducing it at the big end, under the title of unrestricted reciprocity. In 1887 the gentlemen composing this government were' advocating as strongly as they possibly could and asking the people to approve of a policy then known not as unrestricted reciprocity, but as commercial union, another attempt to introduce the same principle by the big end. The dangers to Canadian nationality, the danger of destroying British connection, the danger of injury to the trade of Canada was then made too apparent to the people for them to be induced by the arguments of the Liberal party of that time to adopt either of these principles, in 1887, when the policy of commercial union was urged upon the people, or in 1891 when it was urged under the title of unrestricted reciprocity. It is to be noticed that in the endeavour of the Liberal party to force those policies upon the country that party was not in a position to have such a policy forced upon the people, by reason of the fact that they were in opposition, and they were obliged, owing to these conditions, to submit the matter to the will and opinion of the people. At that time the expression of opinion was not at all uncertain, the sentiment of the Canadian people was clearly and without hesitation or doubt expressed and both times the Liberal party, forced to appeal to the people of Canada, were defeated. I venture to think that the right hon. gentleman who leads the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has profited by the experience of those two efforts.

He must be convinced that any policy which has a tendency to lead to annexation with the United States, or to weaken

the bonds existing between Canada and Great Britain, is not a safe policy in the hands of the Canadian people. I am persuaded, too, that with the right hon. leader of the government taking advantage of the position which he holds to-day, and recognizing how futile it would be to submit such a policy as this to the electorate of Canada, is now trying to force this resolution through parliament land denying to the people the right to pronounce their opinion upon it. At the time whjen those two policies of commercial union and unrestricted reciprocity were being advocated by the Liberal party in this country, some very interesting literature was circulated by them amongst the electors. I have in my hand one of the pamphlets issued at that time entitled 'facts and figures for farmers' and I propose to read from that campaign literature a few extracts to show the feeling of the Liberal party at that time upon this question. At page 12 of 'facts and figures for farmers', they say:

The growth of manufacturers in the states as the result of protection makes it absolutely necessary that goods must be sent outside instead of money in exchange for natural products.

That expression shows, I think, the drift of this agreement as respects the interests of the American people is to get the natural products of Canada into the United States for manufacturing purposes and for the employment of American laborers, and send into Canada their manufactured goods />in exchange, instead of money, to the ruin of the manufacturing industries of Canada. It proceeds:

These goods cannot be sent freely so long as the tariff wall shuts them out. The growth of the agricultural areas in the United States would also oppose the introduction of free agricultural products unless the manufactures were admitted free into Canada also, for in the creation of these latter a home market is maintained for the American farmer.

The Americans are always anxious to preserve the home markets for the American people, but just as anxious to destroy the Canadian market for the Canadian people.

The stimulus to manufactures as the result pf protection in the United States has resulted in the creation of many lines of cheap goods, cheaper than elsewhere can be had in the world.

Then, discussing the question of annexation, this pamphlet proceeds to say:

But supposing that a better relation with the United States did contribute towards a growth in the annexation sentiment, suppose that England, denying the right of Canada to trade with whom she chose, hesitated to grant the privileges sought and thus gave a check to the relations that exist between them. Sup-Mr. POINTER.

pose if, on the one hand, she consented to a commercial union between her children on this side of the ocean and the result was an enlarged emigration from the United States, and a changed political condition in parliament by which an annexation resolution should pass-what is there to be horrified at in that prospect ? . . If in the future the people of Canada desire to join the great constellation of commonwealths that so illustrate the greatness of this continent, what possible objection could there be? Annexation is a bugbear which a weak sentimentality has clothed with features that are repulsive, but which, upon examination, might be found to be the most attractive and most winning of events.


An hon. MEMBER.

What is that ?


Edward Guss Porter

Conservative (1867-1942)


This is the campaign literature of the Liberal party at that time.

This we certainly can do by breaking down the commercial barrier be! ween the two countries, learn to understand each other better, and if the winning forces of commerce and their attractive institutions make the great continent of North America one nation, then God will bless the union. . . To achieve a commercial relation with the American people is an object therefore, of the highest duty, worthy of the noblest efforts of the best men of the country.

Note this particularly:

The great Liberal party which to-day represents a majority of the voters of the Dominion in parliament, but which is in opposition to the existing government, has adopted as the main plank in its platform this question of unrestricted reciprocity, and it will go to the polls within eighteen months with that cause inscribed upon its banner.

Now I do not think it would be possible to find anywhere a better expression of the policy advocated by the Liberal party at that time and now than, can be found in the extracts I have read from the campaign literature they used. In endeavouring to discover the true object and scope of this proposed agreement, one must remember, in addition to the language contained in the agreement itself, the surrounding conditions and the surrounding circumstances. One must take into account the conditions of the United States in regard to her raw materials, her manufacturing interests, her natural products, her facilities for transportation, her population, and also her aspirations; and one must also consider the same elements from the_ Canadian point of view if he would arrive at what I conceive to be the real scope of the agreement now under discussion. It is only upon a proper comparison of the conditions existing in the two countries and the surrounding circumstances, that you can arrive at a fair conclusion as to whether this trade agreement will be in the interests of Canada or not. These considerations cannot be dealt

with alone, but one must also consider the national or patriotic view of the question. There are two points of view; one the material or commercial view, the other the sentimental or national. I do not believe it possible, under the adoption of this trade agreement, for the Canadian people to preserve either their commercial interests or their national status.

