I say, I believe in a tariff so adjusted as to produce a revenue, and I am willing to concede, and it is not unreasonable to concede, that the incidental protection should go to the advantage of such interests as may be affected by it.
Does the hon. gentleman say that there should be any protection incidentally, or does he agree with the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) that there should be a tariff for revenue without any incidental protection.
I have tried to put to my hon. friend that my ideal is exactly the same as the ideal of the hon. member for Red Deer, but, having tried to show my hon. friend exactly how I looked at this question from a practical standpoint, I hope I have made myself clear although I cannot hope that I have altogether suited my hon. friend by my expression.
My hon. friend will pardon me if I just emphasise this point that when we have declared from time to time that there was such an ideal in our minds, we have not by any means, declared that that ideal is our policy. Our Bon. friends have been trying to humbug the public in trying to place us in that position. We are dealing with practical matters in a practical way, and I have told my hon. friend exactly what my view is in regard to that matter, a view which will, I think, be accepted by the large majority of the people in this country.
But what I want to deal particularly with is, the position in which our farmers in the western country are at present, by reason of the accession of our friends on the other side to office. I do not intend to go into the matter fully, but I just intend to give one or two facts to the House and to show to the Minister of Finance that it seems to me that, in the face of these facts and if he has due
regard to the welfare of the country, he will be well advised to have his Tariff Commission go into these facts with the view, not of revising the tariff upward, but of revising the tariff downward. The committee knows that the reciprocity arrangement provided for the free entry of agricultural products into -the United States markets. That Iprivilege was secured by reason of certain concessions granted on this side. I do not know that it was ever contended that the concessions granted on this side were unreasonable, improper or injurious, but it was declared that it was not in the interests of the party that my hon. friends belong to that the agricultural products of Canada should secure free access to the markets of the United States. I will not trouble the committee at any great length on this matter, but I just want to place a few figures in the possession of the committee so that hon. members will know just how hard this country has been hit by the tariff policy that they stand for to-day. I have here the record of three shipments of barley from Carman, Manitoba, over the Great Northern to Minneapolis and the sale of the grain there. They are as follows:
Bushels Minneapolis. Duty.
$727 64 $241 221253
1240 15 375 921243
1155 54 372 96
I find on looking at the records of the Department of Trade and Commerce that something like a million and ia half bushels of barley have gone through the elevators at Fort William this season that the 1st September to the 11th December. If that barley had all gone to Minneapolis instead of to Fort William it would have netted the producer just $450,000 more than he got. On every million bushels of barley produced and sold in the west the men who produced that barley lost $300,000 by reason of the success of the tariff policy of our friends.
The producer in this case is paying the .duty; there is no question about that. If there had been reciprocity the duty would not have been paid and the duty would have remained in the farmer's pocket. Then, to show what the farmer has lost on his wheat, let me give a few figures showing comparative prices:
I do not think it is veTy important. What is important is that the spread is what it is now and what it is going to be. Just to establish my point that the price of No. 1 Northern as quoted in Minneapolis is not in proper relation to the price of No. 1 Northern quoted in Winnipeg, I want to give the facts with Tegiard to a number of cars sold in, on the Minneapolis sample market, samples from which cars were brought to Winnipeg, examined and valued by members of the grain exchange, the result of which is as follows:
Car No. Price Minn. Grade Ft. Win. Price Ft. Wm. Spread.
It is quite apparent that the ordinary member, having this Bill placed before him after it has passed the Private Bills Committee, is hardly in a position to decide on its merits. Therefor, I think whoever is in charge of the Bill should make a full statement of the reasons for it.
Topic: PRIVATE BILLS.
Subtopic: PATENTS OP THOMAS WADGE.
I am not in charge of the Bill, but, in the absence of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Aikins), I desire to state to the House what I understand to be the reasons for the Bill. It appears that Thomas Wadge purchased patent No. 73,790, being an improvement in grain separators, commonly called fanning mills. When Mr. Wadge purchased the patent through his solicitors in Winnipeg, Messrs. Metcalfe, Sharpe & Stackpoole, he had an investigation of the title made. Mr. Wadge understood, when he purchased the patent, that it had been taken out for the usual period of 18 years. This I understand was the statement of his solicitors. It was not until very recently, when he took possession of the actual letters patent, that he ascertained that an error had been made in the office of his solicitors, and that the fees had been paid for only 6 years. Under the patent law a patentee may pay the fees for a 6 years term, and, on the expiration of that term, may pay the balance of the fees for the whole life of the patent, which in Canada is 18 years. Consequently Mr. Wadge is under the necessity of applying to parliament for the continuance of the patent for the full term of 18 years. I have the affidavit of Mr. Wadge to the effect of the statement I have made to the House. I think I need not read this to the committee. It has been read in the Private Bills Committee, and they accepted it. I simply make this statement, from which it appears to me that Mr. Wadge is entitled to the relief asked for.
Topic: PRIVATE BILLS.
Subtopic: PATENTS OP THOMAS WADGE.