Mr. EDWARD KIDD (Carleton, Ont.).
Mr. Chairman, since I have been a member of this House I have not taken up very much time, but this reciprocity agreement is such a very important measure that I feel it my duty to say a few words in opposition to it. I think that the people of Canada regard this as one of the most drastic measures that was ever brought into this House or placed before the country. From what we have heard from the other side of the House we never thought for a moment that this measure or anything leading up to it would be brought before the House, or that we would be called upon to sanction it. We have a very good reason for that belief in the following expression by the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Lanrier) in 1901:
I remember, and you remember also, that since the abolition of the reciprocity treaty in 1866, we have sent delegation after delegation to Washington to obtain reciprocity. We are not sending any more delegations. But I rather expect, and I would not be surprised, if the thing were to take place in a few years -I say-I rather expect that there will be delegations coming from Washington to Ottawa for reciprocity. Having learned from our friends in the south how to receive such a delegation, we shall receive them in the proper manner-with every possible politeness.
In 1903, in proposing the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway legislation, the Prime Minister was uncompromising:
I have found in the short experience during which it has been my privilege and fortune to be placed at the head of a Bairs, by the will of the Canadian people, that the best and most effective way to maintain friendship with our American neighbours is to be absolutely independent of them.
Then at the Imperial Conference in 1907, he said:
If we were to follow the laws of nature and geography between Canada and the United States, the whole trade would flow from south to north, and from north to south. We have done everything possible by building canals and subsidizing railways to bring the trade from west to east and east to west so as to bring trade into Brtiish channels. All this we have done, recognizing the principle of the great advantage of forcing trade within the British empire. . . There is no boundary line except a purely conventional one over the whole territory of North America. Their habits are the same as ours, and,
therefore, we are induced, to trade and cannot help it by the force of nature. But so far as legislation oan influence trade, we have done everything possible to push our trade towards the British people as against the American people. . . .
There was a time when we wanted reciprocity with the United States, but our efforts and our offers were put aside. We have said good bye to that trade, and we now put all our hopes upon the British trade.
Everybody can see from this language that the Prime Minister never thought then of submitting a reciprocity proposition to parliament. At the last three general elections there was nothing about reciprocity, and the Liberal rally was ' let Lauxier finish his work.' I wonder what work he had to finish; whether it was the Quebec bridge that fell down or the Laurier tower that tumbled over in a like manner. We need not wonder at our American friends being very much in favour of this pact. It is worth while to note what was said by Mr. Champ Clarke, the leader of the Democratic party which now controls the House of Representatives. He said:
Therefore, I am in favour of the reciprocity treaty, because I hope to see the day when the American flag will float over every square foot of the British North American possessions clear to the north pole. They are people of our blood. They speak our language.
Their institutions are much like ours. They are trained in the difficult art of selfgovernment. My judgment is that if the treaty of 1854 had never been, abrogated the *chances of a consolidation of these two countries would have been much greater than they are now. I do not doubt whatever that the day is not far distant when Great Britain will joyfully see all of her North American possessions become part of this republic. That is the way things are tending now. I do not confine my support of reciprocity Bills to this one. I am in favour of reciprocity treaties with the Central and South American republics, including Mexico. The quicker we get them the better off we will be. Of course, as between the two, if we had to have reciprocity with Canada and not with these countries to the south, or with the countries to the south and not with Canada, I would take reciprocity with Canada.
We know that the reciprocity treaty which was in force between 1854 and 1866, was very favourable to the Americans, because in these years, during which they had their own civil war, they wanted our products, and so they lowered the tariff on them. At the'present time, to show a comparison of prices for agricultural products between Ogdensburg in the United States, and Prescott, on the other side of the St. Lawrence, I take the following from the report of the tariff board appointed by the United States:
Commodity. Price. Ogdensbuhgh, N.Y., a Producer's price. nd Peescott, Canada. Wholesale. H ighest. Lowest. High. Low.Per 100 lbs. Per 100 lbs. Per 100 lbs. Per 100 lbs.Beef cows A. 85 00 83 00 $5 60 $3 50C. 4 50 3 00 5 00 3 50A. 14 50 5 00-5 10 C. 5 00 3 50 5 60 4 10Per head. Per head. Per head. Per head.Milkers and springers A. $60 00 $28 00 875 00 $35 00C. 65 00 25 00 75 00 30 00[DOT] Per 100 lbs. Per 100 lbs. Per 100 lbs. Per 100 lbs.A. 85 60 $5 00 $6 20 $5 50C. 6 60 5 50 7 25 6 00A. 4 00 3 75 4 50 4 00C. 4 25 3 75 4 60 4 25Hogs A. 8 00 5 90 9 00 6 50C. 8 50 . 7 00 9 20 7 00Poultry dressed
A.. . .21 cents to 29 cents.