I do believe that by following the policy and the principles that have been followed during the last number of years in this country it would be possible at the same time to preserve and strengthen our nationality and our empire connections and to increase and stimulate the trade of Canada. I have already made reference to the conditions existing in Canada at the time when the old reciprocity treaty came into force, and I have also stated that the conditions to-day are very different from what they were at that time. I think that difference will be apparent to any hon. member of this House, or to any Canadian citizen who will give a moment's reflection to the question. Instead of Canada occupying the position of a few scattered provinces, as it did then, Canada presents to the world to-day a bold and united front extending from ocean to ocean. Canada exhibits to the world to-day a production per head of population that is unexcelled by any other country in the world. Canada offers to the world to-day a position in regard to her transportation facilities, both by land and by water., that is a marvel to the world when the population of Canada is taken into consideration. Instead of the ocean ports of Canada as they were in 1854, being unequipped and unable to handle the trade going out from Canada or the trade from any part of the world coming into Canada, we find these seaports fully equipped and able to handle the trade that may be offered by or to Canada. We find here transportation facilities overland by railway to be equal to the increased production of Canada from year to year, and rapid progress and extension being made along these lines as the prosperity and production of Canada increase. We have to-day a revenue more than sufficient to meet all the requirements of the country and tp enable the government to carry out these improvements in transportation and other facilities that tend so greatly to increase the trade of the country. All this Ts' a decided change from the condition of the Canadian people at that time. Instead of a population of 2,000,000 odd people we have now, it is estimated, about 8,000,000 people. All these things combine to place Canada in a position where instead of the United States, as in 1854, being the market by necessity of the Canadian people, Canada has, by the progress she has made along the lines I have indicated, converted

the world to her markets and it- may be truly said to-day that the wide world is the market and the natural market for Canada rather than is the market of the United States alone. A very good illustration of the effects of reciprocity is contained in a statement issued by the provincial treasurer of Ontario for the year 1910. At page 8 of his financial statement he makes reference to the effect of reciprocity upon Canada when it was in force, and says:

Now, what was the result of the reciprocity treaty in 1854? What happened then is likely to happen again, because the conditions are similar. Quebec at that time lost most disastrously, Montreal lost heavily, the bulk of Toronto's traffic came in through New York, and so, in the same way our Northwest traffic will go by Minneapolis and Chicago, and I am doubtful about the result.

Here are the figures as to the effect of that treaty at that time. The treaty was formed in 1854 and adopted in Canada towards the end of 1854, after navigation closed. The exports from Quebec in 1854 were $10,047,068; in 1855, $6,234,808; the decrease in exports being $3,812,260. The imports in 1854 at Quebec were $7,017,316, and in 1855, $2,930,224, a decrease of $4,089,092 in the first year of reciprocity. Quebeo suffered most disastrously by that treaty for Toronto and the west brought in their goods through New York instead of through Quebec.

The shipping outwards at Quebec in 1854 was 1,558 vessels, carrying 693,588 tons; in 1855, 877 vessels carrying 408,994 tons; a decrease in one year of 681 vessels and 284,594

tons. ,

At Montreal the exports in 1854-these are entirely different from those of Quebec- were $2,290,058; and in 1855, $1,914,412; a decrease of exports of $375,645. The imports at Montreal in 1854 were $15,264,3281; in 1855 they were $12,256,245; a decrease of $3,008,083 The exports in 1866, that is the last T^ar ot the treaty ending 30th June, 1866, were $6,331,635, that is from Montreal. In 186;, the year after the treaty expired, the exports were $8,104,622, an increase of $1,272,987. Imports in 1866 at Montreal were $24,241,21/. After the treaty expired, in 1867, the imports were $28,139,283, an increase at Montreal alter the treaty expired of $3,898,066. At Quebec in 1867 the exports were $167,000 less than in 1866, and the imports $186,586 larger.

At Quebec, in 1867, our total foreign trade was $2,750,000 less than in 1854, and although the foreign trade of Canada in 1867 was only $60,000 more than 'in 1186B, the trade via Montreal was $5,000,000 more in 1867 than in 1866, so rapidly was the direction changed, both on the coming into force of the reciprocity treaty and again on its termination, the decrease of exports and imports at Quebec in 1855 being nearly eight millions out_ ot a total of seventeen millions, and of shipping from 1.588 vessels in 1854 to 877 in 1855.

If, under the conditions existing when the former reciprocity treaty was in effect, such results were produced, what may


Mr. C. A.@

Burns, of the firm of Burns & Sheppard, and the writer, figured out that hot less than ten million dollars worth of horses are handled in eastern Canada every year.

So brisk has been the demand for horses all through Canada during the past few years that prices for blocky and heavy horses and good express horses are higher in Canada today than they have been in the past forty years, and so keen has the market been in Mr. PORTER.

the west that it has not been unusual for a single horse to sell for $350 and teams for $650 and $700. One buyer paying the sum of one thousand dollars, the other day, for three heavy horses in Toronto, while ordinary horses run $200 and $250 a piece.

These prices are far in excess of the prices in Chicago, St. Louis, Buffalo or New York markets.

Buffalo is the best horse market in the United States at the present time, hut even in the Buffalo horse market neither the quality nor the price is at all equal to the Toronto horse market.

In the Chicago horse market, the class of horses is inferior and the prices are not at all to be compared with the Canadian prices.

In St. Louis the principal run of horses is the range raised horses, bronchos and mules and the prices are more than twenty-five per cent lower than in Toronto.

The reciprocity agreement would injure the horse business of Canada in two ways; first, it would reduce the price; second, it would lower the quality.

If the duty was taken off horses coming into Canada, the west would soon be flooded with inferior range horses from Chicago and St. Louis markets and the western farmers, while getting horses cheaper, would be supplied with horses far inferior in quality to the Ontario horses.

To allow cheap, mongrel-bred and inferior horses from the United States to he shipped into Canada free of duty would be nothing short of ruin to the horse breeding industry and ruin to the horse handling business of both east and west.

Now, I will submit to the House a few illustrations of the benefits that the boasted big market of ninety millions of people offers to the Canadian producer. It must be apparent to any one that if the ninety-million market of the United States is to be such a boon to the Canadian people as to afford then an opportunity of all becoming rich, then by parity of reasoning it ought to be just as apparent that the farmers of the United States, who have had every advantage of that market during many years, ought at the present time to be rich enough themselves, or at least to be in as good or a more favourable condition than the farmers of Canada. They are nearer to the market, it costs them much less for transportation, and before a single Canadian can get into the American market with the products of his farm, or at the same time, 90 of the United States producers will be coming into the Canadian market to destroy the home market that he has here. Let me make a comparison of the production and the profit per acre of different classes of grains of the American farmer as against the Canadian farmer. I do that for this reason. It is almost impossible to find in any state in the Union an acreage exactly as near the exact number of acres of the different classes of grain under crop that I can find to be

under crop the same in Canada, and I have therefore been obliged to take the production per acre in the respective countries for this purpose. Let me compare the production of one acre in the banner state of New York with the production of one acre in the banner province of Ontario. In wheat, in Ontario the average production was 24.1 bushels per acre and the average price per bushel 88.2c, so that the value of an acre of wheat to the Ontario farmer was $21.15. In New York State the average production of wheat was 21 bushels per acre and the average price 94.3 cents per bushel, yielding to the New York farmer $19.74 per acre, or a difference in favour of the Ontario farmer of $1.41 per acre. In oats the average production of the Ontario farmer was 23.5 bushels per acre and the average price 37 cents per bushel, realizing to the Ontario farmer $12.21 per acre. In New York State the average production per acre was 28.2 bushels and the average price 41 cents per bushel, giving a total of $11.48 per acre, a difference in favour of the Ontario' farmer of 73 cents. In barley, the average production per acre in Ontario was 27 bushels and the average price 54 cents per bushel, making the value per acre $14.58. In New York State the average production per acre was 24.8 bushels and the average price 60 cents per bushel, making a total value per acre of $14.40, again in favour of the Ontario farmer to the extent of 18 cents per acre. Take potatoes: in Ontario the average production per acre was 149 bushels and the average price 40 cents per bushel, or a total value per acre of $68.54. In New York State the average production per acre was 102 bushels and the average price 48 cents per bushel, or a total value per acre of $48.96, showing a balance in favour of the Ontario farmer of $19.58 per acre. According to the latest statistics that I have been able to have access to, I find that New York state produced of wheat and corn in the last 8 years for which statistics are given, from 1900 to 1908, 1,224,000 bushels at a

value of $26,510,000. Ontario produced during the same time 1,028,240 bushels valued at $27,769,000. So that it will be seen that although in wheat and corn Ontario produced 96,000 bushels less than was produced in New York state, yet the Ontario farmer received for his product $1,259,000 more than the New York farmer. Let me offer another comparison, one between the state of Michigan and the province of Ontario, in regard to farms themselves, the value of and the encumbrances upon the farms and the value of and encumbrances on the live stock of the farms. In 1898 there were in the province of Ontario 177,000 farms valued at $556,246,569, exclusive of buildings; and in 1908 there rvere 183,000 farms, an increase of 6,000, valued at $671,431,018, an increase in value in ten years of $115,285,449.

Let us look at the records of the state of Michigan, which is the nearest approach to the province of Ontario in the number, and value of its farms. I find that in Michigan in 1898 there were 175,000 farms, and 177,000 in Ontario. Ten years later, in 1908, the number of farms in the state of Michigan had increased from 175,000 to 178,000, whereas in Ontario in the same period, the number had increased from 177,000 farms to 183,000. In other words there was an increase of 6,000 in Ontario as compared with an increase of 3,000 in the state of Michigan, and both are about the same area. In 1898, the value of the Michigan farms was $623,911,200, and in 1908, their value was only $621,297,000, showing an actual decrease in the value of farms in Michigan in these ten years of $2,614,000. Whije there was an increase in the province of Ontario during the same period of $115,285,-

000. In 1898, the value in Ontario was-$556,246,569, and in 1908 it was. $671,531,018.

If the market of 90,000,000 people is going to make the farmers rich, why has it not increased the number of farms in the state of Michigan and their value?

Lest that one test be not considered conclusive, let me call attention to another comparison-a comparison in respect of the live stock. In Ontario, the live stock in 1898 was valued at $103,744,223; and in 1908, ten years later that value had increased to $186,014,756. Thus in the ten years there was an increase in Ontario in the value of live Stock alone of $82,270,433.

Now let us look at the mortgage debt upon that live stock in the province of Ontario. In 1898, the mortgage debt upon the live stock of Ontario was $3,110,543, and in 1908, it was only $2,730,119. In other words there was a decrease in the mortgage debt upon the live stock in the province of Ontario of $280,424.

Let us make a similar investigation into the figures of the live stock in the state of Michigan. The live stock in that state in-1898 was valued at $97,042,380, and in. 1908, at $123,265,031, so that in ten years the increase in value was only $26,022,651, as compared with an increase in Ontario of $82,270,803.

Then take up the mortgage debt on this live stock. The mortgage debt in the state of Michigan in 1898 was $4,626,211, and in 1908 it was $6,922,210. In other words, while there was during the same period a decrease in the mortgage debt in Ontario, of $280,424, there was an increase in the state of Michigan upon the live stock of' that state of $2,295,999. Yet during all this time the farmers of Michigan had been enjoying the benefit of the market of 90,000,000 people.

Let me make a still farther comparison with regard to the debt upon the land itself. I find that the Ontario farmers in 1900 had a mortgage debt upon their farms equal to about 29 per cent of their value, or in round numbers $166,800,000. In ten years that mortgage debt had decreased from 29 per cent in 1900 to 17 per cent in 1910. Or the total mortgage debt on the farm lands of Ontario was only $102,000,000 in 1910, as compared with $166,000,000 in 1900, showing a decrease in ten years of $65,000,000.

Contrast that with the condition in the state of Michigan. The mortgage debt in that state in 1900 on the farms was $193,812,241, or an equivalent of 31 per cent on the total value. In 1910, the total debt was $216,209,750. So that while in ten years in the province of Ontario the mortgage debt on the farms had decreased by $65,000,000, in the state of Michigan it had increased by $77,602,491.

I shall not weary the House with further *comparisons although I have them under my hand. But I wish to repeat what has been so well said by my hon. friend from Lennox (Mr. Wilson) to-night, regarding the articles of cheese and butter. In these articles the very same results figure out, if one will take the trouble to ascertain the amount of money'received by the Canadian farmer as compared with that received by the American farmer for these products per pound.

There is still another test which I would apply. I have taken the trouble to look into the statistics of savings bank deposits, and life insurance. Either one of these is a very fair illustration of the progress which the people are making; and I find, comparing the province of Ontario with the state of New York or Michigan or Minnesota, that the life insurance which has gone into force upon the Ontario people per head ofpopulation within the last ten yearsis nearly twenty times greater thanwhat has been affected upon the American people in any one of those states.

T find also that the number of lapsed policies-and hon. members will understand that policies taken out upon life are not allowed to lapse unless the insured are not able to pay the premium-I find that in Ontario, the number of lapsed policies is very much less than that in either New York or Michigan.

I find also that the same results with regard to savings bank deposits, and both bank deposits, and! life policies are things which indicate pretty clearly the progress and prosperity of a people. And if, with this boasted market of 90,600,000 people, the American farmer has not been able to pay off the mortgage debts upon his chattel property and land, if he has not been able to increase the value of his lands or the number of his Mr. POUTER.

farms, and if he has not been able to meet his life insurance premiums or make his bank deposits, while at the same time, under the policy pursued in this country the last twenty years, our Canadian farmers have been able to not only to pay off their mortgage debt, but increase the value, and number of their farms and live stock, and pay the premiums on their life insurance, and deposit besides a handsome sum in the bank, it must be evident that we have nothing to gain by this reciprocity pact.

That being so, is it not the height of absurdity to urge upon the Canadian people that they should barter away such a privilege as they now enjoy, the advantages they have been reaping during all these years, and cast in their lot with the American farmer who has not been able to show anything like as great progress as the Canadian farmer?

Coming to the question of our trade relations with Great Britain, it seems to be the reverse of one of the first principles of business policy to adopt this agreement. Great Britain is to-day the best customer the Canadian people have, and it is admitted by every business man that he will give the greatest advantages to the man who is his best customer. As in dealings with individuals so it should be in dealings between nationjs and where Canada finds Great Britain her very best customer, I think that it is up to Canada to show some favour to Great Britain, to increase, if possible, our present favours to Great Britain and enlarge the British market for Canadian products. If we are to pursue the policy laid down by this agreement, if we are to enter into this pact, we will not only be violating that first principle of business, but will be offering to the United States a premium to send their goods into Canada and shut out the goods of our best customer.

During the course of this argument the constant theme of supporters of the government has been the great advantage this agreement is going to bring to the Canadian farmer. When did this government become so solicitous for the interest of the Canadian farmer? It certainly has not been their history in past years that they were looking after the interest of the farmer rather than of any other classes, but they profess to be doing so now. What is the reason for this sudden manifestation of interest in the farmer? Is it. because the farmer is considered by this government to be so mercenary that with the argument that he will make a cent a pound more on cheese or a few cents a bushel on grain he is going to be carried away altogether from his sentimental feeling towards his own country and the mother land? It must either ' be that or the government must think that the farmers of Canada are the

only class of people in this country who can be deceived by such a policy as that. I believe there is a sentiment in the Canadian people far and away above any mercenary interest. There is a sentiment in the breasts of the Canadian people that would actuate them to support a stronger and more binding relationship between Canada and the mother country even if it were at the loss of a few dollars in trade between this country and the United. States. It cannot be possible that the Canadian farmer will in a moment and without sufficient reason forget the action of the two political parties in Canada in regard to the great agricultural interest. I can remember very well speeches 'by members of this government when the want of greater prosperity on the part of the Canadian farmer was attributed by them to his slovenly methods of farming and his want of intelligent 'direction; in fact I recall an expression used by the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he was appealed to upon the question of want of prosperity of the Canadian farmer, he said that if the Canadian farmer wished to be more prosperous than he is to-day, he must work harder and eat less. The Liberal party was not then exercising the same feeling of interest towards the Canadian farmer that they profess to be exercising to-day and surely the Canadian farmer will not forget which political party it was in the past that has been responsible for the greater part of the prosperity with which they have been blessed. Under which party were the [DOT]experimental farms and the dairy schools of Canada established for the benefit of the farmers? Under which government was it that the millions of acres of the great west were opened up for cultivation and for settlement by Canadian farm boys? It was not the Liberal party by any means. It is true the Liberal party have adopted the Conservative party's policy of. protection, and I think I might truthfully say 'that it is the only policy pursued by this government that has brought any advantage to the Canadian farmer. But as against that they have not directed all their interests in that way. I remember an organization known as the Grangers. This government was successful in reducing that society, established for the benefit and advantage of the farmers into a political machine. Then, phoenix-like, there arose from its ashes the Patrons of Industry, and the government succeeded in reducing that organization almost to a political machine.

To-day we have the Grain Growers' As soci.ation which this government is endeavouring in every possible way, and with no little degree of success, to convert into a political machine, too. I have given a brief comparison of what the Conservative government and party have done for the 308 *

Canadian farmer, and also a brief illustration of what the Liberal government and party have not done for the Canadian farmer. It seems to me that the Canadian farmer, in view of these facts which he certainly will not forget, will ponder carefully before accepting this policy, the tendency of which is closer trade relations and closer political relations with the United States, with a weakening of the bonds uniting Canada to the mother land. He will hesitate long before adopting the policy that is now being advocated by the Liberal party, in view of the history of that party, and the way the farmers have been treated by that party. Now, if it is true, and it is true beyond any question, that the policy of protection has been the chief element in the success of the American people while it has been in existence in that country, and if it is true that the same policy has to a still greater degree, during the time it has been in operation, brought prosperity to Canada, if it is true that the adoption and carrying out of that policy has brought prosperity to both countries, why should Canada, in this twentieth century which is said to be hers, hand over to the United States to exploit her natural resources, her national products, to feed the American factories, and furnish labour to American workingmen, to the loss and detriment of Canada?

During the course of this debate hon. members on the government side have told us that we need not be alarmed that the ultimate result of this policy will be to lead to annexation, or the absorption of this country by the United States. They ask what evidence there is that such a result can be brought about. I think it will be admitted that the more dependent one. country is made upon another in regard to its trade relations, the more difficult it will be for that nation to maintain a separate existence, or to resist political absorption. In our case this tendency will be accompanied by a weakening of the sentiments of union with the empire, in consequence of a diversion of our commercial interests. It is the well known desire of the American people, as has been expressed over and over again, both before this pact was proposed qnd since it has been made, to coerce Canada into annexation. They have failed in their efforts, and just as they made a reciprocity treaty in 1854, when the pinch of necessity drove them to it, so in 1911 they have turned their attention to a country to whom they have hitherto refused to extend the hand of friendship. They have turned to Canada at this time because Canada is the only country that offers the United States any opportunity for exploitation. Sir, can any one be so far deceived as to believe that the sentiment in favour of the absorption of Canada, which has hitherto pervaded the people of the United

States during the last forty years, Joes not still exist? Does any one suppose that it has faded away in a single night? I believe that feeling is just as strong in the United States to-day as it ever was. This reciprocity agreement is only a disguised method of accomplishing their desire, and I am sorry to say that it appears as if this government was willing to_ lend assistance to the American people in achieving their object. It seems to me there never was for the Canadian people such an opportunity of exhibiting their independence, of showing their nationality, ot protecting their country, of protecting their homes, as is offered them on this occasion. The time had arrived when, of necessity, the American people , were bound to lower their tariff wall between Canada and the United States; the time had arrived when they were bound to take down the barriers they themselves had erected; the time had arrived when they became convincd they could not coerce Canada into annexation, or at least into what I was almost going to call a position of slavery which they would have us occupy. And so they have set about making a 'bargain with Cam ada with that object, and I am afraid they have succeeded pretty well in introducing what has been called the thin edge of the wedge. This is not the first dose we have had. We all remember very well when oiily two years ago, the right hon. gentleman who leads this House was appealing to the people of Canada for a renewal of their confidence by asking them to give him an opportunity to finish his work. Well, it appears to me that the greatest unfinished work of the right hon. gentleman is now about to be finished, if this nact goes into force, for by it he will hand over this country into the lap of the United States, and then his work will be accomplished. We have evidence of that all along the line from the expression that has been used by the right hon. gentleman in discussing this question.

We have evidence of it in the selection of the man to form this pact-the most influential man of this Dominion who had the tendency to destroy confederation as he has, a very fitting tool, if I may use the expression not offensively, with which to finish the work which is the sole desire of the premier's heart; that is to see Canadian independence brought about or to see Canada drop into the lap of the United Staes just as the ripe fruit would drop from the parent tree.

In conclusion let me say that I am unalterably opposed to the passage of this trade agreement through parliament. I am unalterably opposed to it because I do not believe it can, in any substantial manner, work out in the interest of the people of Mr. PORTER.

this country. I am satisfied that it will not work out to the advantage of the people of this country but that there is a positive danger in passing this agreement in so far as the people of Canada are concerned. There is the danger that it will hand over to the United States the natural resources of Canada to supply the American factory with material and the American workman, with labour. There is the danger that it will destroy the usefulness of the great transportation lines built east and west throughout Canada at such an enormous cost to this country. There is the positive danger that it will frighten away from Canada the money of foreign countries that is so lavishly being poured into this country at the present time, and upon which so much depends for the future development of Canada. There is the positive danger that so soon as we hand over the natural resources of Canada and tie ourselves up in an alliance with the United States the inducements for that class of immigration, which means the building up of this country, will be removed and the capital which now finds safe investment here will be frightened away or turned into other channels. These and other dangers threaten the Canadian people as a result of the adoption of this agreement and for these, as for other reasons I could give, I again express my unalterable opposition to this agreement, and further express the opinion that if this government will only afford the Canadian people an opportunity of declaring their views with regard to it, they will do so with no uncertain sound, and the government will have an opportunity of regretting that they ever adopted such a high-handed and tyrannical course as that which they have adopted in introducing and supporting this agreement.


William Thoburn

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WILLIAM THOBURN (North Lanark).



The United States shows a greater increase in cattle and swine during the past ten years than any other country in the world. While the number of cattle in all countries has increased faster than the number per thousand inhabitants, this increase is larger

-in the United States than any other, while the number per thousand in Europe, our nearest natural market, has decreased. . The interesting feature of these figures is the relation of the increase of live stock to *the increase of population. In this oountiy, 'where the proportionate increase oi cattle and swine has been larger than the increase in population, the result will be large exportations of our surplus to those countries where the facts are exactly the reverse. The proportionate increase of sheep in America has been less than the increase in population, although the total increase in the number of sheep in this country is greater than any other, and this fact would indicate that the industry is in anything but a hopeless Another important fact gained from the studv Of these figures is that through improved methods of feeding, the same number of animals now produced will turn into the market a very much larger total number of pounds of meat than the same number produced ten years ago. The greatest increase in the number of cattle is in the United States. In 1900, tlie total number was 43,901,000, while m 1910, the total number was 69,080,000. This is an increase m round numbers of more than -5.000,000 The greatest increase in the number of swine in the ten-year period is in the United States, the total being 10,732,000. Now, Mr. Speaker, if it is a fact that the United States produced more of every land of agricultural products than they can possibly consume what can be the advantage of shipping Canadian farm products into that country? Suppose, for the sake of illustration, that the United States grow 250.000. 000 bushels of wheat and that they consume 200,000,000 bushels, they then have 50,000,000 bushels for export. 1 do not think that any gentleman opposite will for the moment contend that the people of the United States do not produce a surplus of every single commodity that the Canadian farmer has to sell. For these 50,000,000 bushels of wheat for export they buy 50,000,000 bushels of Canadian wheat, which they must also export; so that, instead of 50,000,000, they have 100.000. 000 bushels to export. But I may be asked, why do they buy the 50,000,000 bushels of Canadian wheat? It i*s a well known fact that we grow a better grade of wheat in Canada than is perhaps grown in any other country in 'the world. There is nothing that I know of to equal our Northwest No. 1 hardi wheat. Now, where the trouble comes to the Canadian farmer is this. The Americans import 50,000,000 bushels of Canadian wheat which they mix with 50,000,000 bushels of their own wheat wibich they have to export, and they thus improve the quality of their own wheat at the expense of the Canadian farmer. Then the Canadian farmeT has to compete with that 100,000,000 buslhels of wheat in the Liverpool market. That is as I see the matter. If any hon. gentleman opposite thinks