C.. ..24 cents to 29 cents.
I>o-s A.. ..28 cents to 35 cents.
C.. ..30 cents to 36 cents.
The comparison between the prices of the Buffalo market, and the Toronto market is as follows:
Buffalo, N.Y., and Toronto, Canada.
Commodity. Price. Producer's price. Wholesale price. Highest. Lowest. Highest. Lowest..Beef steers and heifers A. Per 100 lbs. $6 20 Per 100 lbs. $4 00 Per 100 lbs. $6 75 Per 100 lbs. * 86 25C. 5 65 4 00 6 25 4 50Beef cows A. 4 80 3 55 5 35 4 00C. 4 75 2 60 5 25 3 00Stockers and feeders A. 4 75 3 30 5 25 3 75C. 5 00 3 75 5 50 4 25Calves A. 0 55 5 35 7 25 6 00C. 7 80 2 50 8 50 3 00Milkers and springers A. Per head. $61 00 Per head. $18 00 Per head. $70 00 Per head. $20 00C. 71 00 26 00 80 00 30 00Per 100 lbs. Per 100 lbs. Per 100 lbs. Per 100 lbs.Lambs A. 5 90 $4 15 $6 50 $4 75Sheep C. 5 70 5 20 6 25 5 75A. 4 00 2 25 4 50 2 70C. 4 15 2 55 4 65 3 00A. 7 75 [DOT] 5 40 8 50 0 00C. 9 30 6 50 10 00 7 15
You will notice from this comparison of prices, that there was nothing in favour of the American side, hut it all goes to show that the Canadian markets are better for the Canadian farmers. It is I believe a fact that although the consumer is paying more for his stuff on the American side, that is due to the manner in which the trusts control the situation in the United States, and the actual fact is that the^ producer gets a lower price in the United States than in Canada.
I quote the following with reference to dairy cattle:
Prices of dairy cows range from $33 to $39 a head in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and New York. In Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and North Dakota the range is practically the same. In the western border states of Montana, Idaho and Washington the range is from $41.80 to $46.50. In eastern Canada, prices of dairy cows range from $32 to $48, and in western Canada, from $39 to $41. The highest Canadian price quoted is $48 in Ontario as against $46.50 in Montana, the highest American price.
Now, I have some facts here which show that we have a market in which we can command sales at good prices. We need not go begging to any American city or to the United States government for the prices I am going to give you.
Dispersion sales of pure-bred cattle held in Canada during 1910 brought some record pr ices, iaaid the f ollowing figures prove conclusively that our Canadian breeders are under no obligation to the Americans in order to get a remunerative market for Mr. KIDD.
their surplus stock. The first sale I wish to refer to was held by James Benning of Williams town, Ontario, on April 20, 1910. His 81 head of cattle brought $11,916, an average of $147, each. Forty-two aged cows brought $207. Other prices were as follows:
Herd bull sold for $400.
12 yearling bulls averaged $85.50.
13 bulls averaged $108.
10 1909 heifers averaged $114.
16 1910 calves averaged $42.25.
The highest prices paid for cow $590.
Highest price paid for two year old heifer $425.
Highest price paid for 1909 calf $200.
Highest price paid for 1910 calf $95.
Highest price paid for 1909 hull $125.
Mr. John Campbell's sale held near Dal-rneny on April 19, realized some good figures. Eight Holsteins brought $1,475, an average of $184 each; one cow brought $290; twenty-one aged Ayrshire cows brought $1,676.
William Higginson's sale of registered Holstein cattle held at Inkerman, Ontario, Tuesday, November 1, brought the following figures:
Ninety head realized $12,457, herd bull sold for $850, highest price paid for cow $300, twenty-one males brought $2,220, average price of males $105.35, 69 females brought $10,235, average price of females $148.
Still more gratifying were the prices realized at the sale of Holsteins held by Brown Brothers, on December 28, among which were the following:
48 head brought $11,355, an average price of $230.50. .
13 females brought $2,185, an average puce of $252. .
] ues brought $2,185, an average price of $168.
15 1910 calves brought $1,575, an average of $105.
3 yearling heifers brought $595, an average of $198,33.
9 two year old heifers brought $2,645, an average price of $294.
9 three year old heifers brought $2,230, an average price of $239.
33 head, calved previous to 1910, brought $8,700, an average price of $280.60.
Highest price realized for female $1,000.
Highest price realized for male $800.
Highest price realized for yearling, $220.
Highest price realized for two year old heifer, $700, and another one sold for $620.
Highest price realized for three year old heifer $160, and two others sold for $450 and $385 each.
Highest price realized for 1910 calf $240, and another sold for $200.
Highest ^rice realized for 1910 heifer calf $135.