William Thoburn

Conservative (1867-1942)


I am wrong", I would like him to put me right. Although the United States has a population of ninety millions, it is safe to say that they raise produee of aU kmds

sufficient for 130,000,000 or 13o,000,000 peo-pie. What applies to our grain applies also to our cheese and our bacon. Ihe Americans know that we make a oetter quality of cheese and also of bacon than they do, and their sole object in buying our Canadian product is to take it into the United States and sell it as an American product; so that our Canadian product loses its identity in the Liverpool market.

Now, you will have noticed, in some of the speeches made by hen. gentlemen opposite, that there has been a tendency to array one class of the electors against another class-to array the farmers against the manufacturers. No greater mistake could be made than that. It is well known that there are no better customers of the farmers than the manufacturers and labourers of this country. Do not the labourers create the home market for the farmers which is the beat market they have? I was very much interested in some figures that were given to us by the lion. Minister of Railways in dealing with the question of labour aiid wages. His remarks will be found at page 5142 of 'Hansard,* as fol-

The question of transportation is very important as regards the men who are working with their hands as well as with their heads in this work throughout the Dominion. It is customary, in discussing transportation problems, to refer to them as being the property of capitalists, and dominated by them. I hey are to a certain extent, but the development of our railways, the development of our waterways, is of vital interest to the men who find employment on these railways and on these waterways. Here are the figures: There were in the service of Canadian railways on June 30 last 123,768 employees, whose wage bill amounted to $67,167,703. In addition, there were 16,709 employees engaged in outside operations such as steamers and_ hotels, whose remuneration amounted to $5,169,923. Ihe abrogate would therefore he 140,477 employees, with a total wage bill of $72,337,626.

Now, where does that vast amount of money go to? I think every member of this House will agree with me in saying that a very large proportion of it is spent in Canada in purchasing breadstuffs, the products of the farm. I just give this as an illustration to show what the manufacturers are doing for this country, for it must be remembered that building railroads is manufacturing just as much as any other article. I think it is a mistake for hon. gentlemen opposite to try to array the. manufacturers against the farmers or the farmers against the manufacturers. Remember, I a/m not here as the representative of the manufacturers only; I am here to represent the electors of North Lanark

to the best of my ability. But are the manufacturers opposed to this treaty? True enough, a delegation of manufacturers waited upon the government when this question was brought before the House and presented a memorial, a clause .pf which reads as follows:

Although the prospect of reciprocity has already caused some unsettling of business, our confidence is still unshaken. But lest there should be a disposition on the part of our neighbours to stiffen their demands on your government in the expectation of finding on this side of the line any considerable element of our population favourable'to their view, we welcome this opportunity of assuring you that the interests for whom we can fairly claim to speak, representing approximately $1,200,000,000 of invested capital, $1,000,000,000 of annual output, furnishing direct employment to 435,000 artisans and workpeople, and distributing annually $250,000,000 in wages, are opposed at the present juncture to any reciprocal tariff arrangement between the two countries that would necessitate a lowering of the Canadian customs tariff on manufactured products. They are convinced that any reduction would prove injurious to the industry directly affected, and indirectlv detrimental to the interests of Canada and consequently to the empire as a whole.

As Canadians they regard the present an inopportune time for the negotiation of a reciprocity treaty.

They do not say that as manufacturers they regard the present question an inopportune time, but as Canadians.

United States enterprises are developed to the highest state in point of capital, specialization of product and magnitude of operation; Canadian enterprises, because of their restricted markets, ai;e not yet so developed and it will be obviously impossible for them to withstand the competition that would inevitably follow reductions in the present Canadian tariff.

The appendix to that reads as follows;

An examination into the trade statistics of the United States throws an interesting side light upon that country's present overtures for reciprocity with ns. For the nine months ending September, 1910, their exports of domestic merchandise of every 'kind were $1,193,321,512, of which $210,490,966 were manufactures for further use in manufacturing, and $401,684,694 were manufactures ready for consumption. The sum of these two, $612,625,660, accounts for 51 per cent of all their exports put together. But this is not crediting the exports of manufactures with a class known as ' foodstuffs, partly manufactured,' which are valued at $180,159,193. If we regard this also as legitimately forming a part of the exports of manufactured goods, it means that of everything the United States exported for the nine months ending September last, manufactured goods amounted to over 66 per cent.

Applying the average for the nine months to the last three, the figures for which were not available when this statement was prepared, it indicates that the exports tor the year of manufactures ready for consumption

and manufactures for further use in manufacturing will pass the $800,000,000 mark. This is an enormous amount for which to find an outlet, and there can he little doubt that underlying the present agitation in the united States for reciprocity with Canada is an earnest desire to open wider the markets ot this country for exploitation by their manutac-tures, at the same time it enables us to catch a glimpse of what the future may hold in store for us if we continue to work out our own industrial destiny along independent lines.

To further prove that the manufacturers of this country, as a body, are not opposed to that treaty, let me point out-and I suppose there is- as fair a representation according to numbers of the manufacturers in this House as can be found anywhere in Canada-that I have not heard the representatives of the manufacturers in this House stand up in their places and oppose this treaty. For instance there are the hon. the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson), the hon. member for St. Lawrence Division Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike) the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Harty), the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Gordon), the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Fowke) and the hon. member for West Peterboro (Mr. Stratton) besides the hon. member from South Renfrew (Mr. Lowe)-all thpse are manufacturers, and I do not think any hon. gentleman on the government side will say that they have uttered a single word m protest against the treaty now before this House.

Now we come to the other side of the question. Is there not a large number of the farmers of Canada opposed to this pact? True, we had a deputation of farmers from the northwest to ask for free trade in farm products and freer trade m manufactured goods, but we have also had other farmer delegations, and what did they ask for? Some of them asked that the tariff be left as it was, and others that it be increased. Would you believe it, if I were to tell you that there was a deputation of farmers who waited upon the government-to my personal knowledge, and who asked, not that the tariff should remain as it is but that it should be increased bv 25 per cent or 35 per cent or 45 per cent -nothing less than 55 per cent would satisfy that deputation of farmers who waited upon the government. The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) will bear me out in that statement because I happened to be present and I repeat that that deputation asked for a tariff on farm products of 55 per cent.

Then there was a farmer deputation from the counties of Kent and Wentworth who presented a memorial to the Prime Minister which reads as follows:

As there has been recently before you a large deputation of farmers from the west, and also a few from the east, claiming to represent the Canadian farmers' views on the tariff question (or at least that inference is being drawn by the press of the United States and Great Britain), we wish to say here and now publicly and emphatically, that they do not. Having consulted a great many farmers engaged in mixed farming in our different and several localities, both Liberal and Conservative, we find that the great mass of unorganized farmers are well satisfied with the present tariff as it is. At the last general election, stability of the tariff was the principal issue, and we, as farmers, thinlc that no government should enter into such a large measure of reciprocity or free trade with the United States without a mandate from the people.

We also think that such extravagant language as was used by the speakers has a tendency to bring farming into disrepute, and at a very inopportune time when the eyes of the whole world are focused upon this country. At a time when the cost of eatables has been so high and the cry of ' back to the land ' is being sounded, when so much money is being spent to induce immigration to this country, it seems ridiculous to have such sentiments spread broadcast over the land, claiming that such is the farmers' view.

We wish as farmers who are proud of our calling to again say that we deprecate the language of agitators who would stir up strife in this new country by setting up one class against another. Being engaged in mixed farming, we also believe in a mixed community in this country composed of manufacturers; merchants, craftsmen and artisans of all kinds, thus building up an ideal state.

Our opinion is that the great majority of farmers do not think that the manufacturers' heel is upon their neck, that they are ground down by oppression and are a down-trodden class that every body's hand is against them, but are well satisfied with their present condition and are against commercial union in any guise whatever.

Prices for everything we have to sell have been abnormally high, while machinery, implements, tools, vehicles, etc., have never been cheaper. We would, therefore respectfully urge that no radical change in the tariff he effected at the present time. We are pleased to see our cities, towns and villages prosperous, thus creating a convenient home market for what we have to sell, and also for what we have to buy. We are not enamoured with the idea of a strictly agricultural country but wish to see manufacturers attend to manufacturing, hankers to hanking, storekeepers to storekeeping, farmers to farming, and Canadians to building up a strong united Canada Ike memorial further asked that the tariff be raised high enough to shut out American farm products and that employees of Cana-clian factories should be fed by Canadian, farmers.

We believe that the principle expressed in the following motto is a good one; keep your money in circulation at home by having goods made m Canada. When you can't get what you want in Canada buy within the British Lmpire. If American manufacturers wish to


July 19, 1911