Distributed, the cattle went as follows: Leeds county 34, Dundas 5, Carleton 2, Prescott 1, Grenville 1, Western Ontario 2, United States 3. At Benning's more than 75 per cent of the animals were sold to Ontario breeders. Hig-ginson's cattle were distributed as follows: Western Ontario 3, New Brunswick 3, Dundas 27, Leeds and Grenville 27, Carleton 7, Glengarry 5, Russell 2, Stormont 2, New York state 8, New Hampshire state 6.
Now, I desire to give an account of another sale, this one being held in Maxville. The total sum realized was $40,715 for 119 animals. The highest priced animal went for $2,600. An account of the sale was given in the press, and that account reads, in part, as follows:
According to the statement of the secretary of the Canadian Ayrshire Breeders' Association the sale of animals of that breed held at the farm of Robert Hunter and Sons at Maxville on Wednesday, was the greatest on record on this continent. About six hundred buyers or intending buyers were present from as far east as New York city and as far west as Ballard, Washington. One hundred and nineteen animals were auctioned ofi under the direction of Mr. Andrew Philips, -who conducted the sale. The highest price realized for any one animal was $2,600. This price was paid for the stock hull Bar-genock Victor Hugo, by Mr. D. Ryan, of Brewster, N.Y. The highest price paid for a female was by Mrs. Earhart, West Berlin, New Hampshire. The total sum realized was $40,715, and the average price per head was $342.15.
Now, let me give a few figures showing the character of our sheep trade. The following figures show' our exports of sheep to the United States:
1907, 63,034 head, value .. .. $195,6551908, 53,583 head, value .. .. 206,0891909, 43,803 head, value .. .. 158,660
And our total imports of sheep to Canada from the United States have been as follow's:
1907, 135,344 head, value.. .. $750,242
1908, 101,589 head, value .. .. 589,285
1909, 67,656 head, value .. .. 365,155
Now why should we look to a country that has more sheep than we have, as a market for sheep? The United States export far more sheep than we do, and yet we are supposed to look to the United States Eor a market.
There has been a great deal of comment and discussion made by the members of the government in regard to this pact, concerning hay. I am sure no farmer should think of looking for a market for his hay -at least only for a very small quantity of it. For any farmer who will raise hay to sell year after year will soon have very little to sell. The same thing applies to potatoes. We do not pretend to raise many potatoes to ship, and none of our farmers should build on the potatoe market. Potatoes are a perishable article, and we should not take any credit for creating a market for them. If the Americans want any of our products they know what to do in order to get them. I know in former years when they wanted anything from this country they simply let down the bars. In 1902 or 1903 when they wanted our young cattle they reduced the tariff on cattle, and after they had brought in what they wanted, they put the tariff up again.
The following statement will show the exports of cheese from the United States to Canada for the years mentioned and the total exports of cheese from the United
1,540,552 $ 166,510]<)08
452,361 56,7041909 .. 120,844 14,952
Total Exports from United States:
The Total Exports of Milk from the United
States were as follows:
The Total Exports of Cheese from Canada were:
1910 180,859,866 = 21,607,692
There has been a great deal of stress put on the fact that we will have a market for our cheese. That is not the case. Cheese was high in the United States last fall, but we all know how that came about.
They sold themselves short in the early part of the season, and later on a few men cornered the cheese market and raised the price to about 14 cents. If those who are endeavouring to secure reciprocity are looking for a market for $21,000,000 worth of cheese, when the Americans themselves are exporting cheese to the extent of over $2,000,000 in 1907, and over $857,000 in 1909, how can they expect a market from these people? We make a very superior cheese in Canada to-day. The Ontario government is spending on an average over $65,000 a year for instruction in what we call the outside service-that is outside of the agricultural centres. They are spending this large amount of money educating the farmers of the whole country to make a fine cheese, which they are doing. Everybody knows that tha United States is making a very inferior article, and that they would be only too glad to mix their cheese with Canadian cheese and so lower our price or raise theirs. I am sure if this reciprocity pact passes it will be a great injury to our cheese trade. We have taken a great deal of, pains and been to large expenses to make a good article, and put it on the market in good shape. I know from the conditions existing across the line that reciprocity would be a great injury to our cheese trade.
In 1910, we exported 4,615,380 pounds of butter valued at $1,010,274. We must admit that our butter exports are decreasing. At the same time we take a great deal of care to put what wre have to sell on the market in proper shape, and we would derive no advantage from shipping our butter to the United States. In 1907, we shipped 12,544,777 pounds valued at $2,429,489. In 1908, we shipped 6,463,061 pounds valued at $1,407,962. In 1909, we shipped 5,981,265 pounds valued at $1,268,210.
Dairying has expanded in other countries just as it has in ours, as will appear from the following paragraph: